Please read and support your firefighters!!!!

[SeanMacGabhann]

You can keep posting it and I will keep agreeing with much of what it proposes. That isn't the same thing as being involved and knowing all of the details. And as i say when its presented as an ultimatum, it is wise to take a pause and think whats the catch. But you cant figure out the catch if you have a gun to your head

[DJKillaQueen]

They have had plenty of time to negotiate Sean....enough is enough sometimes......should every management have to wait forever for permission from unions on how to manage their services? The proposed cahnges are perfectly sensible, and will result in no loss of anything to ffs themselves.....just diferent start and finish times each day......it's no big deal.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Yeah dj. Before the current dispute i rememberr you coming on here all the time pleading with everyone about the firefighters and how much could be saved and how unreasonable they were being

Im suggesting it was no big deal to any of us. It still isn't. We are adopting positions as "tax payers" without being involved ourselves. The letter you link to mentions one report from 2006. That could have contained many other points and issues. I'll say it again, a decent management team could implement reasonable proposals easily. This lot can't. It seems obvious to me there're is more to it than meets the eye

[DJKillaQueen]

No answer the point...has the union had more than enough time to negotiate...yes or no?

There isn't anything more to it than thas been listed in the public domain. The FFU don't want to get rid of their night-time 15 hour shift....that's all there is to it...well tough...because the changes will come no matter how far they jump up and down and no matter how much they choose to alienate the public in doing so.

In fact the more I can source the more clear their intrasigence becomes and the more ridiculous the FFU argument looks.

[DJKillaQueen]

And just to add the London Commissioner did offer an 11/13 hour split as a compromise but the Unions said no to that too.....it's all about the 15 shift.

Both South and West Yorksire accepted an 11/13 hour shift change in 2009 by the way with no extra risk to public witnessed as claimed by those supporting the strikes.

[Keef]

What Sean said, in his last 5 or 6 posts.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'll ask you the same Keef...is 16 months enough time to negotiate?

Why didn't the Union accept the 11/13 compromise, accepted by other brigades in other parts of the country, and resulting in no adverse affect to the service?

[Huguenot]

I see no real distinction at the moment between the thoughts of DJKQ and mine.

It's reasonable and well thought through.

[DJKillaQueen]

Now that I'm looking at the process and results of shift changes in other cities H, it becomes even clearer than the FFU opposition and the claims they make are unfounded (and worse still they know that).

In West Yorkshire staff were offered a vote on returning to 10/14 patterns after a settling in period and decided they preferred the new shift patterns. Productivity has gone up and there are no shortfalls in recruitment or any other aspect of the service. Increased productivity is good value for the tax payer and the crucial thing is that in that area the Union did a very good job of negotiation and co-operation which is why they secured an after vote.

LFB has talked with those other Fire Services during all the time of shaping it's proposals....learning from their experience (which is why the 11/13 compromise was offered). The proposals for a better more productive and efficient service are based on evidence that shows where improvements will come from.

The question is, why in spite of all that the FFU in London can't bring itself to comporise an inch.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Deregulation of buses was pushed through throughout the country, apart from London

London has a significantly better bus service

Just saying, the rest of the country "accepting" something doesn't make it right

[Keef]

I'll ask you the same Keef...is 16 months enough time to negotiate?

Having not been in a single meeting, I have no idea.

[Kbabe01]

If im not mistaken Yorkshire were set to go on an 8 day strike regarding shift changes to 12/12. The union called for national arbitration and the fire authority agreed. The union negotiated 11/13 shifts, and the ffs voted to sign new contract of 11/13 with new benefits. The fbu in London would have agreed to the same but the lfb attached "strings" to the new contracts. This wouldnt be in what you copied from the lfb website though.

Formal negotiations regarding shift change times only began in June 2010, just 4 months ago!

[DJKillaQueen]

Well Keef the Union had 16 months to come to agreement before the consultation.

Sean my father was a driver and Shop Steward through that deregulation process in the 80's. London has a cheaper service (through subsidy) but not necessarily better one than other cities. You won't for example see Liverpools rail and bus services going on strike repeatedly or closing lines/ routes every other weekend for this and that, or breaking down every five minutes.

Also, where other fire services in metroplitian cities have already implemented changes to shift patterns (one of which was turned down by he LFBU) there has been improvement in productivity and no downgrade or loss of service. So comparison to bus deregulation (which is not what is being proposed for the fire service btw) is a poor analogy not born out in evidence.

Again, how do you explain the changes the LFB are proposing working perfectly well in other cities, with no loss of jobs, increased productivity and better value to tax payers?

[DJKillaQueen]

I didn't copy anything Kbabe...would you like to list the unwelcome strings attached to the LFC's offer of the 11/13 split? So that you actually back up your claim with some evidence? Because to be honest there's been more thsan enough claims and no data/ evidence provided by those supporting the strikes on this thread already.

[DJKillaQueen]

Oh and in those disputes the same old nonsense about public risk was spouted and lo and behold...now the shift changes are in place...productivity has gone up and no reduction in service or increased risk to the public.

Kind of proves the point...the union have been consistently wrong in disputes in their claims on risk.

The union line is so predictable it's laughable.

[SeanMacGabhann]

No but you will wait for a lot longer for a worse bus with a worse paid driver, for a lot higher fare. Not sure how that is progress

If the other cities firefighters are sooo happy I wonder what the deal is with London. I know what you have said but it still doesn't stack up. It could be because London is a completely different city to anywhere else, vastly bigger in size and commuting distance for one

You know what tho. I no longer care. You stand to gain nothing out of these changes, literally nothing but you are acting like some kind of rabid consultant personally responsible. I'll say one last time, I'm not completely on either side, but as im not part of the process and only have access to whatever snippets get chucked into the public domain without context I'm not going to jump onboard the bandwagon of anti fighters

[DJKillaQueen]

Actually the buses in Liverpool are newer and cleaner than those in London. And the weekly/ daily travelcards are the same price as those in London. What Liverpool doesn't have is an oyster card equivalent so single journey prices are comparitively higher. And a lower wage goes further in Liverpool than a higher wage in London :)

I don't know either exactly why the Unions are being so stubborn in London. And London isn't that different to most industrial cities. All cities have the level of fire fighters and stations they require. The LFB are not trying to close stations or reduce the number of ffs here. It's simply a change to make the way the Fire Service works more efficient. It's worked elsewhere.

I'm not going to jump onboard the bandwagon of anti fighters

It's only a debate - some you win, and some you lose... :)

[Keef]

But you seem to want to fight a cause in every single "debate". It's not only a debate to those involved.

[legalbeagle]

Thanks to Keef and Sean for saving me from losing my rag.

Agree with you both. Signing off now for fear that I get cross again.

[Kbabe01]

The LFB are not trying to close stations or reduce the number of ffs here. It's simply a change to make the way the Fire Service works more efficient. It's worked elsewhere.

The LFB are thinking of closing stations and reduce ffs. I quote from a document written by the LFB

Points to consider

1. Reduce the crewing level to 4. The appliance could continue to operate at 5 but would not attract a standby if reduced to 4.

2. Reduce the crewing level to 4. Reduce the establishment to 6. Loss of either a CM or FF post.

3. Produce a nighttime schedule for the removal of 10 appliances. Staff on this system would spend both nights conditioned to day duties. (There will be a slightly increased impact on attendance targets)

4. Produce a schedule for the removal of 10 appliances on a fixed basis. Then provide appliance standbys to those locations.

Those are just a few!

I didn't copy anything Kbabe...would you like to list the unwelcome strings attached to the LFC's offer of the 11/13 split? So that you actually back up your claim with some evidence? Because to be honest there's been more thsan enough claims and no data/ evidence provided by those supporting the strikes on this thread already.

Sorry just your post and the LFB website are nearly word for word?? My mistake (tu)

Below is part of the memo sent out:

At this morning's meeting, the brigade made another slightly amended offer to the FBU. The offer did not seek to change the brigade's longstanding position of either a 12/12 of 11/13 shift pattern. The so-called "incentives" included a mere ?5 increase in the allowance for direct stand-bys; a withdrawal of the proposal to scrap the reimbursement of medical, dental and optical charges (which, in any case, is hardly a concession, as members who qualify for such payments are entitled to them under the Grey Book); a withdrawal of the proposal to scrap the allowance paid to mess managers; agreement that firefighters may stay at stations ? but only where they are "significantly delayed" beyond the end of shift; and some revised arrangements around leave and mutual exchanges.

In addition, the brigade did not move its position that all remaining uniformed non-operational personnel must either leave the Grey Book* or be sacked.

*National Joint Council For Local Authorities' Fire and Rescue Services, Scheme of conditions of service

The Grey book covers the national pay and conditions for operational and control staff of local authority fire and rescue services

[Marmora Man]

Posts in this thread have been of three kinds:

1. Posts that have, on the whole attempted to be rational and objective - refraining from slagging off other points of view but setting out their support for the management case.

2. Posts that raise the temperature by resorting to emotional blackmail - "firefighters put their lives on the line every time they don their uniform" or "firefighters are lazy, two job, public sector workers living off the taxes of the private sector"

3. Posts that seem to want to follow the rational / objective argument but feel that "solidarity" demands they support the workers against the management.

For what it's worth my take hasn't changed since my first post when I asked for clarity on the firefighters case. Moflo put up the thread asking us to support our firefighters, but made no rational case for her request or for the strike.

A casual, and subsequent more in depth, review of the cases put by management and unions made her request, for me, illogical.

Management must manage, and be allowed to manage. It has a job to do - balancing resources against need. In today's financial climate with all public sector funding under strain they would be derelict if they did not take measures to improve productivity and reduce, wherever possible, costs while still maintaining the service. For the most part management in UK is as hard pressed, stressed yet also as desirous of doing the right thing as any shop floor worker. In the Fire Brigade the management has the huge advantage of having all been selected from the shop floor - they know what goes on, tho' I could be persuaded that the LFB has not invested enough in giving all its management the range of management skills necessary as they move from the shop floor.

For those that argue that management has failed to manage properly - I ask what they would have done differently? 16 months ago the initial proposals to change the shift patterns were put to the union formally - tho' they have been "in play" for much longer than that. Repeated attempts to discuss and agree on change have been stonewalled by the union. Two months ago the management invoked Section 188, not because they wanted the union to call a strike but because they wanted the union to make some decision. Perhaps management could have given notice that they would give notice of S188 - which would have given the union slightly longer to contemplate their response(s) - but once that stance has been taken management must follow through with the S188.

I support the management for all the reasons that have been posted in support of the management case (including Hugenot's excellent, twice reprinted, summary) I consider the FBU to be intransigent, not one rational reason has been made by the FBU, the strikers or their supporters in defence of the status quo - except that it is the status quo and that firefighters are "good people".

I do not challenge the latter statement - but being good people is not sufficient reason to condone costly, inefficient practices that arguably also damage health and do little to support family life. Defence of the status quo is usually considered reactionary and regressive - words that many EDF readers would automatically recoil from - but, strangely, some don't in this case.

I now bow out of this debate again - predicting that the FBU will do a "Scargill" and lead their "good people" into the wilderness and that within 12 months time, and probably sooner, the London Fire Brigade will be working to a 12 / 12 / 12 / 12 shift pattern.

[legalbeagle]

I think it is inevitable that LFB will be working that shift pattern in less than a year. There have, indeed, been many persuasive arguments put forward as to why they should. The trouble is that they are not truthful arguments, or rather, they are not the whole picture.

A while back the West Midlands Fire Service went through exactly this process, and the inevitable change in shift patterns occured. They are, as we speak, now going through phase 2 of changes, which is to reduce fire cover during the nights in the West Midlands. This is the real point of changing the night shift pattern. This is what the firefighters in West Midlands feared at the time the shift patterns were changed, and they have been proved right. What was billed as an improvement in efficiency was actually a cost cutting exercise that, in their view, puts the public at risk.

I have no issue with cutting costs and reducing fire cover at night per se. If as a population we wish to save money in this way, so be it. I would, however, prefer to see that done in an honest and open way. If the desire is to cut fire cover at night, as has happened elsewhere in the country, then management should just say so, and we can have a proper debate about it. I have an issue with it being done covertly, in the guise of improving efficiency, whilst painting the firefighters as greedy, lazy, and in pursuit of self preservation. They are, in fact, worried about public safety.

Forget the rhetoric of unions and management and just decide whether you really want a reduced night time fire cover, because that IS what will happen shortly after the shift system is changed. That is what has happened elsewhere, and it is now coming to London. If you don't mind, as you were. If you do mind, support the firefighters.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Have i missed some numbers then?

How much, in the current financial climate, will management be saving?

[legalbeagle]

By reducing fire cover at night you mean? I don't know the number - but I can try to find out from West Midlands Fire Service if you are interested.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I mean for the proposed london changes. Just so we know how much better off the public purse might be

Marmots man. Your question about what should management have done is impossible to answer as none of us are involved. But just as I maintain the fighters shouldn't strike i maintain the management shouldn't have ultimatumed. If you ballot your staff and 97% say no to something (an something that looks to be reasonable to outsiders like us) then there must be a better way. I am pretty amazed how something which interested nobody weeks ago has seen so many people come out against the firefighters tho

I'm not for preseving status quo for it's own sake and I see sense in looking to revise practices. But nor do I support picking a fight for it's own sake, to bully staff under the guise of the current financial climate. This union has without striking, reduced staff numbers by the thousands. They don't sound Luddite to me. Not so far anyway. That doesn't make them angels or progressives and I'm not completely convinced by them either. But in this instance I'm surprised by the vehemence against them for what seems like small beer.