Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[DJKillaQueen]

Ive seen the effect this is having on ffs and i do not believe they deserve to be treated this way.

But what effect? A shift change......jeez.....get in the real world. Do Police Officers moan when they have shifts that change from week to week, or nurses, or doctors, and so on?

There is only ONE reason why ffs bermoan the cutting of the 15 night-time shift to 12 hours.....because they won't be able to get any sleep probably, meaning those with second jobs will feel a little more tired than usual. When I have down time at work I read a book. I don't sleep.

The salary is good enough and there shouldn't be any problem for any ff to work 12 hours shifts.....millions of other workers manage it.

They should just accept the new contracts and get on with it.

[Kbabe01]

Do you believe the fire service does not deliver? They are trying to serve US! They don't want night cover contracted out to assetco.

They are not moaning about having to work 12 hour shifts. The effects I speak of are because of this 188.

Do you think cutting a night shift by 3 hours will stop sleeping? Stand down is from midnight until about 6 I think so that won't change much will it?

My dad had 3 jobs when I was a kid to keep us afloat. Was he wrong? LFB give permission for Ffs to work second jobs and that will not change.

[frierntastic]

DJKQ, Huguenot,

Why do you think your statistics play any part in this issue? Surely instead of data, facts and actual proof that the FF are talking nonsense you could just have bleated on about 'da management' and uttered a few anecdotes? Perhaps you could have frequently blurred the reason for your position, and hoped that no one would notice your desperate self-interest, selfishness and fear tactics.

Awful use of cold, hard reasoning to win an argument. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

:))

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL....friern I yield to the reprimand I so blatently deserve lol.

[Keef]

they put themselves first and don't give a toss if anyone dies on Nov 5th

Yeah, great example of cold, hard reasoning there, and not a sniff of fear tactics.

[DJKillaQueen]

I wouldn't be suprised though if they call it of at the last minute.

[Keef]

Personally, I can see both sides of this argument, but what shocks me here is the apparent ill feeling towards public sector workers!

Just for the record, most public sector workers probably didn't make their career choices because they thought it would be nice and easy, and they'd get a nice pension payed for by those mugs in the private sector.

[DJKillaQueen]

That can be said for many people when choosing the job/ career they choose, both private and public sector - but once in the system some public sector workers think they are hard done by and deserve more and more (usually egged on by outdated union thinking). It's a bubble. It's also true that many public sector jobs involve excessive workloads, impossible budgets and understaffing but that's also true for much of the private sector too.

People would have more sympathy if public sector workers avoided the nonsense that ?35K is a poor salary, or that working more than 40 per week hours is somehow unacceptable. Public spending is not a bottomless pit.

Public Sector workers are also in a position where if they strike their employer won't go bankrupt. The same is not true for the small business employing a handful of people. People in the Private Sector have to work harder to keep themselves employed. Have you ever seen what it takes to sack anyone in the public sector? Which is why fixed term contracts will become increasingly used in the Public Sector.

[Mick Mac]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally, I can see both sides of this argument,

> but what shocks me here is the apparent ill

> feeling towards public sector workers!

>

> Just for the record, most public sector workers

> probably didn't make their career choices because

> they thought it would be nice and easy, and they'd

> get a nice pension payed for by those mugs in the

> private sector.

The public sector is for everyone but likewise its a drain on everyones finances to the extent that it is too big for purpose. Which is where we are now. A leaner public sector and the costs that go with it are acceptable to most people.

As for pensions - this rightly gets peoples backs up as a huge proportion of what we pay in taxes will be needed to deal with the public sector pensions.

The disparity bewtween public sector and private sector pensions is already huge, and private sector workers dont see why their public sector equivalents get a pension which would be completely unaffordable if they were to have to fund this themselves (as private sector employees do).

I don't think people need 2/3 of their final salary indexed linked as a pension. Its far too generous. When you are constantly asked to pay more and more in taxes it does get your back up - yes.

The public sector pensions needs a compelte new approach. In the interest of "fairness", the current buzzword.

[DJKillaQueen]

Spot on Mac...

[Keef]

Basically agree with what you're saying Mick, it may not be fair. However, if people have entered in to a contract, and then it is torn up, they have a right to be p!ssed about it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Plus, what kind of management team goes in with an ultimatum. A not very good one

I think the firefighters can be reasoned with but this management team don't sound up to it

[Huguenot]

I appreciate the flip-flopping chaps but this contract was drawn up decades ago when the world was a different place and the insight into workplace consequences wasn't well known.

The world is a different place and the TUC rule 188 was drawn up with the full agreement with the unions with this in mind.

The firefighters' intransigence is a reflection of an unwillingness to accept that the world turns, demands are different, insight is better, and that it's clearly in the best interests of the firefighting demands of both the firefighters and the public.

It makes me wonder whether you're being sucked into politics as well?

[Huguenot]

I appreciate that the management don't seem to have dealt with it well. Doesn't make it wrong though.

Where's the ED team when they need a resolution?

Mind you, judging by the militancy of some postings I doubt that any intelligent management was ever going to succeed?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I think you are projecting things onto the FFs that aren't there h. I know it appears that way from media reports but i think they do understand the changing world and are willing to sit down and negotiate a path. This management team are the only impediment to that from what i can see. Even you agree they have handled it badly. Being ultimately correct doesn't mean you can avoid the path itself. Going in with an ultimatum is their fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. If any union didn't stand their ground on that basis alone what would be the point of them? (and yes i know, I know...)

[Huguenot]

But this seems to have been a process ongoing for several years?

Is this really a surprise ultimatum or a demonstration of exasperation?

[SeanMacGabhann]

There hasn't been 5 years of negotiation at all. The idea has been mooted a coup,e of times but never addresSed

So when people began to thrash it out properly, or expected to, instead of a negotiating point it was just bam! Fait accompli

[DJKillaQueen]

So why do the LFB say negotiations have been ongoing for five years then?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Errr... Because it suits their agenda?

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not even saying its a bad thing, but weighing up both sides and reading between the lines and looking at the detail... Its not black and white

[Huguenot]

Well I hate to say it, but the logic for changing shifts seems as obvious as can possibly be.

I've heard the logic, as I described earlier, as clear as day for changing the shifts. But heard nothing so logical in response?

[Mick Mac]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Basically agree with what you're saying Mick, it

> may not be fair. However, if people have entered

> in to a contract, and then it is torn up, they

> have a right to be p!ssed about it.

Yes I agree - but in the private sector your contract would not be amended, you would more likely just be made redundant.

[Huguenot]

If you missed it before, here it is....

a list of the reasons given for the change of shifts.

It recognises that the world had changed since the original shift periods were laid out, and more insight is available.

Here's a few of the points regarding the changing world:

- There are 48% fewer fires in London than there were ten years ago, attributed to better fire prevention education

- Retail hours have changed from 9am - 5pm to an average of 8am to 8pm.

- Shift changes are not now corresponding with demands upon the service.

They LFB are now wiser to the effects of the current shift pattern:

- Fire fighter fatigue from long shifts results in 'slowed reactions, poor judgement, reduced cognitive processing of information, and an inability to continue performing a task, or carry it out to a sustained high level of accuracy or safety

- The HSE states that it is law that the employer takes these findings into accout when planning shift patterns irrespective of the employees desires

- For the first 8/9 hours in a shift the risk of accident in firefighting is flat, but after 12 hours the risk doubles

- 58% of calls happen during the nightshift, when the long hours and fatigue massively increase the risk of error. This needs to be corrrected.

- The current working time directive recognises that when workers spend 18 hours awake (as they are forced to do frequently during the current shift patterns) the effect on risk is as high as that of a drunk driver.

- The sleep deprivation created by the current shift patterns have a long term effect on firefighter health, particularly with obesity and digestive disorders.

- The LFB is under a legal obligation to apply information it has to decrease risk and increase effectiveness in the workplace, to fail to do so would open them up to the kind of class action experienced by tobacco companies

- The new patterns offer 7 hours more productive time to each firefighter per 4 shift period, increasing the efficiency of the brigade

- The new patterns offer increased family time (i.e. when children will be awake) to firefighters from 11 hours per shift to 13 hours per shift

- It enables staff to equably 'swap shifts' without offering unfair day/night exchanges

In other words the proposed shifts are a closer match to modern society, offer less risk to firefighters, offer a safer community, offer more productive time per shift, offer more family time to firefighters, and make a positive contribution to their long term health.

They're just better.

The Union don't care that they're better, because they've sold firefighters up the river on this campaign based on politics.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Regardless of the sound (or otherwise) logic for changing shift patterns... If someone says sign this or you are sacked, I'm going to take umbrage. If the union is strong enough to stand up against that mentality then good. The fact that the rest of us don't have similar security makes it sound like the politics of envy when people complain about the firefighters

Genuinely and honestly i think new shift patterns could be implemented without fuss with a better management team. And people who care about any service should worry that such incompetents have fumbled do badly (I've already posted my thoughts on why the ffs shouldn't strike anyway, but this is the other part of my thoughts)

[DJKillaQueen]

Here is a document that confirms that proposals on shift patterns were presented to the Union 16 months ago (2/6/09). It also confirms that reports on other related matters were submitted to the union since 2006 (and that is where I think the LFB are starting from in their five year claims). The FFU are also misleading with their claims that they've only had since August to negotiate, which is in fact the date at which the LFB got fed up of waiting for an agreement with the union and issued the forced contract change edict. So now we know the truth.

Document here.

The unions have had at least 16 months to negotiate on shift patterns and longer for the rest. Plenty of time imo.....and exasperation is exactly the reason as far as I can see for managements decision to terminate old contracts and introduce new ones, all done perfectly within the law.