Firefighters Striking During Firework Weekend.

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

Well said sir

Support your local firemen

 

[Prince Monolulu]

People won't die or get injured tonight as a result of firemen striking to protect their pensions,they will die or get injured because they are arsing about with pyrotechnics when not qualified to do so.

Spot on. Celebrating an attempted mass explosion within the seat of government whatever the Party should in no way be commemorated annually anyhow. Load of old b@ll@cks.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Spot on. Celebrating an attempted mass explosion within the seat of government whatever the Party should in no way be commemorated annually anyhow. Load of old b@ll@cks.

View attachment 48238

I guess its just old and weird and eccentric and has passed into annual UK eventdom over the years, a bit like the still faintly sinister Lewes fireworks thing. Hard to envisage anybody openly celebrating the 1984 bombing of the Tories at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in quite the same way tho eh?

 

[ozseagull]

the firefighters should be ashamed of themselves. Have just seen on BBC that a major incident was declared in London (a large fire at a metals works) and the fire fighters walked off and left it burning when the strike time started.

They have been ordered back to work as per an agreement should such an incident occur and they have refused!

How not to win public support

 

[Pickledegg]

A very reasoned response but please don't moan about having to work on your days off! You let yourself down on that point! Many people would love the opportunity to work a 4 on 4 off shift and sleep on the 2 nights when not busy! And we both know there is more sleeping than working on the night shifts!

Sadly, the economic situation has affected many and many people have had their T&C's changed! Unfortunately, most of these people can not strike! Just like the 2003 strikes, the FBU will lose this fight as the vast majority of its members realise it is dead in the water!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Where's the option for " They're right to strike but possibly unwise to do it on Bonfire Nqht".

Er..it's not bonfire night.?

 

[Pickledegg]

But it's unsustainable! Friends of mine are expecting lump sums of in excess of £120k on retirement! Add to this a very sizeable annual pension!

Please remind me just how much has been paid in to this pot over their career?

On a constant £30k salary for 30 years they would pay in £117000! Whilst I realise this is crude maths we can all see the bubble had to burst?!

I honestly sympathise but we have all had to take a hit and fire fighters are sadly no different!!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

In your opinion, but not in the opinion of Dr Williams who conducted the research on behalf of the government. Williams reported that the natural age-related decline in fitness would lead to 66% of currently serving firefighters being unable to achieve a fitness standard of 42ml/kg/min VO2 max between the ages of 55-60. This is largely because fire brigades recruit from the ordinary population and not elite athletes who may expect to maintain higher fitness levels in older age.

So what's to become of these firefighters who aren't fit enough to do the job, but aren't old enough to retire under the proposed scheme? Well in 2006 the government of the day promised that there would be non-operational re-deployment posts for them. The FBU conducted a survey of all 46 fire service employers this year. Only 5 responded that they had re-deployment jobs available, a total of 16 jobs representing 0.04% of the workforce nationally. So what else?

Well the national employers have been quite clear. Firefighters over the age of 55 who fail to achieve the required fitness level will face capability dismissal with no access to their pension until the deferred pension age, which is the national pension age. Remember, these are people who joined the service expecting to be able to retire at 55 (or over 50 with 30 years service).

Firefighters pay dearly for the right to retire earlier than other workers. They currently pay over 13% of their wages in their pension scheme and their contributions make up a higher proportion of the total scheme cost than in any other public sector pension scheme. And anyway, don't we deserve a fit, healthy fire and rescue service?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about firefighters doing second jobs, like that's some kind of justification for attacking the terms and conditions of their primary employment. It's a race-to-the-bottom frame of mind that will see all of us worse off to the benefit of the ruling elite. Yes, firefighter's shift patterns may lend themselves to working a second job, but don't you think they might be more inclined to spend their off-duty time with their loved ones if they could afford to? After all, they work a 42-hour week on average, nights, weekends, public holidays etc and routinely miss birthday celebrations, Christmas at home and so on to provide a 24/7 emergency service.

Nobody enjoys withdrawing their labour, least of all those of us that work in the emergency services, but after three years of negotiation with a government that's ignored every fact we've put under their noses we don't really have a choice. The four hour stoppage in September achieved virtually no press, at least the timing of this strike means that it's gained some attention. If you want to have a safe bonfire/firework party, go to an organised display. If you really must do it yourself, do it on Saturday night, or on Bonfire Night, when we're not on strike.

And please remember, we're not asking for anything, there are no demands for more or better; we're just stopping them from taking away what's ours. Firefighters didn't cause the economic crisis, and they don't get paid bonuses.

By the way, as an Orient fan, could I just say thank you very much for Tiny Cox and Romain Vincelot, both of whom are enjoying outstanding seasons at the O's this year.

Cheers,
Steve

To add a bit of balance, I pay 13% into my pension currently, and that will rise to 14.5% in the next few years. I work seven on, four off, or seven on, three off, on a twenty four hour rotating pattern, including bank holidays, Christmases, birthdays and any other random event they decide to cancel leave for (Olympics, Lewes bonfire celebrations, Albion v Palace, party conferences, the Queen being in town, Balcombe protests etc). When I joined, we retired at 55 or thirty years, whichever was sooner. That's gone up to 35 years at least. Is there much difference between a fifty nine year old firefighter and a fifty nine year old copper?

Not for a second denigrating you guys, but your position isn't unique in the current climate.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I honestly sympathise but we have all had to take a hit and fire fighters are sadly no different!!

As someone who's retired, what/where is this hit that I've supposedly taken?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

To add a bit of balance, I pay 13% into my pension currently, and that will rise to 14.5% in the next few years. I work seven on, four off, or seven on, three off, on a twenty four hour rotating pattern, including bank holidays, Christmases, birthdays and any other random event they decide to cancel leave for (Olympics, Lewes bonfire celebrations, Albion v Palace, party conferences, the Queen being in town, Balcombe protests etc). When I joined, we retired at 55 or thirty years, whichever was sooner. That's gone up to 35 years at least. Is there much difference between a fifty nine year old firefighter and a fifty nine year old copper?

Not for a second denigrating you guys, but your position isn't unique in the current climate.

Isn't the pivotal issue here the likely dismissal of significant numbers of staff at 55 with consequent loss of income and no access to a pension, as they would have currently, until the national pension age (whatever that is) is reached. Is the situation in the police force the same/similar?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

The post by Steve White gives a good appreciation of the situation and significantly highlights that fire fighters are not asking for something new, notably that Govt honours existing and quite recent agreements made in the previous review of pensions. Many personnel already serve up to aged 60.

It is also interesting to read a Police Officer's perspective from Edna. Her role is to be admired especially as Police seem like glorified social workers these days, and often seems a thankless task, so good luck to her and her colleagues. But like fire fighters they are also intelligent people with a 'can do' attitude who don't say 'no' in adversity so no surprise if they will increasingly resist ill thought Govt. ideas.

For many years Police pension contributions were significantly less and their pay was greater than fire fighters. Only in recent years has this balance become more equal. The Police were considered 'untouchable' but like all public sectors can no longer be ignored due to their burden on the fragile public purse. Unfortunately successive issues like Hillsborough and Plebgate are giving Govts more and more scope to demand changes to traditional Police practices and pay and conditions. Only recently did this Govt vote to allow senior Police roles to be open to managers from military and other occupations.

Unfortunately the Police Federation who should be campaigning in support of members conditions have completely shot themselves in the foot over Plebgate and as a result probably made their task of negotiating with Govt a hell of a lot harder.

As a member of an emergency service pension scheme who paid up to 12% gross of my income from age 21 for over 30 years (a huge chunk of your income when you are a youngster only being paid £48 per week and can't afford a mortgage) I was seriously pissed off that successive Governments could have - but failed to invest my pension contributions and thereby reduce dependence on the public purse, instead choosing to use them to fund their day to day Govt expenditure. Membership of the pension scheme was mandatory - you could not opt out and find a more efficient scheme.

The population is living longer and in theory serving Police / Fire officers should now be capable of maintaining their health longer. Therefore it is reasonable for occupational retirement and pensionable ages to be reviewed. Whether it is reasonable to expect a 60 year old fire fighter to fulfil the same tasks as the 18 or 20 year old next to them is another question. Some of the armchair critics are somewhat naïve about the type of tasks that fire fighters have to be capable of doing. Inevitably there will a number of valuable personnel who may struggle to maintain operational fitness in later years especially with cumulative injuries picked up in service.

During the previous pension review a few years ago Fire fighters accepted paying further increased contributions and later retirement ages including up to 60 (so its not a new issue) in return for opportunities for deployment into other roles. Instead of being retired early their valuable experience and training that the public has paid for could be redeployed into other roles such as community education, casualty reduction and inspections of buildings. BTW one of the success stories in recent years for 'Albion in the Community' was the joint educational initiative led by the Fire & Rescue Service. This is just one of many activities that could be put at risk if fire fighters cannot be redeployed. The Govt recently admitted that only 3 redeployment posts nationally had been filled last year. So its understandable that many fire fighters do not trust the Govt to live up to its promises.

By the way the current dispute is between the FBU and Govt. Not all FBU members support the dispute (especially outside London and big cities) and it is members of other Fire unions that are remaining on duty to provide operational cover. I for one am grateful for this as it means we are being protected by professionals using proper equipment rather than military personnel using obsolete museum pieces.

 

[wellquickwoody]

To add a bit of balance, I pay 13% into my pension currently, and that will rise to 14.5% in the next few years. I work seven on, four off, or seven on, three off, on a twenty four hour rotating pattern, including bank holidays, Christmases, birthdays and any other random event they decide to cancel leave for (Olympics, Lewes bonfire celebrations, Albion v Palace, party conferences, the Queen being in town, Balcombe protests etc). When I joined, we retired at 55 or thirty years, whichever was sooner. That's gone up to 35 years at least. Is there much difference between a fifty nine year old firefighter and a fifty nine year old copper?

Not for a second denigrating you guys, but your position isn't unique in the current climate.

I have to entirely agree, but at the same time, have some sympathy for our emergency services. They are not unique in paying a large percentage of their salary into a pension fund as other public sector workers are also bound to do this. Our ageing population has to work longer to support its income requirements in old age, and there should be a shared responsibility between both private and public sector employees.

Our emergency services do a sterling job in fields that many of us would not want to work in. They are not superheroes, they are honest joes who are prepared to do their best to help others, while at times enduring working patterns that others would not. This combined with their high level of pension contributions has enabled them to enjoy earlier access to their pensions than most of us are able to get, and maybe rightly so.

Having earned your perks in the workplace, it can be bloody annoying to see them being taken away. But they are not being taken away, are they? They are just being postponed for a few years. As Edna has pointed out, the Police are having to work longer before receiving their pension, other non-emergency public sector workers are having to work longer (whilst also seeing their gold plated pensions vanishing for new employees), and all of the private sector are seeing the state retirement age rising over the next few years.

Age/fitness related issues for firemen should be overcome by redeployment, and firemen are generally a fit bunch anyway (add in modern health and medical care), and of course they will be able to do two jobs for longer! The firemen should realise that we all are having to work longer, but they will still be able to retire earlier than most of us with a very good pension, and then understand how wrong their strike action is.

 

[Billy the Fish]

A 60 year old bloke, kept in good condition (which he would be through the demands of his job) is more than capable of doing the job, in this day and age. A lot more so than a 50 year old of 30 years ago, I'd suggest. The rest of us will be working until we are 70. I've have no time for the assertion that 60 is too late for the firefighters.

Agree with this. They get an hour a day in the gym as part of their shift, there's really no excuse for them not to look after themselves.

*edit* I agree with the strike though, I'd be doing it if I was a firefighter regardless of whether I think it's a fair deal or not.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Hard to envisage anybody openly celebrating the 1984 bombing of the Tories at the Grand Hotel in Brighton in quite the sane way tho eh?

But it failed. Had they blown Thatcher sky high Id celebrate annually.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No its not. They are lazy sods and half haven't attended a fire unless they attend lewis on firework night. Health and safety makes sure they dont enter buildings like the old days. If they arrive at a fire they have to fill in a risk acessmant form by which time the building has burnt down.

**** off you cock.

 

[Mr Bridger]

But it failed. Had they blown Thatcher sky high Id celebrate annually.

That sums you up

 

[Dan Gleeballs]

Agree with this. They get an hour a day in the gym as part of their shift, there's really no excuse for them not to look after themselves.

You can spend all the hours you like in the gym. Whilst this may keep you fit it doesn't mean that you can avoid potentially career threatening injuries from something as simple as running. My 50 year old colleagues hamstring went a few months ago and he's only just back to full fitness now. What's to say it won't happen again? As you approach 60 all sorts of bones, muscles and joints will suffer.

As far as the government are concerned with their proposed pension plans and fitness targets the simple breakdown is if you fail the fitness or even have to leave through capability before aged 60 (even if you were originally set to retire in your 50's) then you lose your pension until your 68. Then what? All those years of contributions put on hold. That's even before the original pension you signed up for has been completely altered and tens of thousands of pounds paid in just handed back to government to spunk up the wall.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

No its not. They are lazy sods and half haven't attended a fire unless they attend lewis on firework night. Health and safety makes sure they dont enter buildings like the old days. If they arrive at a fire they have to fill in a risk acessmant form by which time the building has burnt down.

I'd place a hefty bet that most fire personnel would at least be able to spell LEWES !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hyperion]

IMHO striking should be made illegal under any circumstances. Work to rule etc by all means but do not strike as I can see no justification for a strike.

Jesus wept. Giving Employers a reason to take the Pi** out its workers even further. Nice.

 

[DumLum]

The Merry Prankster: Where's the option for " They're right to strike but possibly unwise to do it on Bonfire Nqht"

This.

I know it's not bonfire night but there were many public/private bonfire parties . Also I don't believe they should have walked away from a major incident. Two own goals.