Firemen going on strike over wages...

Aro · October 23, 2002, 12:01pm

Here’s the story for non-UK dopers.(who I’m sure are sick of hearing about it) Firemen strike Or here. (See other links to right of pages)

So, what is the opinion out there:

Do the Firemen deserve the 40% pay increase demanded?
Is this action justifiable?
Who should be blamed for any deaths occurring during the strike?
Should other public sector workers get the same pay increase?
Who will benefit / lose out with respect to the economy?

(It is estimated to cost £450M a year to fund the proposed increase in wages.)

Thanks. (Sorry if this has already been posted, a search didn’t turn it up)

jjimm · October 23, 2002, 12:38pm

It’s a tricky one, isn’t it? I haven’t really got it clear in my own head.

As in, I really, really don’t think they get paid enough. But 40% is a lot to ask. Also, for the government to capitulate now would probably release an avalanche of similar claims. Shades of the Winter of Discontent are looming.

So in answer to your questions:

Yes they do.
Kind of, but I think the unions should be more willing to compromise before calling a strike.
Primarily, it is the strike that is removing assistance from the public, so I’d have to say the firemen’s union. However, secondarily, of course, the government could be held to blame. However, on the news last night, they said that during the 1977 strike, unpaid firemen turned up to each fire to make sure the army were coping. If there was no life at risk, the firemen left. I would hope this is going to be repeated.
Yes. Junior doctors, teachers, nurses, etc.
Fiscally, the taxpayer. The government will have to remove funds from somewhere else (maybe MPs’ pay rises…?), because there’s no way they’re going to raise taxes.

Finally, we should remember that the fire service is oversubscribed with applicants, all of whom know the risks and the pay levels. If the firemen left their jobs, the country would lose expertise and training, but not headcount.

It’s a shame the government can’t just slip them all a brown envelope with their pay rise in it and tell them to keep it schtum.

TwistofFate · October 23, 2002, 12:50pm

well, when you apply the figure 40% to what they actually get, they would come out in the £30,000 a year range.

I think they deserve it.

Aro · October 23, 2002, 1:47pm

I don’t think anyone would really argue that they don’t deserve it. I certainly wouldn’t. (Eq. of £8.50 / Hr take home pay.)

But where do you draw the line at who doesn’t deserve £30,000 a year? Nurses? Paramedics? Police? Civil Servants? Teachers? Refuse Collectors? Bus Drivers?

Who would pay for these increases? Raise taxes? Push up mortgage rates? Sell a few hospitals to developers?

Or pay cuts in other areas? Do you think Tony B. would take a 40% pay cut to help fund the firemens increase?

The proposed increase is said to be equalivant to 3 new hospital wings per year, once inplimented.
Which would you prefer to fund, if you were in government and the decision was yours?

jjimm · October 23, 2002, 2:20pm

I’ve had an inspiration!

Don’t give them a payrise. Give them a tax benefit.

People who work in high-risk, high stress public sector jobs get a large tax allowance, increasing their take-home pay, but allowing the government not to lose face.

Of course the exchequer would still lose out on the revenue.

casdave · October 23, 2002, 5:58pm

I know a few firepersons and a large number of them and their colleagues have second jobs, some actually find the time to turn out a full 40 hours, though this depends on their watch duties.

Now I’ve seen union representatives claim that these second jobs are necessary to bring in the money just to get by, but the ones I’ve seen are simply living at a level their wages would not support, not et yourbecause their wages are too low, it is not a difficult thing to claim that your wages do not meet your lifestyle expectations if you set the standard very high.

How many other workers retire on a full pension at 50 ?(as long as they have the required number of years service), and yes they can apply to work longer but usually in management and specialisms rather than front line.

I’m sorry but I just do not see £30k p.a in a fireman, even when you consider the possible risks.

When a fireman is in a situation of uncontrolled risk then he is not working properly, it is as simple as that, and that can be true of any worker, from a steel foundry worker, to a computor operator.

Lets see, if we are talking of risk, then there are plenty of occupations with higher injury and fatality rates, look at the construction industry, the farming industry is notorious, miners used to be one of the highest, and police families do not have certainty of one of their number returning alive every time they step out the front door, and they do not get paid £30k except with London living allowances and a goodly number of years service.

If you want to put it in the perspective of stress and lifesaving skllis then this must mean that medical professionals of all grades are worth several times the wage demands of the firemen.

I have worked in hospitals, the armed forces(including being shot at for real), prisons and metal foundries, does this mean I should withdraw my labour in expectation of a 40% pay rise ?

I also think that the skill level required is not a particularly rare commodity.
Labour markets are governed by scarcity and demand, there is no shortage of potential recruits.

The main problem in public sector workers is that wage rates are set nationally, and what might be a good wage in Liverpool, is not enough in London.The fire brigades in particular do seem to be unable to retain their staff in the London district, but then this is true of teachers and many other public sector workers.

This pay claim would c

casdave · October 23, 2002, 5:58pm