Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Mapletree Croydon 01 Nov 14 4.42pm
Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of Ł9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse. I wouldn't argue with this What I do know at first hand is that firefighters and Police Officers historically had a habit of using the early retirement due to ill health facility a little freely. I wonder if that is a part of why changes are being made. I knew many people that retired early due to 'bad backs' that just could not be proved either way. But it certainly didn't stop them having an active life after retirement shall we say. What is true is that in many professions low pay rates are compensated by good pension arrangements. I do have sympathy for people that have the rules changed from under them when it's too late for them to choose a different path in life. I do not, however, agree that we should not look again at such arrangements as life and the economy changes and this was my original point. Nobody should be immune from reconsideration but that does then need to be fair for all. In truth the pain of the recent problems has not been fairly shared, I have insufficient knowledge of fire service schemes to make an informed decision on this specific case.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 01 Nov 14 4.42pm

Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm

The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement.

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough.

But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of Ł9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking
that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early?

I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

I wouldn't argue with this

What I do know at first hand is that firefighters and Police Officers historically had a habit of using the early retirement due to ill health facility a little freely. I wonder if that is a part of why changes are being made. I knew many people that retired early due to 'bad backs' that just could not be proved either way. But it certainly didn't stop them having an active life after retirement shall we say.

What is true is that in many professions low pay rates are compensated by good pension arrangements. I do have sympathy for people that have the rules changed from under them when it's too late for them to choose a different path in life. I do not, however, agree that we should not look again at such arrangements as life and the economy changes and this was my original point. Nobody should be immune from reconsideration but that does then need to be fair for all. In truth the pain of the recent problems has not been fairly shared, I have insufficient knowledge of fire service schemes to make an informed decision on this specific case.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 01 Nov 14 5.09pm
Quote nickgusset at 01 Nov 2014 3.41pm [Link] That doesn't sound like it was written by a firefighter but straight out of the socialist worker. Would a normal fireman make such an anti government rant? Paua oouaarancě Irŕ chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

01 Nov 14 5.09pm

Quote nickgusset at 01 Nov 2014 3.41pm

[Link]

That doesn't sound like it was written by a firefighter but straight out of the socialist worker.

Would a normal fireman make such an anti government rant?

Paua oouaarancě Irŕ chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 01 Nov 14 5.14pm
Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 3.28pm Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners. just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!! Well done : I am not normally given to strident outbursts but I do get really pissxd off when I keep reading on here that apparently all the wrongs of the country are the fault of people who just happen to have been born in the 1940's. As for our lack of concern for future generations - in the world I occupy - my generation have probably done more to help their children, and now our grand children, than any previous recent generation (End of current rant!) Good for you. In the world I occupy people born in the 1920's probably contributed an awful lot more than any of us. Financially, people born in the 1940's and 1950's have contributed - because they can afford to, with final salary pensions, lower mortgages, free education, etc. Generally people born after the 1960's probably don't have final salary pensions any more (certainly not in the private sector) - thanks in part to Gordon Brown, a man from the previous generation. If anything it's jealousy - that generation is doing a lot better after retirement than any of the ones to come and the decisions some of them made, have consequences beyond their generation that make sure of it. Just as, I am sure, decisions made by my generation will effect later ones plans - I just hope it's more positively). Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 5.15pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 01 Nov 14 5.14pm

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 3.28pm

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am

Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh.

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules.
A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad.

Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations.

Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners.

just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!!

Well done
:

I am not normally given to strident outbursts but I do get really pissxd off when I keep reading on here that apparently all the wrongs of the country are the fault of people who just happen to have been born in the 1940's.

As for our lack of concern for future generations - in the world I occupy - my generation have probably done more to help their children, and now our grand children, than any previous recent generation (End of current rant!)

Good for you. In the world I occupy people born in the 1920's probably contributed an awful lot more than any of us. Financially, people born in the 1940's and 1950's have contributed - because they can afford to, with final salary pensions, lower mortgages, free education, etc. Generally people born after the 1960's probably don't have final salary pensions any more (certainly not in the private sector) - thanks in part to Gordon Brown, a man from the previous generation. If anything it's jealousy - that generation is doing a lot better after retirement than any of the ones to come and the decisions some of them made, have consequences beyond their generation that make sure of it. Just as, I am sure, decisions made by my generation will effect later ones plans - I just hope it's more positively).

Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 5.15pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46 Croydon 01 Nov 14 5.17pm
Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 5.14pm Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 3.28pm Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm This is one topic that really rings my bells The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations It simply isn't fair Just look at the smug generation currently in their 60s, 70s and 80s. They are effectively taking money from my children. There is no way they paid enough in for the benefits they are now receiving. As you can tell by the way BA is on it's knees. 75% of final salary index linked, you're having a laugh. It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons. There is nothing more special about the previous generation, why should the young be forced to pay for one golden generation that designed a scheme that benefited it but would never be sustainable. Biggest con ever. Couldn't agree more, well said. Nobody gave me anything - I'm as entitled to my state pension as were your parents and no doubt you will ne in due course. regarding any occupational pension I have - I paid into it for 30 years! I retired at 65 having stated work at 16. I played by the rules that applied then - you must do the same by the current rules. A grown man (I assume that you are) screeching "its unfair" like a spoilt 5 year old is somewhat sad. Everyone is entitled to their state pension - of course they are. Also their occupational pensions and it's not your fault - I.e. those that benefit - it's the fault of those that set the rules. The sadness is where the average youngster sits now. They get an uncertain pension, probably as the same muppets that ineptly invested your endowment now invest your pension, they cannot afford houses as the prices, particularly in the South, are ridiculous. They have to retire a lot later, so will, in all likelihood, be working 10 years longer (leave education at 19, retire at 69). And all this has been set in motion and presided over by people in their 50's, 60's and 70's - so the ones that are 'alright jack' are those that set the current rules and that's what annoys me. However, you're right, they have to get on with it but we have a duty to try to make the best of it for future generations. Goodness, screeching like a spoilt 5 year old there Helmet. You forgot that they gave themselves MIRAS. Oh, and free University education. I don't agree that we just roll over and let this generation keep its excessive gains though, which is why Governments have changed the income tax rules for pensioners. just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!! Well done : I am not normally given to strident outbursts but I do get really pissxd off when I keep reading on here that apparently all the wrongs of the country are the fault of people who just happen to have been born in the 1940's. As for our lack of concern for future generations - in the world I occupy - my generation have probably done more to help their children, and now our grand children, than any previous recent generation (End of current rant!) Good for you. In the world I occupy people born in the 1920's probably contributed an awful lot more than any of us. Financially, people born in the 1940's and 1950's have contributed - because they can afford to, with final salary pensions, lower mortgages, free education, etc. Generally people born after the 1960's probably don't have final salary pensions any more (certainly not in the private sector) - thanks in part to Gordon Brown, a man from the previous generation. If anything it's jealousy - that generation is doing a lot better after retirement than any of the ones to come and the decisions some of them made, have consequences beyond their generation that make sure of it. Just as, I am sure, decisions made by my generation will effect later ones plans - I just hope it's more positively). Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 5.15pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Helmet46

Croydon 01 Nov 14 5.17pm

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 5.14pm

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 3.28pm

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.34am

Quote Mapletree at 01 Nov 2014 11.31am

Quote Helmet46 at 01 Nov 2014 11.26am

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 10.57am

Quote gbox82 at 01 Nov 2014 9.00am

Quote Mapletree at 31 Oct 2014 9.06pm

This is one topic that really rings my bells

The ridiculous pension arrangements entered into with the baby boom generation are going to cripple the newer generations

It simply isn't fair

It needs reforming and fast. Nobody should be immune. DB schemes are massively immoral, everyone knows it yet people will fight tooth and nail to keep them for obvious reasons.

Couldn't agree more, well said.

just trying to spoiltly screech nicely!!!

Well done
:

Edited by Helmet46 (01 Nov 2014 5.15pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

rob1969 Banstead Surrey 01 Nov 14 5.21pm
Firstly let me say I appreciate that fire-fighters are fully entitled to go on strike even though I think it undermines the support they have and more import is almost certainly futile. Now - regarding firemen working to 60 yeas to get their full pension. It strikes me (no pun untended!) that the majority of fire-fighters work these days is routine - checking hydrants, inspecting work places, giving advice on home fire safety etc. Is it not possible that the majority of this work - which requires knowledge gained from experience rather than physical fitness could be carried out by older and/or less fit firemen working on a normal 8 hour day basis. They might have to accept a slight reduction in pay but if it meant they got there full pension at 60 that might seem acceptable. Leave the actual fire and rescue work - 24/7 - work to those fit enough. Perhaps someone with inside knowledge of the fire service would comment on this suggestion? PS: Me trying to get back to the original thread issue regarding fire-fighters ! Edited by rob1969 (01 Nov 2014 5.27pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

rob1969

Banstead Surrey 01 Nov 14 5.21pm

Firstly let me say I appreciate that fire-fighters are fully entitled to go on strike even though I think it undermines the support they have and more import is almost certainly futile.

Now - regarding firemen working to 60 yeas to get their full pension. It strikes me (no pun untended!)
that the majority of fire-fighters work these days is routine - checking hydrants, inspecting work places, giving advice on home fire safety etc.
Is it not possible that the majority of this work - which requires knowledge gained from experience rather than physical fitness could be carried out by older and/or less fit firemen working on a normal 8 hour day basis. They might have to accept a slight reduction in pay but if it meant they got there full pension at 60 that might seem acceptable. Leave the actual fire and rescue work - 24/7 - work to those fit enough.
Perhaps someone with inside knowledge of the fire service would comment on this suggestion?

PS: Me trying to get back to the original thread issue regarding fire-fighters !

Edited by rob1969 (01 Nov 2014 5.27pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

TUX redhill 01 Nov 14 6.09pm
Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial sh*tstorm in the first place. Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense. Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it. Every single word of this.
Alert a moderator to this post

TUX

redhill 01 Nov 14 6.09pm

Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am

It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial sh*tstorm in the first place.

Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense.

Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it.

Every single word of this.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Nov 14 12.52pm
Quote Pussay Patrol at 01 Nov 2014 2.36pm Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of Ł9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse. Why wouldn't you be able to physically manage at 55? Surely the point of working patterns are designed so that firefighters have ample rest inbetween shifts? i'd expect all firemen to be in the gym on their days off, be non-smokers and have a healthy diet. I fully respect the job they do and the element of danger associated with it but I don't agree with using this to garner sympathy in order to keep an unsustainable pension fund. You are living longer and taking more out so it's only fair you put more in. Why should I pay for that? Maybe the physical strain and the stress of being in life threatening scenarios, where other peoples lives are dependent on your instinctive reactions take its toll. Non-Smoking, probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference when you're regularly exposed to burning materials, fumes and hot air. Whilst there are no doubt routine jobs such an inventory, checking hydrants etc there is also the necessity of maintaining people to a sufficient physical standard to deal with emergency situations, and the unpredictability of deterioration through old age is unpredictable. Going to the gym doesn't imbume people with a magical capacity to avoid injury (indeed in terms of maintaining a certain level of physical capability at an advanced age it can increase the risk of injuries). Why should you and I pay for that? Because if I'm trapped in a burning building, they're the people who will come through the door to try to rescue me. If I'm trapped in car crash they'll be the people who cut me free in time etc. I'd say that's on a par with deserving a little bit extra to take care of them when they are no longer capable of doing the job. The fact that they can be forced into early retirement and lose 9k of their pension shames us all. And that's not counting the psychological stress. I'm happy to say I don't mind paying a little bit extra as I don't generally have to deal with mangled corpses in car wrecks, the smell of burnt flesh, the screams of the badly burned etc. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 03 Nov 14 12.52pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 01 Nov 2014 2.36pm

Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

Why wouldn't you be able to physically manage at 55? Surely the point of working patterns are designed so that firefighters have ample rest inbetween shifts? i'd expect all firemen to be in the gym on their days off, be non-smokers and have a healthy diet.

I fully respect the job they do and the element of danger associated with it but I don't agree with using this to garner sympathy in order to keep an unsustainable pension fund. You are living longer and taking more out so it's only fair you put more in. Why should I pay for that?

Maybe the physical strain and the stress of being in life threatening scenarios, where other peoples lives are dependent on your instinctive reactions take its toll. Non-Smoking, probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference when you're regularly exposed to burning materials, fumes and hot air.

Whilst there are no doubt routine jobs such an inventory, checking hydrants etc there is also the necessity of maintaining people to a sufficient physical standard to deal with emergency situations, and the unpredictability of deterioration through old age is unpredictable. Going to the gym doesn't imbume people with a magical capacity to avoid injury (indeed in terms of maintaining a certain level of physical capability at an advanced age it can increase the risk of injuries).

Why should you and I pay for that? Because if I'm trapped in a burning building, they're the people who will come through the door to try to rescue me. If I'm trapped in car crash they'll be the people who cut me free in time etc. I'd say that's on a par with deserving a little bit extra to take care of them when they are no longer capable of doing the job.

The fact that they can be forced into early retirement and lose 9k of their pension shames us all.

And that's not counting the psychological stress. I'm happy to say I don't mind paying a little bit extra as I don't generally have to deal with mangled corpses in car wrecks, the smell of burnt flesh, the screams of the badly burned etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Nov 14 12.57pm
Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 5.21pm Firstly let me say I appreciate that fire-fighters are fully entitled to go on strike even though I think it undermines the support they have and more import is almost certainly futile. Now - regarding firemen working to 60 yeas to get their full pension. It strikes me (no pun untended!) that the majority of fire-fighters work these days is routine - checking hydrants, inspecting work places, giving advice on home fire safety etc. Is it not possible that the majority of this work - which requires knowledge gained from experience rather than physical fitness could be carried out by older and/or less fit firemen working on a normal 8 hour day basis. They might have to accept a slight reduction in pay but if it meant they got there full pension at 60 that might seem acceptable. Leave the actual fire and rescue work - 24/7 - work to those fit enough. Perhaps someone with inside knowledge of the fire service would comment on this suggestion? PS: Me trying to get back to the original thread issue regarding fire-fighters ! Edited by rob1969 (01 Nov 2014 5.27pm) I think those jobs are currently done by the existing firemen, are you suggesting we should employ more firemen to cover those aged fireman having to do the administrative stuff, that they already would likely have been doing. Also paying them less seems a bit of a slap in the face after years of service. Especially as you'll have to hire a new fireman for each one. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 03 Nov 14 12.57pm

Quote rob1969 at 01 Nov 2014 5.21pm

Firstly let me say I appreciate that fire-fighters are fully entitled to go on strike even though I think it undermines the support they have and more import is almost certainly futile.

PS: Me trying to get back to the original thread issue regarding fire-fighters !

Edited by rob1969 (01 Nov 2014 5.27pm)

I think those jobs are currently done by the existing firemen, are you suggesting we should employ more firemen to cover those aged fireman having to do the administrative stuff, that they already would likely have been doing.

Also paying them less seems a bit of a slap in the face after years of service. Especially as you'll have to hire a new fireman for each one.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

gambler Kent 03 Nov 14 1.30pm
Quote TUX at 01 Nov 2014 6.09pm Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am It's interesting that the focus is always on the people like firefighters and nurses who risk their lives for not very good money to take cuts, instead of the parasitical fat cat bankers and politicians who caused the financial shtstorm in the first place. Amazingly, bankers and MP's have very comfortable pay and pension arrangements, yet use the media to attack those at the bottom of the pile for taking a few crumbs when they are gorging on truffles and caviar at our expense. Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it. Every single word of this. Yep agree totally with this. Divide and rule will work time and again while the very people being targeted lap it up and slag each other. The tories and their ilk love it, deflects the attention away from all the s** they're pushing through. Good luck to the firefighters, midwives, government workers, and everyone else being shafted.
Alert a moderator to this post

gambler

Kent 03 Nov 14 1.30pm

Quote TUX at 01 Nov 2014 6.09pm

Quote Seth at 01 Nov 2014 12.44am

Divide and rule really is a very effective tactic for those in power. Just a shame so many people continue to fall for it.

Every single word of this.

Yep agree totally with this.

Divide and rule will work time and again while the very people being targeted lap it up and slag each other. The tories and their ilk love it, deflects the attention away from all the s*** they're pushing through.

Good luck to the firefighters, midwives, government workers, and everyone else being shafted.

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 03 Nov 14 1.42pm
The timing of the strike, which is being made such a meal of: I spoke to a firefighter mate of mine yesterday, and I mentioned in passing that they would be back on before the 5th, and that must be a relief. He said that in all the years he's been doing the job, he's never been out on a call on the 5th.
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 03 Nov 14 1.42pm

The timing of the strike, which is being made such a meal of:
I spoke to a firefighter mate of mine yesterday, and I mentioned in passing that they would be back on before the 5th, and that must be a relief. He said that in all the years he's been doing the job, he's never been out on a call on the 5th.

Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol 03 Nov 14 1.57pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Nov 2014 12.52pm Quote Pussay Patrol at 01 Nov 2014 2.36pm Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm The old Firefighters scheme needs 30 yrs service, not 25 as previously mentioned, and the contributions paid by members was almost double the standard scheme costs paid by other types of final salary jobs to allow for the 'early'retirement. The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough. But if you can't physically manage as you get older and are made to retire at say age 55 for example, your pension will be reduced to a figure of Ł9000, less than half the quoted perfect scenario pension for just 5 years less work.It's worth noting the Employer will decide the levels of fitness required, tests to pass and it isn't beyond anyone's thinking that there are good savings to be made if you can make someone 'fail' and have to be pensioned off early? I've done it and had to retire early, people can harp on about statistics for less danger, less fires etc etc, try telling that to the families of the 2 good mates I've lost. Yes there are jobs out there that have higher mortality rates, farming being one and I think they should be better rewarded too, but being a Firefighter is still one of the jobs where when you go to work there is slightly more of a chance you may not come home. I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse. Why wouldn't you be able to physically manage at 55? Surely the point of working patterns are designed so that firefighters have ample rest inbetween shifts? i'd expect all firemen to be in the gym on their days off, be non-smokers and have a healthy diet. I fully respect the job they do and the element of danger associated with it but I don't agree with using this to garner sympathy in order to keep an unsustainable pension fund. You are living longer and taking more out so it's only fair you put more in. Why should I pay for that? Maybe the physical strain and the stress of being in life threatening scenarios, where other peoples lives are dependent on your instinctive reactions take its toll. Non-Smoking, probably doesn't make a huge amount of difference when you're regularly exposed to burning materials, fumes and hot air. Whilst there are no doubt routine jobs such an inventory, checking hydrants etc there is also the necessity of maintaining people to a sufficient physical standard to deal with emergency situations, and the unpredictability of deterioration through old age is unpredictable. Going to the gym doesn't imbume people with a magical capacity to avoid injury (indeed in terms of maintaining a certain level of physical capability at an advanced age it can increase the risk of injuries). Why should you and I pay for that? Because if I'm trapped in a burning building, they're the people who will come through the door to try to rescue me. If I'm trapped in car crash they'll be the people who cut me free in time etc. I'd say that's on a par with deserving a little bit extra to take care of them when they are no longer capable of doing the job. The fact that they can be forced into early retirement and lose 9k of their pension shames us all. And that's not counting the psychological stress. I'm happy to say I don't mind paying a little bit extra as I don't generally have to deal with mangled corpses in car wrecks, the smell of burnt flesh, the screams of the badly burned etc. I take your point and if that's how they put their argument across i'd probably accept it. I just take issue with the smokescreen put up with statements like 'Pension theft' and how they are being robbed. It's simple economics that pensions need reform because they are underfunded. They are making it a political issue and using slogans like Tory Cuts and referencing what the PM gets paid. Plus stories like Dads Army turning up to a fire in a Mini (!) That might work on working class people who only look at headlines but I think it insults people's intelligence. I support the Nurses, a 1% pay rise is definitely being shafted and I would happily pay extra for them to get more like a 5-10% rise as what they get is quite basic anyway. Even Teachers, some of them brilliant at their jobs and the best one's should get amply rewarded. But Firefighters already have a very good package with good working patterns and pay, and this Pension deal is very good in relation to what they will have contributed to it. Edited by Pussay Patrol (03 Nov 2014 1.59pm) Paua oouaarancě Irŕ chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah
Alert a moderator to this post

Pussay Patrol

03 Nov 14 1.57pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 03 Nov 2014 12.52pm

Quote Pussay Patrol at 01 Nov 2014 2.36pm

Quote EsussexEagle at 01 Nov 2014 1.33pm

The new scheme for Firefighters that says they will all get Ł19000 a year pension only works if you start by age 20 and work till 60 on a salary of Ł28000. Fair enough.

I believe everyone has a right to withhold their labour to not see their conditions made worse.

The fact that they can be forced into early retirement and lose 9k of their pension shames us all.

I take your point and if that's how they put their argument across i'd probably accept it.

I just take issue with the smokescreen put up with statements like 'Pension theft' and how they are being robbed. It's simple economics that pensions need reform because they are underfunded. They are making it a political issue and using slogans like Tory Cuts and referencing what the PM gets paid. Plus stories like Dads Army turning up to a fire in a Mini (!) That might work on working class people who only look at headlines but I think it insults people's intelligence.

I support the Nurses, a 1% pay rise is definitely being shafted and I would happily pay extra for them to get more like a 5-10% rise as what they get is quite basic anyway. Even Teachers, some of them brilliant at their jobs and the best one's should get amply rewarded. But Firefighters already have a very good package with good working patterns and pay, and this Pension deal is very good in relation to what they will have contributed to it.

Edited by Pussay Patrol (03 Nov 2014 1.59pm)

Paua oouaarancě Irŕ chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Nov 14 4.56pm
Quote npn at 03 Nov 2014 1.42pm The timing of the strike, which is being made such a meal of: I spoke to a firefighter mate of mine yesterday, and I mentioned in passing that they would be back on before the 5th, and that must be a relief. He said that in all the years he's been doing the job, he's never been out on a call on the 5th. Weird, I was talking to a fireman the other day, and he reckoned that in 10 years they only call out they'd had on Nov 5th was for a car crash. I'd imagine its a busy time for the Paramedics mind. I suppose the actual risks on bonfire night of a fire are probably lower, if you consider the number of people who aren't indoors, and that the main risk of fireworks night is injury from fireworks. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 03 Nov 14 4.56pm

Quote npn at 03 Nov 2014 1.42pm

Weird, I was talking to a fireman the other day, and he reckoned that in 10 years they only call out they'd had on Nov 5th was for a car crash.

I'd imagine its a busy time for the Paramedics mind. I suppose the actual risks on bonfire night of a fire are probably lower, if you consider the number of people who aren't indoors, and that the main risk of fireworks night is injury from fireworks.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Selfish Firefighters on Strike

Site Map

Sponsors