Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 Oct 14 9.11pm
Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media... I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter. The whole point of The Fire Service is that they try and make it as safe as possible. The construction industry, however, does not always comply to such rigorous safety standards. Remember that it is firemen who will be cutting dead or badly injured people out of burnt out cars too. A quite traumatic job and not really one that is particularly well-rewarded anymore. On top of it all they go into dangerous situations knowing that their lives are more at risk - due to consecutive government cut-backs. There was a time when the British fire service was the best, but there have been a spate of deaths due to not keeping up with some of the latest developments; ones that Britain used to come up with themselves but would be more likely from the States or Scandinavia now. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 31 Oct 14 9.11pm

Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up.
Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60.
Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media...

I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter.

The whole point of The Fire Service is that they try and make it as safe as possible. The construction industry, however, does not always comply to such rigorous safety standards.
Remember that it is firemen who will be cutting dead or badly injured people out of burnt out cars too. A quite traumatic job and not really one that is particularly well-rewarded anymore. On top of it all they go into dangerous situations knowing that their lives are more at risk - due to consecutive government cut-backs.
There was a time when the British fire service was the best, but there have been a spate of deaths due to not keeping up with some of the latest developments; ones that Britain used to come up with themselves but would be more likely from the States or Scandinavia now.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 9.12pm
Pensions in the public sector form part of pay and conditions, they are not an extra. Anyone who thinks that fireman (or anyone) want to strike is delusional. Striking is last resort.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 9.12pm

Pensions in the public sector form part of pay and conditions, they are not an extra.

Anyone who thinks that fireman (or anyone) want to strike is delusional. Striking is last resort.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 31 Oct 14 9.16pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family. They deserve everything they want and more. Selfish? Firemen? Barking. What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes? Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick. Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over. I think you miss the point slightly, I don't see how they are getting a raw deal, they should have a pension comparable to other similar occupations which should be funded in the same way, not an underfunded scheme which has to be supplemented by the taxpayer. Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

31 Oct 14 9.16pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.38pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 8.35pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.00pm

Firemen really do put their lives on the line for 25 years and they will automatically enter burning houses to save total strangers who, one day, could be a close and much-loved member of your family.

They deserve everything they want and more.

Selfish? Firemen?

Barking.

What's unreasonable about the current reforms when you compare it to most other pensions schemes?

Some on here are happy with a race to the bottom. People with this attitude make me sick.

Just because those in other pension schemes didn't fight hard enough to keep them, doesn't mean the FBU should just roll over.

I think you miss the point slightly, I don't see how they are getting a raw deal, they should have a pension comparable to other similar occupations which should be funded in the same way, not an underfunded scheme which has to be supplemented by the taxpayer.

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 31 Oct 14 9.34pm
Quote ASCPFC at 31 Oct 2014 9.11pm Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media... I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter. The whole point of The Fire Service is that they try and make it as safe as possible. The construction industry, however, does not always comply to such rigorous safety standards. Remember that it is firemen who will be cutting dead or badly injured people out of burnt out cars too. A quite traumatic job and not really one that is particularly well-rewarded anymore. On top of it all they go into dangerous situations knowing that their lives are more at risk - due to consecutive government cut-backs. There was a time when the British fire service was the best, but there have been a spate of deaths due to not keeping up with some of the latest developments; ones that Britain used to come up with themselves but would be more likely from the States or Scandinavia now. and when those injured go to hospital they are cared for by Nurses but they don't get the same pay and pension. The crux of the argument is that they deserve more than everyone else and will go on strike risking lives to get it - that is selfish. Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

31 Oct 14 9.34pm

Quote ASCPFC at 31 Oct 2014 9.11pm

Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter.

and when those injured go to hospital they are cared for by Nurses but they don't get the same pay and pension.

The crux of the argument is that they deserve more than everyone else and will go on strike risking lives to get it - that is selfish.

Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Percy of Peckham Eton Mess 31 Oct 14 9.40pm
Public sector employees get screwed by the government when times are good as well as when times are bad. Anyone can apply to work for the public sector so why don't the critics try it? It really is $hit!!! Denial is not just a river in Egypt!
Alert a moderator to this post

Percy of Peckham

Eton Mess 31 Oct 14 9.40pm

Send a Private Message to Percy of Peckham

Public sector employees get screwed by the government when times are good as well as when times are bad. Anyone can apply to work for the public sector so why don't the critics try it? It really is $hit!!!

Denial is not just a river in Egypt!

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 31 Oct 14 9.52pm
The average fireman gets paid �28,014 per year; hardly fat cat money. They work all hours; fires don't start 9am-5pm only, and as another poster says, put their lives on the line literally for the likes of us. Shock horror, to compensate for this they have historically had decent pensions. I blame the left The argument that they should let their working conditions be worsened because nurses earn less is ridiculous. Agreed, nurses get one of the ultimate bad deals and the pressure on them not to strike is immense. And what thanks do they get for doing an essential but tough job; they get saht on royally in terms of pay and conditions. So that's what happens if you work in an essential service and stand back, don't strike and expect fairness.If people like the firemen fight back (not asking for better terms and conditions just asking not to have worse),then nurses and the like are more rather than less likely to benefit indirectly and the chances of further attacks on standards of living of "essential" workers reduced. Who's likely to offer the nurses more support, the government or the firemen? [Link] Edited by legaleagle (31 Oct 2014 10.03pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

31 Oct 14 9.52pm

The average fireman gets paid �28,014 per year; hardly fat cat money. They work all hours; fires don't start 9am-5pm only, and as another poster says, put their lives on the line literally for the likes of us. Shock horror, to compensate for this they have historically had decent pensions. I blame the left

The argument that they should let their working conditions be worsened because nurses earn less is ridiculous. Agreed, nurses get one of the ultimate bad deals and the pressure on them not to strike is immense. And what thanks do they get for doing an essential but tough job; they get saht on royally in terms of pay and conditions. So that's what happens if you work in an essential service and stand back, don't strike and expect fairness.If people like the firemen fight back (not asking for better terms and conditions just asking not to have worse),then nurses and the like are more rather than less likely to benefit indirectly and the chances of further attacks on standards of living of "essential" workers reduced.

Who's likely to offer the nurses more support, the government or the firemen?

[Link]

Edited by legaleagle (31 Oct 2014 10.03pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 9.53pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 9.34pm Quote ASCPFC at 31 Oct 2014 9.11pm Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media... I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter. The whole point of The Fire Service is that they try and make it as safe as possible. The construction industry, however, does not always comply to such rigorous safety standards. Remember that it is firemen who will be cutting dead or badly injured people out of burnt out cars too. A quite traumatic job and not really one that is particularly well-rewarded anymore. On top of it all they go into dangerous situations knowing that their lives are more at risk - due to consecutive government cut-backs. There was a time when the British fire service was the best, but there have been a spate of deaths due to not keeping up with some of the latest developments; ones that Britain used to come up with themselves but would be more likely from the States or Scandinavia now. and when those injured go to hospital they are cared for by Nurses but they don't get the same pay and pension. The crux of the argument is that they deserve more than everyone else and will go on strike risking lives to get it - that is selfish. The crux of your argument seems to be that because others have been screwed, so should the firefighters.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 31 Oct 14 9.53pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 9.34pm

Quote ASCPFC at 31 Oct 2014 9.11pm

Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm

Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm

Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm

I posted this earlier in the week.

There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter.

I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable.

Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all.

60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising.

I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter.

and when those injured go to hospital they are cared for by Nurses but they don't get the same pay and pension.

The crux of the argument is that they deserve more than everyone else and will go on strike risking lives to get it - that is selfish.

The crux of your argument seems to be that because others have been screwed, so should the firefighters.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 31 Oct 14 10.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 9.53pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 31 Oct 2014 9.34pm Quote ASCPFC at 31 Oct 2014 9.11pm Quote Jimenez at 31 Oct 2014 8.58pm Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 8.54pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.39pm Quote Kermit8 at 31 Oct 2014 8.11pm Quote Stuk at 31 Oct 2014 8.08pm I posted this earlier in the week. There's nothing unreasonable about the changes that are needed. The argument of no one wanting 60 year old firemen is a non-starter. I would agree if they started at aged 30 or 35 but if they have been doing such a dangerous job since aged 21 surely cutting them some slack is entirely reasonable. Starting age is irrelevant. We're living longer and retirement age has been pushed back for all. 60 is cutting them some slack when they want everyone else to go to 68, and surely rising. Due to the rigorous medical fitness tests that firemen have to take, it's unlikely they will be allowed to work beyond 60 anyway and let go. They will then suffer severe financial penalties on their pensions for leaving the scheme early - a fireman friend of mine reckons it's upwards of 35 percent. A facking stitch up. Fireman are only striking in England, not Scotland and Wales where the governments there accept that it's ludicrous for firemen to carry on past 60. Of course you won't read this in the mainstream media... I'd argue and be correct as well, that the Construction industry is Far more dangerous and far more physically demanding on the body than being a firefighter. The whole point of The Fire Service is that they try and make it as safe as possible. The construction industry, however, does not always comply to such rigorous safety standards. Remember that it is firemen who will be cutting dead or badly injured people out of burnt out cars too. A quite traumatic job and not really one that is particularly well-rewarded anymore. On top of it all they go into dangerous situations knowing that their lives are more at risk - due to consecutive government cut-backs. There was a time when the British fire service was the best, but there have been a spate of deaths due to not keeping up with some of the latest developments; ones that Britain used to come up with themselves but would be more likely from the States or Scandinavia now. and when those injured go to hospital they are cared for by Nurses but they don't get the same pay and pension. The crux of the argument is that they deserve more than everyone else and will go on strike risking lives to get it - that is selfish. The crux of your argument seems to be that because others have been screwed, so should the firefighters. But they are not being screwed, the pension deal being offered is very generous which almost every other worker would be lucky to have Paua oouaaranc� Ir� chiyeah Ish� gal� ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

31 Oct 14 10.11pm

Quote nickgusset at 31 Oct 2014 9.53pm