Why firefighters have to strike

[She Knows It]

I'm trying to ascertain what the issue is.

 

Do firefighters currently do two days (9 hrs each day); 2 nights (15 hrs a night) and then 4 days off?

 

And is the proposed change to become two days (12 hrs a day); 2 nights (12 hrs a night) and then 4 days off?

 

If that's what it is then I don't see what the big deal is.

 

Am I missing some crucial information?

 

If you are then so am I. Apparently that's enough for us to be seen as right-wing Daily Mail readers.

[bossy]

No it's because you meekly accepted the legality of being forced to leave your job whilst some others say 'fuck that you cheeky cunts' and you think they should do what you did That's why some people are disagreeing with you.

[migs]

If you are then so am I. Apparently that's enough for us to be seen as right-wing Daily Mail readers.

Actually, all I've seen from you is "I got fucked, so fuck everybody else".

 

That is a Daily Mail reader in microcosm.

[G Richards]

Actually, all I've seen from you is "I got fucked, so fuck everybody else".

 

That is a Daily Mail reader in microcosm.

 

Well please help me then.

 

I think the firefighters do a fine job. They are a crucial component of a civilized society, a real safety net for the public, they are well trained and so on and so forth. I go along with all of that, as any fair person would.

 

But is the strike simply because their shift pattern is changing - slightly? Do they still have the same total amount of hours and they still work four days on and four days off? And the only change is the day/night shifts are now both 12 hours instead of 9 and 15?

 

Is that all this is?

 

If so, I don't know what the fuss is all about, unless, of course, I'm missing some crucial information.

 

 

(Now, if it were a big change like four days on, two days off, or something of that nature, then by all means, do everytihing in your power to fight it. But try as I might, I'm really not seeing the big deal here).

[bossy]

Rev would you be happy with your Sunday shift being changed to a Saturday? Without you having any say about it of course. Having to change child care arrangements, when god said to rest etc?

[Stu Monty]

Well please help me then.

 

I think the firefighters do a fine job. They are a crucial component of a civilized society, a real safety net for the public, they are well trained and so on and so forth. I go along with all of that, as any fair person would.

 

But is the strike simply because their shift pattern is changing - slightly? Do they still have the same total amount of hours and they still work four days on and four days off? And the only change is the day/night shifts are now both 12 hours instead of 9 and 15?

 

Is that all this is?

 

If so, I don't know what the fuss is all about, unless, of course, I'm missing some crucial information.

 

 

(Now, if it were a big change like four days on, two days off, or something of that nature, then by all means, do everytihing in your power to fight it. But try as I might, I'm really not seeing the big deal here).

 

It isn't just that though is it. It's that one side of the table have said: "Do X or we'll sack the lot of you". When do you take a stand and how long do you allow management to play on the fact that striking is pretty much always a PR disaster for you?

[TommyW]

for me, the shift changes make sense as they will be moving resource to when the majority of call outs take place i.e. during the day but to be threatened with the sack if you dont sign up is almost barbaric

[Rafa's Peggy's]

Just for clarity, the reason for the strike is because the firefighters have been threatened with the sack if they don't agree to the new hours, not because of the actual proposals themselves. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority have refused to remove the notices, even though the union have said they will call off the strike if this was the case.

[dennis tooth]

Round here you can't go out the door some days for earthquakes. It's the price y'pay for living on the Morecambe Bay fault line. I remember the great quake of 1937, some old bird lost 2 china cups, and her dog fell over. Terrifying, it was.

 

(........events you never imagined could happen.)

[Guest TesticleOReilly]

Lunatic.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

absolutely support the FBU's stance on this. It's completely disgraceful for an employer to attempt to bully their workforce like this and it's even worst that it's firemen that it is happening to.

 

Why should employees just roll over and accept a variation in their contract of employment they are not happy with? Would an employer accept it if an employee attempted to change their own contract without agreement?

 

More and more, employers are bullying workers in all professions into detrimental working hours, pay, pensions and policies. When workers have the audacity to challenge this using their completely legal right to withdraw labour, they are ostracised by the mainstream media, who consistently fail to give a balanced view of the relevant dispute.

 

The cards are stacked more and more in favour of employers. Years ago, people would have been absolutely furious over the way the firemen are being treated, but now all some people can do is criticise the firemen themselves for the date they picked.

 

I can never understand the mentality of people who criticise working men and woman who are protecting their rights and working conditions against bullying tactics from employers. What is your philosophy and vision for how workers should behave? What do you do when employers refuse to negotiate and/or consult on issues effecting your working environment and personal life?

[She Knows It]

Actually, all I've seen from you is "I got fucked, so fuck everybody else".

 

That is a Daily Mail reader in microcosm.

 

Funny that, because I never said that once. I mentioned what happened at my old place of work after I left there. I didn't "get fucked", and not once have I said I was.

 

Some people just want any excuse to complain. My point was that if you work 15 hour nights, and they are busier than a day shift, you'd think that you'd be glad for them to be made 3 hours shorter, instead of bitching for bitchings sake. It's like striking for being given a payrise.

[Stu Monty]

You're missing the point. It's about the principle of them being threatened with the sack other than allowing negotiation.

[She Knows It]

I see it like this: If you're an employer, you want someone to do a job for you so you take someone on and they are paid to perform a role as the employer sees fit, after all he is the one paying for the service. If there is a reasonable change (which I believe was the case in this instance), the employer has the right to decide that he wants things done differently. The employee also has the right to agree or disagree. If they disagree and refuse to do the job they're paid to do they also have the right to leave that employment and let the employer find another person who is willing to do the job.

 

In cases where people are expected to work for less money, or are given loads more duties, or expected to work in unsafe conditions then there should be laws to protect against that.

 

I'm all for workers having the right to withdraw labour, but it's going to get to the stage where they're walking out because there aren't enough clean forks in the canteen, and if we don't all act like Arthur Scargill's best mate over it we're called fascists.

[bossy]

You're not being called a fascist you are however sounding like a daily Mail columnist.

[She Knows It]

You're not being called a fascist you are however sounding like a daily Mail columnist.

 

I suppose that's just slightly preferable to sounding like Derek Hatton.

[Stu Monty]

I see it like this: If you're an employer, you want someone to do a job for you so you take someone on and they are paid to perform a role as the employer sees fit, after all he is the one paying for the service. If there is a reasonable change (which I believe was the case in this instance), the employer has the right to decide that he wants things done differently. The employee also has the right to agree or disagree. If they disagree and refuse to do the job they're paid to do they also have the right to leave that employment and let the employer find another person who is willing to do the job.

 

In cases where people are expected to work for less money, or are given loads more duties, or expected to work in unsafe conditions then there should be laws to protect against that.

 

I'm all for workers having the right to withdraw labour, but it's going to get to the stage where they're walking out because there aren't enough clean forks in the canteen, and if we don't all act like Arthur Scargill's best mate over it we're called fascists.

 

No, they are threatening to withdraw labour because the attitude of the employer is "Sign this or we'll sack you all". It wouldn't be being threatened if they hadn't threatened to sack everyone. They've even said that they don't want to strike and won't if the threat of the sack is wound in.

[bossy]

I suppose that's just slightly preferable to sounding like Derek Hatton.

 

Very Daily Mail of you....

 

Here's a statement from the FBU

 

To all London FBU Members

 

Decide for yourself who is responsible for this dispute

 

It has now been five years since the Brigade first raised the issue of revised start/finish times when they outlined their case for equalization of hours. Whilst the FBU engaged in a meaningful way by expressing concern over the real reasons for change, the brigade response was “no change is not acceptable”, such a response would inevitably cause anger and frustration from those who worked the current shift system and from those of us who are expected to take part in the talks on a meaningful basis.

 

The FBU’s response had to be the opposite “change is not acceptable” this was the only way to have a level playing field, especially when LFEPA set such pre-conditions on informal talks. Those same talks were held on a very much adhoc basis with sometimes days of talks and then nothing for months, in fact it was not until June of 2010 that the talks were confirmed to be formal, again the agenda was set by the brigade and again it focused only on the pre-condition previously set by LFEPA i.e “no change is not acceptable” throughout the informal talks no alternative systems were discussed with any merit and it therefore comes as no surprise that when talks became formal in June of this year the agenda was again set on delivering 12hr shifts.

 

The FBU had not revealed that they were in receipt of the corporate management document of 12th November 2008 which outlined significant changes including reductions in night time cover and crewing levels amongst others, yet the FBU sought on several occasions to confirm that such reductions were not part of the brigades agenda for change and each time the brigade said “we have no plans to make such reductions” yet all the while the FBU has been in receipt of the document which has now become known as the “leaked or secret document”.

 

The same document refers to outsourcing training, alternative crewing, removing partial absence, increasing the numbers of appliances on SR, to name but a few, all of which have now either been implemented or are planned to be implemented via LSP4. The reduction of crewing levels and the reductions in night time cover are proposed in the document to be implemented 9mths after the conclusion of the talks on shifts.

 

We therefore ask you to make your own decision on who is misleading you and the public (see attached leaked document)? The brigade have not said that such reductions will be part of the current 12hr proposal, yet one of their primary objectives as outlined in their proposal states “to have differing numbers of staff on both the day and night shift” such a proposal is a key objective that opens the door for the content of the leaked document on reducing night time cover and crewing levels to be realised.

 

It for these reasons that the FBU are not convinced by the brigades arguments for increased productivity, that same argument was defeated by the FBU when we asked “ if we could deliver double the productivity of every firefighter on the current shift pattern, would that facilitate the continuance of the 9/15 system?” the brigades response was “NO”. Again we ask would you be convinced by their arguments for change.

 

The Brigade now lays claim to offering a compromise of 11/13, and you have all seen that proposal which includes detrimental changes/strings attached, we would ask you now to re-look at the that proposal and compare the detrimental changes/strings with the recommendations contained in the leaked document, we feel sure that you will reach the same conclusion as the FBU negotiators and London Regional Committee, that they look identical, with the only thing missing is the reduction in night time cover and crewing levels, which will come later if agreed.

 

It should also be noted, that the so called compromise never materialised until the FBU commenced the ballot for action short of strike, as a direct result of the brigades commencement of the legal process to carryout mass sacking if new imposed contracts were not accepted by staff.

 

The FBU did not let the above reasons prevent us from engaging in meaningful dialogue, we have tabled the 8/16 proposal which also offered increased productivity, but we knew that the brigade would not give such a proposal serious consideration because it maintained constant crewing and made it just as difficult for the brigade to reduce night time cover and crewing levels as the current system. We have now proposed a 24hr business case and we believe that such a proposal could deliver a collective agreement if the brigade is minded to reach such an agreement.

 

The brigade now has the opportunity to commit to such a proposal as a means to reach a collective agreement, the FBU has committed to reaching a negotiated settlement not based upon dictate but based upon joint partnership working to deliver an agreement that will bring a conclusion to the start/finish time debate.

 

If the brigade are minded to accept partnership working, in order to deliver a collective agreement based upon a variant of a 24hr working pattern acceptable to both FBU members and LFEPA, then they should accept our commitment to reach agreement and lift the threat of mass sackings before we embark upon strike action that no one wants, leased of all the FBU and its members.

 

Just like the Commissioner we have carried out membership briefings through our mass and branch meetings, throughout which we have said that if the brigade lifted the threat of sect 188 we would lift the ballot and we must stand by that commitment along with the commitment to reach a collective agreement reached by negotiation and not dictate.

 

This dispute only became a reality following the Commissioners and LFEPA’s decision to commence the legal process of dismissal/reengagement of new contracts, thereby ripping up nationally agreed contracts. The Commissioner and LFEPA accuse the FBU of unnecessary industrial action, but we would remind you we never balloted for action short of strike until they commenced the sect 188 process on 11th Aug 2010, we never commenced the ballot process for strike action until the brigade threatened members with discipline for wearing stickers against bullying and the brigade also issued new un-agreed contracts to our crew/watch managers who were promoted after the 11th Aug 2010.

 

The brigade again provoked the FBU and its members when they removed 27 appliances from service before the strike ballot was made known, and then when we announced dates in response the brigade sent out threatening letters of mass pay reductions for taking part in lawful balloted action, pay cuts made against non-negotiated and agreed policy documents which compel members to carryout compulsory overtime as well as compelling members to responsibilities that compromise standard operating procedures and health and safety.

 

A further provocation is that of demanding that unless crew manager starred members sign statements committing them to compulsory acting up they to will be subjected to a 20% pay deduction, a provocation that the brigade already knows is the subject of legal challenge.

 

Against such a background of provocation and a complete refusal to lift the sect 188 process, is it any wonder that many members have demanded that we now escalate the industrial action further in response to such threats and unlawful pay stoppages.

 

The FBU action short of strike was based upon a work to rule in accordance of agreed contracts safe in the knowledge that such action should not be the subject of such threats of unlawful pay deductions, but now the FBU cannot carry on with that action knowing that our members could be subject to pay deductions amounting to as much as 60%, it for that reason that we will now be considering the need to escalate the industrial action including if necessary strike action.

 

It certainly was not our intention to consider the escalation of strike action at this time but we believe that the Commissioner has left us with no alternative given his provocation of late.

 

With the 26th November looming, this is not a fight we sought, but this is a fight that we cannot simply ignore, if we ignore this fight then firefighter and public safety will be put at risk and we owe to ourselves and the public not to compromise on such safety.

[She Knows It]

No, they are threatening to withdraw labour because the attitude of the employer is "Sign this or we'll sack you all". It wouldn't be being threatened if they hadn't threatened to sack everyone. They've even said that they don't want to strike and won't if the threat of the sack is wound in.

 

So you're telling me there have been no internal negotiations up to that point where the union was brought in? Or that there were talks about it, but they didn't go in the firefighters' favour so then they went to the union? They can negotiate till the cows come home, but if ultimately LFB want their staff to work certain shifts, and they're the ones paying for it, then they call the shots. It's all speculation anyway as nobody seems to have provided any kind of reasoning behind anything other than the Fire Brigade saying they want to change a shift pattern and the workers saying they won't be dictated to. There must be more to it than that.

[Rafa's Peggy's]

I see it like this: If you're an employer, you want someone to do a job for you so you take someone on and they are paid to perform a role as the employer sees fit, after all he is the one paying for the service. If there is a reasonable change (which I believe was the case in this instance), the employer has the right to decide that he wants things done differently. The employee also has the right to agree or disagree. If they disagree and refuse to do the job they're paid to do they also have the right to leave that employment and let the employer find another person who is willing to do the job.

 

In cases where people are expected to work for less money, or are given loads more duties, or expected to work in unsafe conditions then there should be laws to protect against that.

 

I'm all for workers having the right to withdraw labour, but it's going to get to the stage where they're walking out because there aren't enough clean forks in the canteen, and if we don't all act like Arthur Scargill's best mate over it we're called fascists.

 

So basically your attitude is if workers don't like what their employer are trying to do, they can find another job. Where does that leave people who have donated 10, 20, 30 years of their lives working hard for an employer and making them successful? Do you not believe that workers are owed the dignity and respect of having their T+C's negotiated with them without the fear of losing their jobs and chosen career path?

 

Your last statement about walking out because 'there are no clean forks in the canteen' is nonsense. The reality is that workers very rarely strike these days, although industrial action will become more and more common as more employers show the same attitude that the

London Fire and Emergency Authority are showing here.

 

These men and women risk their lives on a regular basis for the likes of me and you. The councillors and bosses who are causing this dispute don't and most of them probably have no experience of what it's like to be a firefighter. I know who's side I'm on.

 

I'm not criticising you for not being 'Arthur Scargills best mate'. I am questioning your philosophy that workers should accept bullying behaviour from employers simply because they pay the wages. It's misguided and if you followed this philosophy to the end, workers in this country would end up with no rights at all.

[bossy]

The employer wants to change employment practices without negotiation, if the employee says ok but only with prior negotiation they get sacked.

To me (of course I'm a Hatton/Scargill commie clone) that seems rather unreasonable.

To you though, whoever is in charge of the pay packet can do what they like.

[She Knows It]

The employer wants to change employment practices without negotiation, if the employee says ok but only with prior negotiation they get sacked.

To me (of course I'm a Hatton/Scargill commie clone) that seems rather unreasonable.

To you though, whoever is in charge of the pay packet can do what they like.

 

I can't believe there's been no negotiation on the subject at all, but that aside the way I see it is that an employer is buying a service from an employee, ie labour. If a person decides that the service they are buying is no longer to their requirements, they can tell the person they're buying it from that they want a slightly different service. So what happens when the person they're buying from refuses to change the service they have been providing? Should a buyer be forced to continue paying for something which is no use to them, just because they've always bought it? Or should they have the right to buy from somebody else who will sell them what they need?

[Dirk]

I'm all for workers having the right to withdraw labour, but it's going to get to the stage where they're walking out because there aren't enough clean forks in the canteen, and if we don't all act like Arthur Scargill's best mate over it we're called fascists.

 

You do seem like an envious, hyperbolic, Daily Mailesque columnist on this thread, to be fair to Migs and Stu, Liz. Section does too.

[dennis tooth]

I can't believe there's been no negotiation on the subject at all, but that aside the way I see it is that an employer is buying a service from an employee, ie labour. If a person decides that the service they are buying is no longer to their requirements, they can tell the person they're buying it from that they want a slightly different service. So what happens when the person they're buying from refuses to change the service they have been providing? Should a buyer be forced to continue paying for something which is no use to them, just because they've always bought it? Or should they have the right to buy from somebody else who will sell them what they need?

 

You stupid idiot mong. Your employer wants 'certain' favours from you during your lunch break. Get on with it please you silly woman. I hope your employers continue to expliot you and your children suffer for it and you lose your job altogether and can't look them in the eye.

Never mind read the DM you should have your own column in it-titled colonic irrigated passages from your arse!

 

The suffragettes should have stayed at home and worked on their ironing skillz and I'm sure they would have if they'd have foreseen you are about as insightful as a peice of semi skimmed foreskin trimming.

[She Knows It]

You do seem like an envious, hyperbolic, Daily Mailesque columnist on this thread, to be fair to Migs and Stu, Liz. Section does too.

 

And what exactly am I envious of Dave?