Essex: Fire strike "solid"

A SPOKESMAN for the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) described yesterday's one-hour walk-out as solid.

Keith Hanscombe, East Anglian spokesman for the FBU, praised fire chiefs for their response to the industrial action and said talks were continuing.

He said: "We are very pleased the fire chiefs decided to abandon plans to stop pay for the whole 15-hour night shift and lock us out as that would have affected the Olympic torch relay.

"Talks will continue between now and the next strike date."

Comments (49)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:24pm Sun 8 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good. Sdapeze
  • Score: -2

1:30pm Sun 8 Jul 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Totally agree.
Totally agree. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Sun 8 Jul 12

peanuts68 says...

Totally agree there
Totally agree there peanuts68
  • Score: -2

1:50pm Sun 8 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

Sdapeze wrote:
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
If you don't want to live in a democracy, with the right to withdraw labour (for one solitary, symbolic, hour, for Christ's sake), go and live in China. These cuts to services are criminal, and in terms of the fire service, will kill. They're striking so all of us can live in a better society.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.[/p][/quote]If you don't want to live in a democracy, with the right to withdraw labour (for one solitary, symbolic, hour, for Christ's sake), go and live in China. These cuts to services are criminal, and in terms of the fire service, will kill. They're striking so all of us can live in a better society. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 2

3:53pm Sun 8 Jul 12

JimCO1 says...

Sdapeze wrote:
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
No, you are not alone.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.[/p][/quote]No, you are not alone. JimCO1
  • Score: -2

4:30pm Sun 8 Jul 12

Reginald47 says...

The fire chiefs run the service - the firefighters just work for it same as any other profession.
The fire chiefs run the service - the firefighters just work for it same as any other profession. Reginald47
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Sun 8 Jul 12

25414nora says...

I'm with 6079 all the way.

In my experience 15 yrs as shop steward (local factory) Employees get nothing from employers unless they are willing to put themselves out on a limb.

In those 15 years the workforce I represented, accepted: (against my direction) all the mingy, (little or nothing) offers and the worsening conditions the management forced down our throats.

At that time we were constantly told: If you take strike action, you will risk the company's long term future..

Guess what!! the firm closed, transferred it's business, and hundreds of us got the boot anyway.

If nothing else: history should tells us, (unlike the Bible)...The meek will not inherit the earth.
I'm with 6079 all the way. In my experience 15 yrs as shop steward (local factory) Employees get nothing from employers unless they are willing to put themselves out on a limb. In those 15 years the workforce I represented, accepted: (against my direction) all the mingy, (little or nothing) offers and the worsening conditions the management forced down our throats. At that time we were constantly told: If you take strike action, you will risk the company's long term future.. Guess what!! the firm closed, transferred it's business, and hundreds of us got the boot anyway. If nothing else: history should tells us, (unlike the Bible)...The meek will not inherit the earth. 25414nora
  • Score: 1

6:03pm Sun 8 Jul 12

KA-Wivenhoe says...

No you are not alone.

The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone.

His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).
No you are not alone. The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone. His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his). KA-Wivenhoe
  • Score: -2

7:35pm Sun 8 Jul 12

25414nora says...

KA-Wivenhoe wrote:
No you are not alone.

The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone.

His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).
You're right there feller, Arthur Scargill Got it completely wrong.

He warned that half the coal mines were under threat.

Err anyone seen any coal mines lately?
[quote][p][bold]KA-Wivenhoe[/bold] wrote: No you are not alone. The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone. His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).[/p][/quote]You're right there feller, Arthur Scargill Got it completely wrong. He warned that half the coal mines were under threat. Err anyone seen any coal mines lately? 25414nora
  • Score: 2

8:04pm Sun 8 Jul 12

JimCO1 says...

25414nora wrote:
KA-Wivenhoe wrote:
No you are not alone.

The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone.

His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).
You're right there feller, Arthur Scargill Got it completely wrong.

He warned that half the coal mines were under threat.

Err anyone seen any coal mines lately?
Arthur Scargill wanted the British taxpayer to continue subsidising a dead industry. Union leaders only look after themselves, if they get anything for their members, that's a bonus.
[quote][p][bold]25414nora[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA-Wivenhoe[/bold] wrote: No you are not alone. The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone. His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).[/p][/quote]You're right there feller, Arthur Scargill Got it completely wrong. He warned that half the coal mines were under threat. Err anyone seen any coal mines lately?[/p][/quote]Arthur Scargill wanted the British taxpayer to continue subsidising a dead industry. Union leaders only look after themselves, if they get anything for their members, that's a bonus. JimCO1
  • Score: -1

8:08pm Sun 8 Jul 12

upandaterm says...

We should of come out with the miners, that was the working mans mistake.By the way nora, it wasn't the Lathe co was it ;-)
We should of come out with the miners, that was the working mans mistake.By the way nora, it wasn't the Lathe co was it ;-) upandaterm
  • Score: 2

11:55am Mon 9 Jul 12

Boris says...

This story has now been up for almost 24 hours and Sdapeze has got precisely 4 people to agree with him. Not alone, but nearly alone. A handful of people living in a dream world.
The rest of us support the firefighters and admire them for having a bit more backbone than those people that ignored Nora's advice.
This story has now been up for almost 24 hours and Sdapeze has got precisely 4 people to agree with him. Not alone, but nearly alone. A handful of people living in a dream world. The rest of us support the firefighters and admire them for having a bit more backbone than those people that ignored Nora's advice. Boris
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Mon 9 Jul 12

upandaterm says...

JimCO1 wrote:
Sdapeze wrote:
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
No, you are not alone.
Does this include the thieving Tory bankers??
[quote][p][bold]JimCO1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.[/p][/quote]No, you are not alone.[/p][/quote]Does this include the thieving Tory bankers?? upandaterm
  • Score: 1

12:02pm Mon 9 Jul 12

upandaterm says...

JimCO1 wrote:
Sdapeze wrote:
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
No, you are not alone.
Does this include the thieving Tory bankers??
[quote][p][bold]JimCO1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.[/p][/quote]No, you are not alone.[/p][/quote]Does this include the thieving Tory bankers?? upandaterm
  • Score: 1

12:36pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Scoot says...

Maybe the firemen should look at how to economise themselves. For example how many times do we see a pump at Tescos whilst they stock up their kitchen ?? ever heard of "you shop we drop ?". Other Unions are showing their true side now by holding the country to ransom bythreatening to strike during the Olympics unless they get a bonus because the transport systems will be crowded. Forgive me the buses are going to be the same size, the tube trains are going to be the same size, the overground trains are going to be the same size. The people that are going to be inconvenienced are the passengers who won't have nice comfy drivers cabs to sit in.
Maybe the firemen should look at how to economise themselves. For example how many times do we see a pump at Tescos whilst they stock up their kitchen ?? ever heard of "you shop we drop ?". Other Unions are showing their true side now by holding the country to ransom bythreatening to strike during the Olympics unless they get a bonus because the transport systems will be crowded. Forgive me the buses are going to be the same size, the tube trains are going to be the same size, the overground trains are going to be the same size. The people that are going to be inconvenienced are the passengers who won't have nice comfy drivers cabs to sit in. Scoot
  • Score: -1

1:08pm Mon 9 Jul 12

romantic says...

Sdapeze wrote:
Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.
If the management simply will not listen, what other option is there than the threat of strike action?

Your approach is more of a bully-boy one: we offer what we like, and if you don´t like it, we´ll sack you.

Is that how it works in your company? You train somebody up (bearing in mind that it´s not easy to find somebody with the right skills and attitude), and then just sack them if they disagree with you?

Like many other services, the fire service seems almost invisible - until you need it yourself. I am sure you´d be highly unhappy if your house was burning down, but cuts meant that nobody could get there for half an hour, and the people who did come had just joined last week and had scarcely a clue what to do.

Despite the tabloid headlines, not many people go on strike without major consideration. But it is there as an option, and a shame that it seems the only way to get people discussing solutions.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Am I alone with my disgust at these publicly funded union bully boys striking over something so trivial, in these days of extreme (not trivial) difficulties that this country is being subjected to. Sack the lot of them and employ people who want to work and to serve the public good.[/p][/quote]If the management simply will not listen, what other option is there than the threat of strike action? Your approach is more of a bully-boy one: we offer what we like, and if you don´t like it, we´ll sack you. Is that how it works in your company? You train somebody up (bearing in mind that it´s not easy to find somebody with the right skills and attitude), and then just sack them if they disagree with you? Like many other services, the fire service seems almost invisible - until you need it yourself. I am sure you´d be highly unhappy if your house was burning down, but cuts meant that nobody could get there for half an hour, and the people who did come had just joined last week and had scarcely a clue what to do. Despite the tabloid headlines, not many people go on strike without major consideration. But it is there as an option, and a shame that it seems the only way to get people discussing solutions. romantic
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Mon 9 Jul 12

upandaterm says...

Would you walk into a blazing building or risk your life, for the sake of others?? You most probably wouldn't get through the tough strength tests.I see them "Shopping" and think it during a training run, that makes sure some roads are clear of traffic ie small side roads.I back them when their lives could be a risk because of cuts.When are we going to cuts in Banks or these tax holes plugged??
Would you walk into a blazing building or risk your life, for the sake of others?? You most probably wouldn't get through the tough strength tests.I see them "Shopping" and think it during a training run, that makes sure some roads are clear of traffic ie small side roads.I back them when their lives could be a risk because of cuts.When are we going to cuts in Banks or these tax holes plugged?? upandaterm
  • Score: 1

3:41pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

These union bully boys enjoy holding us (their paymasters) to ransom. Their aims are purely selfish. They do nothing for society and, morally, are just as bad as the bankers who just as effectively hold us all to ransom. In my world, if you don't like your job, leave and get another one. In my world, it is about a fair days work for a fair days pay. You can't tell me that the firemen get a fair wage. They have bullied their way, as have the London underground bully boys, into very unfair wage deals. But, of course, this is all Socialist Worker stuff, aimed at getting the Tories out of office. Who they think would be a good replacement, I have no idea. We all know what Labour did to the country. Perhaps we should all vote Green or Monster Raving Loony - or perhaps Communist.
These union bully boys enjoy holding us (their paymasters) to ransom. Their aims are purely selfish. They do nothing for society and, morally, are just as bad as the bankers who just as effectively hold us all to ransom. In my world, if you don't like your job, leave and get another one. In my world, it is about a fair days work for a fair days pay. You can't tell me that the firemen get a fair wage. They have bullied their way, as have the London underground bully boys, into very unfair wage deals. But, of course, this is all Socialist Worker stuff, aimed at getting the Tories out of office. Who they think would be a good replacement, I have no idea. We all know what Labour did to the country. Perhaps we should all vote Green or Monster Raving Loony - or perhaps Communist. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Boris says...

Sdapeze wrote:
These union bully boys enjoy holding us (their paymasters) to ransom. Their aims are purely selfish. They do nothing for society and, morally, are just as bad as the bankers who just as effectively hold us all to ransom. In my world, if you don't like your job, leave and get another one. In my world, it is about a fair days work for a fair days pay. You can't tell me that the firemen get a fair wage. They have bullied their way, as have the London underground bully boys, into very unfair wage deals. But, of course, this is all Socialist Worker stuff, aimed at getting the Tories out of office. Who they think would be a good replacement, I have no idea. We all know what Labour did to the country. Perhaps we should all vote Green or Monster Raving Loony - or perhaps Communist.
"In my world", you say. But you live in a world of your own. The rest of us live in the real world and we appreciate what the firefighters do for us, so we support them in defending their terms and conditions.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: These union bully boys enjoy holding us (their paymasters) to ransom. Their aims are purely selfish. They do nothing for society and, morally, are just as bad as the bankers who just as effectively hold us all to ransom. In my world, if you don't like your job, leave and get another one. In my world, it is about a fair days work for a fair days pay. You can't tell me that the firemen get a fair wage. They have bullied their way, as have the London underground bully boys, into very unfair wage deals. But, of course, this is all Socialist Worker stuff, aimed at getting the Tories out of office. Who they think would be a good replacement, I have no idea. We all know what Labour did to the country. Perhaps we should all vote Green or Monster Raving Loony - or perhaps Communist.[/p][/quote]"In my world", you say. But you live in a world of your own. The rest of us live in the real world and we appreciate what the firefighters do for us, so we support them in defending their terms and conditions. Boris
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys.
I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Mon 9 Jul 12

romantic says...

Sdapeze wrote:
I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys.
So unless somebody directly generates wealth, they should not have a job? How about midwives or ambulance crews? Would you prefer they be voluntary as well? How about the police - they cost money. Street lights don´t make money, nor do nice smooth roads.

Nobody likes paying tax, but I prefer my tax goes to have a proper fire service that might one day save my family´s life than many of the other things it is squandered on.

I'm well aware that you're a bit of a 'wind-up merchant´, but seriously your vision of a little volunteer fire crew might be OK for a small fire, but how about an industrial unit going up in flames? I´ve been in one when it happened, and believe me, we had to laugh a bit when the first fire engine turned up. It ended up with 30+ units from 3 counties and smoke visible from 10 miles away. That´s how fire CAN be.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys.[/p][/quote]So unless somebody directly generates wealth, they should not have a job? How about midwives or ambulance crews? Would you prefer they be voluntary as well? How about the police - they cost money. Street lights don´t make money, nor do nice smooth roads. Nobody likes paying tax, but I prefer my tax goes to have a proper fire service that might one day save my family´s life than many of the other things it is squandered on. I'm well aware that you're a bit of a 'wind-up merchant´, but seriously your vision of a little volunteer fire crew might be OK for a small fire, but how about an industrial unit going up in flames? I´ve been in one when it happened, and believe me, we had to laugh a bit when the first fire engine turned up. It ended up with 30+ units from 3 counties and smoke visible from 10 miles away. That´s how fire CAN be. romantic
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

This is about bullies Romantic. You are missing the point, probably intentionally. Nurses and midwives and ambulance crews and the police aren't bullies. These are people with a vocation who are dedicated to public service. I used to think that the fire service felt the same way. Clearly not. For them it is selfish greed and to hell with the rest of us.
This is about bullies Romantic. You are missing the point, probably intentionally. Nurses and midwives and ambulance crews and the police aren't bullies. These are people with a vocation who are dedicated to public service. I used to think that the fire service felt the same way. Clearly not. For them it is selfish greed and to hell with the rest of us. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Mon 9 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

So next time 'Nurses and midwives and ambulance crews' are on strike, you'll be there on the picket lines with them? Is it only fire fighters who aren't allowed to strike?

“Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy bastards."
So next time 'Nurses and midwives and ambulance crews' are on strike, you'll be there on the picket lines with them? Is it only fire fighters who aren't allowed to strike? “Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy bastards." 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 9 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

KA-Wivenhoe wrote:
No you are not alone.

The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone.

His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).
With Nora just getting in before you, now that was bad timing. I'm guessing you normally have problems with being premature.
[quote][p][bold]KA-Wivenhoe[/bold] wrote: No you are not alone. The one person that disagees with you is in the minority - he's the one that is alone. His argument is pathetic. Look where it got Arthur Scargill, (and the rest of the mining industry because of views like his).[/p][/quote]With Nora just getting in before you, now that was bad timing. I'm guessing you normally have problems with being premature. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Mon 9 Jul 12

25414nora says...

We have all had this arguement before (many times), and clearly we are never going to agree.

Rather than trying to force our belief's down the throats of our opposers, maybe we should think about the consequences of what is happening in todays Britain.

Good healthy debate without using extreme language to make ones point is good.

To come out with a procative line like...'SACK THE LOT OF THEM'..is not helpful.

With this in mind maybe 'Romantics' discription of one individual as: A wind up merchant, Hits the nail on the head.
We have all had this arguement before (many times), and clearly we are never going to agree. Rather than trying to force our belief's down the throats of our opposers, maybe we should think about the consequences of what is happening in todays Britain. Good healthy debate without using extreme language to make ones point is good. To come out with a procative line like...'SACK THE LOT OF THEM'..is not helpful. With this in mind maybe 'Romantics' discription of one individual as: A wind up merchant, Hits the nail on the head. 25414nora
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Mon 9 Jul 12

25414nora says...

25414nora wrote:
We have all had this arguement before (many times), and clearly we are never going to agree.

Rather than trying to force our belief's down the throats of our opposers, maybe we should think about the consequences of what is happening in todays Britain.

Good healthy debate without using extreme language to make ones point is good.

To come out with a procative line like...'SACK THE LOT OF THEM'..is not helpful.

With this in mind maybe 'Romantics' discription of one individual as: A wind up merchant, Hits the nail on the head.
**Provocative**
[quote][p][bold]25414nora[/bold] wrote: We have all had this arguement before (many times), and clearly we are never going to agree. Rather than trying to force our belief's down the throats of our opposers, maybe we should think about the consequences of what is happening in todays Britain. Good healthy debate without using extreme language to make ones point is good. To come out with a procative line like...'SACK THE LOT OF THEM'..is not helpful. With this in mind maybe 'Romantics' discription of one individual as: A wind up merchant, Hits the nail on the head.[/p][/quote]**Provocative** 25414nora
  • Score: 0

10:21pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

I am getting bored with this. I accept the socialist ideal of fair wages for all and have no difficulty with it. But when unions, by virtue of their ability to bring the country down, win unfair wage deals, at the expense of other, less 'persuasive' and less well paid worker groups, then I oppose them. To my mind, nurses and binmen and many other public sector workers work a **** sight harder than these overpaid primadonnas and should be paid accordingly. Firemen sit on their backsides most of the time yet they earn double what nurses get - because they are selfish bully boys who play on the fears of the weak. And now they want even more! Give them a pay cut now, or better still, sack them all. Anna and his commie mates expose their prejudice in favour of bullies to a staggering degree.
I am getting bored with this. I accept the socialist ideal of fair wages for all and have no difficulty with it. But when unions, by virtue of their ability to bring the country down, win unfair wage deals, at the expense of other, less 'persuasive' and less well paid worker groups, then I oppose them. To my mind, nurses and binmen and many other public sector workers work a **** sight harder than these overpaid primadonnas and should be paid accordingly. Firemen sit on their backsides most of the time yet they earn double what nurses get - because they are selfish bully boys who play on the fears of the weak. And now they want even more! Give them a pay cut now, or better still, sack them all. Anna and his commie mates expose their prejudice in favour of bullies to a staggering degree. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Mon 9 Jul 12

Boris says...

romantic wrote:
Sdapeze wrote:
I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys.
So unless somebody directly generates wealth, they should not have a job? How about midwives or ambulance crews? Would you prefer they be voluntary as well? How about the police - they cost money. Street lights don´t make money, nor do nice smooth roads.

Nobody likes paying tax, but I prefer my tax goes to have a proper fire service that might one day save my family´s life than many of the other things it is squandered on.

I'm well aware that you're a bit of a 'wind-up merchant´, but seriously your vision of a little volunteer fire crew might be OK for a small fire, but how about an industrial unit going up in flames? I´ve been in one when it happened, and believe me, we had to laugh a bit when the first fire engine turned up. It ended up with 30+ units from 3 counties and smoke visible from 10 miles away. That´s how fire CAN be.
Sdapeze, you are a self-confessed wind-up merchant, so nobody should take you too seriously. But I will ignore my own advice and take your comment at face value.
Yes of course we have to have wealth creators. As the son of an engineer who employed up to 300 men in this borough, I am well aware of that. But, as romantic has rightly pointed out, an awful lot of jobs still have to be done, to enable entrepreneurs to operate.
You grew up in a modest coastal town so maybe there a volunteer fire crew was sufficient. In large towns we need professional fire crews, and they come out to the villages too.
Pay attention to what romantic says. He understands the modern world a lot better than you do.
As for your latest comment (10.21 pm), I echo your own words: I am getting bored with this.
[quote][p][bold]romantic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: I support the wealth creators Boris. If we don't have the wealth creators, we cannot have a salaried fire service or a NHS or dustmen, etc. Think about it. This communist idyll of yours is a dream and does not work. Or did I miss something? When I was a lad, the fire service was manned by volunteers, as were, and still are, the lifeboat men. They are the true heroes - not these selfish bully boys.[/p][/quote]So unless somebody directly generates wealth, they should not have a job? How about midwives or ambulance crews? Would you prefer they be voluntary as well? How about the police - they cost money. Street lights don´t make money, nor do nice smooth roads. Nobody likes paying tax, but I prefer my tax goes to have a proper fire service that might one day save my family´s life than many of the other things it is squandered on. I'm well aware that you're a bit of a 'wind-up merchant´, but seriously your vision of a little volunteer fire crew might be OK for a small fire, but how about an industrial unit going up in flames? I´ve been in one when it happened, and believe me, we had to laugh a bit when the first fire engine turned up. It ended up with 30+ units from 3 counties and smoke visible from 10 miles away. That´s how fire CAN be.[/p][/quote]Sdapeze, you are a self-confessed wind-up merchant, so nobody should take you too seriously. But I will ignore my own advice and take your comment at face value. Yes of course we have to have wealth creators. As the son of an engineer who employed up to 300 men in this borough, I am well aware of that. But, as romantic has rightly pointed out, an awful lot of jobs still have to be done, to enable entrepreneurs to operate. You grew up in a modest coastal town so maybe there a volunteer fire crew was sufficient. In large towns we need professional fire crews, and they come out to the villages too. Pay attention to what romantic says. He understands the modern world a lot better than you do. As for your latest comment (10.21 pm), I echo your own words: I am getting bored with this. Boris
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Tue 10 Jul 12

LC1971 says...

Sdapeze wrote:
I am getting bored with this. I accept the socialist ideal of fair wages for all and have no difficulty with it. But when unions, by virtue of their ability to bring the country down, win unfair wage deals, at the expense of other, less 'persuasive' and less well paid worker groups, then I oppose them. To my mind, nurses and binmen and many other public sector workers work a **** sight harder than these overpaid primadonnas and should be paid accordingly. Firemen sit on their backsides most of the time yet they earn double what nurses get - because they are selfish bully boys who play on the fears of the weak. And now they want even more! Give them a pay cut now, or better still, sack them all. Anna and his commie mates expose their prejudice in favour of bullies to a staggering degree.
Why do you rattle on about money constantly in this discussion?
Try arming yourself with the full facts about this dispute and maybe we could have a balanced and informed discussion about it.
Even try knocking on the station door and finding out. As you state they'll be "on their backsides" so you should find them in!
You may surprise yourself about the reasons and realise amongst many things in this, financial gain isn't one of them.
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: I am getting bored with this. I accept the socialist ideal of fair wages for all and have no difficulty with it. But when unions, by virtue of their ability to bring the country down, win unfair wage deals, at the expense of other, less 'persuasive' and less well paid worker groups, then I oppose them. To my mind, nurses and binmen and many other public sector workers work a **** sight harder than these overpaid primadonnas and should be paid accordingly. Firemen sit on their backsides most of the time yet they earn double what nurses get - because they are selfish bully boys who play on the fears of the weak. And now they want even more! Give them a pay cut now, or better still, sack them all. Anna and his commie mates expose their prejudice in favour of bullies to a staggering degree.[/p][/quote]Why do you rattle on about money constantly in this discussion? Try arming yourself with the full facts about this dispute and maybe we could have a balanced and informed discussion about it. Even try knocking on the station door and finding out. As you state they'll be "on their backsides" so you should find them in! You may surprise yourself about the reasons and realise amongst many things in this, financial gain isn't one of them. LC1971
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Tue 10 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

I only put a point of view. I respect everybody's views on this. But I don't necessarily agree with them all.
I only put a point of view. I respect everybody's views on this. But I don't necessarily agree with them all. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Tue 10 Jul 12

CJ1989 says...

6079 Smith W - "Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour."

Indeed, they did all of those things, and changed everyone's lives for the better.

However, those changes are now part of our laws. What have they done in recent times? Push for double, and triple pay? More holidays? More time off? Triple pay AND time off in lieu (boxing day tube strike for example). It's just straightforward greed.

The high echelons of the unions are every single bit as morally bankrupt as the financiers they kick up such a fuss about. They don't care in the slightest about their workers. They're hypocrites of a mind-blowing magnitude, effectively just left wing politicians on six figure incomes furthering their own agendas and bank accounts. I pity those union members who think they're being represented.

In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, I'm not a member of a union. I can't see why I would need one. I'm good at my job and work hard, therefore my employer wants to keep me, it's very simple.

If I was sacked unfairly, then we have ferocious employment laws already to rely on (see paragraphs 2 & 3...)

Fingers crossed my generation will see the unions for what they are, although looking at the riots last year (in my view caused by our top-notch something-for-nothin
g culture) I think on the whole, we're a write-off.
6079 Smith W - "Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour." Indeed, they did all of those things, and changed everyone's lives for the better. However, those changes are now part of our laws. What have they done in recent times? Push for double, and triple pay? More holidays? More time off? Triple pay AND time off in lieu (boxing day tube strike for example). It's just straightforward greed. The high echelons of the unions are every single bit as morally bankrupt as the financiers they kick up such a fuss about. They don't care in the slightest about their workers. They're hypocrites of a mind-blowing magnitude, effectively just left wing politicians on six figure incomes furthering their own agendas and bank accounts. I pity those union members who think they're being represented. In case it wasn't blindingly obvious, I'm not a member of a union. I can't see why I would need one. I'm good at my job and work hard, therefore my employer wants to keep me, it's very simple. If I was sacked unfairly, then we have ferocious employment laws already to rely on (see paragraphs 2 & 3...) Fingers crossed my generation will see the unions for what they are, although looking at the riots last year (in my view caused by our top-notch something-for-nothin g culture) I think on the whole, we're a write-off. CJ1989
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Wed 11 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

CJ1989 - I could take your argument and use it to drain the pasta. The biggest hole in it (which might actually mean my pasta ends up in the sink, so perhaps not) is that while addressing the subject of unions and industrial action, you've managed to completely avoid what this particular dispute is about! Obviously, a strike such as this which seeks to save lives (perhaps yours one day) by stopping cuts, completely undermines your argument. So instead you ignore it completely, and go for forms of industrial action that the papers that tell you how to think, find easier to attack. But of course what those papers won't tell you is how senior management are getting big bonuses for the Olympics - no wonder workers feel the same. And it also probably lost on you the fact workers are being told not to take holiday at that time, during the school holiday, which is for many the only chance of a family holiday. No wonder there's action to ensure compensation.

Nearly as big a hole exists in your assertion that as unions have now achieved the legal changes mentioned, they're no longer needed. On that basis, if your neighbourhood was crime free for a month, you'd have to say the local copper was no longer needed (in fact I suspect you might, actually!) So do you seriously think the law just stays the same? Do you really have no understanding of the word 'legislation'? It means laws change. No, the rights gained require constant vigilance, especially with an extremely nasty old Etonian government hell bent on a class war against the poorest and most vulnerable. In fact, the above quote could have also spoke of the NHS and the welfare state, which were all fought for. As the front bench Tory Quentin Hogg said at the end of WW2, 'if we don't give them social reform, they will give us social revolution.'

I'll give you two areas you're sort of getting there, but alas for all the wrong reasons. Firstly, top union leaders on six figure sums, who don't give a toss about their members, yes. But left-wing? For the vast majority, you're in absolute cloud cuckoo land. Most are so far up New Labour's backside, and a New Labour that does not want to see any resistance to the Con-Dem destruction of Britain. So these unions (and my one included), are far more interested in offering me money off of car insurance and discounts at Tesco. This is why the Con-Dems feel they can get away with the most crazy, ideological, extremism - unlike Quentin Hogg, they're not scared anymore. Trouble is, their free market anarchy is so out of control, somebody needs to save capitalism from itself.

The second point I give you is again the result of a delusion. Yes, the riots I'd agree are the result of the 'something for nothing society'. A society being destroyed from the top by those born into money, and who have never had to work for it, who don't even pay taxes. No wonder the police themselves are predicting more riots, thanks to the policies of the 'something for nothing' old Etonians.
CJ1989 - I could take your argument and use it to drain the pasta. The biggest hole in it (which might actually mean my pasta ends up in the sink, so perhaps not) is that while addressing the subject of unions and industrial action, you've managed to completely avoid what this particular dispute is about! Obviously, a strike such as this which seeks to save lives (perhaps yours one day) by stopping cuts, completely undermines your argument. So instead you ignore it completely, and go for forms of industrial action that the papers that tell you how to think, find easier to attack. But of course what those papers won't tell you is how senior management are getting big bonuses for the Olympics - no wonder workers feel the same. And it also probably lost on you the fact workers are being told not to take holiday at that time, during the school holiday, which is for many the only chance of a family holiday. No wonder there's action to ensure compensation. Nearly as big a hole exists in your assertion that as unions have now achieved the legal changes mentioned, they're no longer needed. On that basis, if your neighbourhood was crime free for a month, you'd have to say the local copper was no longer needed (in fact I suspect you might, actually!) So do you seriously think the law just stays the same? Do you really have no understanding of the word 'legislation'? It means laws change. No, the rights gained require constant vigilance, especially with an extremely nasty old Etonian government hell bent on a class war against the poorest and most vulnerable. In fact, the above quote could have also spoke of the NHS and the welfare state, which were all fought for. As the front bench Tory Quentin Hogg said at the end of WW2, 'if we don't give them social reform, they will give us social revolution.' I'll give you two areas you're sort of getting there, but alas for all the wrong reasons. Firstly, top union leaders on six figure sums, who don't give a toss about their members, yes. But left-wing? For the vast majority, you're in absolute cloud cuckoo land. Most are so far up New Labour's backside, and a New Labour that does not want to see any resistance to the Con-Dem destruction of Britain. So these unions (and my one included), are far more interested in offering me money off of car insurance and discounts at Tesco. This is why the Con-Dems feel they can get away with the most crazy, ideological, extremism - unlike Quentin Hogg, they're not scared anymore. Trouble is, their free market anarchy is so out of control, somebody needs to save capitalism from itself. The second point I give you is again the result of a delusion. Yes, the riots I'd agree are the result of the 'something for nothing society'. A society being destroyed from the top by those born into money, and who have never had to work for it, who don't even pay taxes. No wonder the police themselves are predicting more riots, thanks to the policies of the 'something for nothing' old Etonians. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Wed 11 Jul 12

CJ1989 says...

Crikey, for someone who claims to dislike class war, you certainly like stirring up ill feelings for people who went to public schools don't you?!

You say "a strike such as this which seeks to save lives..by stopping cuts" is, as far as I can tell, unfounded. I looked into it a fair bit, and I can't for the life of me find a single, unbiased report anywhere. Hurling money at a problem doesn't fix it, and by the same logic cuts do not necessarily have to reduce service to the level that is being suggested. The only reports I could find on my search for figures were from the heavily biased unions, and equally biased government. I'm not going to base my decision on what either of them says. I don't know what money is being cut and from where, all anyone has are arbitrary assumptions about a 20% reduction in frontline staff, and not a single figure to base them on.

Of course senior management are getting bonuses for the Olympics, it's an enormous logistical challenge which THEY are responsible for overcoming. (How effectively they overcome it remains to be seen.) It's on their heads if it all goes wrong, not the workers. With the accountability, comes the bonuses. They shouldn't be paid if everything crumbles come the Olympics.

How much are the majority of people's jobs going to change during the Olympics? Trains and buses for example are the same size, regardless of whether they're full or empty. If you advocate paying drivers more for transporting more people, do you also advocate paying them less on the quiet days?

Your argument seems to suggest the unions are a police force against the government. Everyone can vote, the government is accountable to all of us. They wouldn't stay in power long if they tried to abolish weekends, or bring back slave labour. It's not the 18/1900s, if we don't like something, we can vote against it (you don't even have to own land or be male any more!). If the majority agree with you, it gets changed. If you vote for someone who then goes back on their word (*coughNickCleggcoug
h*) they get obliterated come the next election. See, no unions needed to combat the "extremely nasty old Etonian government" (sure you're not trying to instigate a bit of class war here?), democracy seems to do it's job just fine.

I'm glad we agree on the union leaders at least.

This may come as a shock to you, but the tories in their current guise are as right wing as labour is left-wing. This is the political spectrum most voters operate in. The fact that you think labour are right wing, and the tories are "crazy extremists" puts you well off the regular scale (not saying that's a bad thing, I wish the parties would stop competing to be most into the middle).

Society is not being destroyed by those "born into money" (more class war instigation?). Are you honestly suggesting that the riots were due to Londoners' disappointment over George Osbourne's tax affairs, or how Bob diamond was rigging the Libor rate at the time? Considering half the rioters didn't know who the prime minister was and wanted to, and I quote, "get back at the business owners cos they're the rich ones", I'm not sure I buy it.

Society has been destroyed by 13 long years of endlessly chucking money at everything that moves in an attempt to buy votes. We have families where three generations have never worked, not through lack of jobs but through the perverse situation of being better off on unemployment benefits. The welfare state is vital to our country, but this is unsustainable madness. Of course there are going to be unhappy people when their free money starts disappearing.

Many people from my generation are completely unemployable, not through lack of training or experience but entirely due to their attitude and outlook. They want money, they want stuff, and they want it now. They don't want to work hard, they feel they deserve opportunities handed to them on a platter. If you've had handouts thrown at you your entire life, why would you expect anything else?

There are of course many exceptions, people desperate for work who cannot find it. But we've been recruiting for a year to fill just one position, and have found no-one near good enough. Employment laws are so skewed that employing the wrong person would prove infinitely more costly than leaving the position vacant.

Ultimately all our issues stem from the fact that the government changes every 4/5 years, but policies take much longer to have any effect. We'll still be paying off our debts in 10 years, well after the jokers who created it (Blair, Brown, and the dodgy financiers) have been consigned to the history books. The cuts which will eventually get us out of this mess will be forgotten, and the people who will take full credit for fixing the problems are probably waiting on their A level results as we speak.

If you think it's depressing now, wait till labour get voted in at the next election. The cuts will most likely continue anyway, Balls will go on a wanton spendathon, and Milliband will be representing us on the world stage. God help us all.

(might have gone a bit off-topic, apologies)
Crikey, for someone who claims to dislike class war, you certainly like stirring up ill feelings for people who went to public schools don't you?! You say "a strike such as this which seeks to save lives..by stopping cuts" is, as far as I can tell, unfounded. I looked into it a fair bit, and I can't for the life of me find a single, unbiased report anywhere. Hurling money at a problem doesn't fix it, and by the same logic cuts do not necessarily have to reduce service to the level that is being suggested. The only reports I could find on my search for figures were from the heavily biased unions, and equally biased government. I'm not going to base my decision on what either of them says. I don't know what money is being cut and from where, all anyone has are arbitrary assumptions about a 20% reduction in frontline staff, and not a single figure to base them on. Of course senior management are getting bonuses for the Olympics, it's an enormous logistical challenge which THEY are responsible for overcoming. (How effectively they overcome it remains to be seen.) It's on their heads if it all goes wrong, not the workers. With the accountability, comes the bonuses. They shouldn't be paid if everything crumbles come the Olympics. How much are the majority of people's jobs going to change during the Olympics? Trains and buses for example are the same size, regardless of whether they're full or empty. If you advocate paying drivers more for transporting more people, do you also advocate paying them less on the quiet days? Your argument seems to suggest the unions are a police force against the government. Everyone can vote, the government is accountable to all of us. They wouldn't stay in power long if they tried to abolish weekends, or bring back slave labour. It's not the 18/1900s, if we don't like something, we can vote against it (you don't even have to own land or be male any more!). If the majority agree with you, it gets changed. If you vote for someone who then goes back on their word (*coughNickCleggcoug h*) they get obliterated come the next election. See, no unions needed to combat the "extremely nasty old Etonian government" (sure you're not trying to instigate a bit of class war here?), democracy seems to do it's job just fine. I'm glad we agree on the union leaders at least. This may come as a shock to you, but the tories in their current guise are as right wing as labour is left-wing. This is the political spectrum most voters operate in. The fact that you think labour are right wing, and the tories are "crazy extremists" puts you well off the regular scale (not saying that's a bad thing, I wish the parties would stop competing to be most into the middle). Society is not being destroyed by those "born into money" (more class war instigation?). Are you honestly suggesting that the riots were due to Londoners' disappointment over George Osbourne's tax affairs, or how Bob diamond was rigging the Libor rate at the time? Considering half the rioters didn't know who the prime minister was and wanted to, and I quote, "get back at the business owners cos they're the rich ones", I'm not sure I buy it. Society has been destroyed by 13 long years of endlessly chucking money at everything that moves in an attempt to buy votes. We have families where three generations have never worked, not through lack of jobs but through the perverse situation of being better off on unemployment benefits. The welfare state is vital to our country, but this is unsustainable madness. Of course there are going to be unhappy people when their free money starts disappearing. Many people from my generation are completely unemployable, not through lack of training or experience but entirely due to their attitude and outlook. They want money, they want stuff, and they want it now. They don't want to work hard, they feel they deserve opportunities handed to them on a platter. If you've had handouts thrown at you your entire life, why would you expect anything else? There are of course many exceptions, people desperate for work who cannot find it. But we've been recruiting for a year to fill just one position, and have found no-one near good enough. Employment laws are so skewed that employing the wrong person would prove infinitely more costly than leaving the position vacant. Ultimately all our issues stem from the fact that the government changes every 4/5 years, but policies take much longer to have any effect. We'll still be paying off our debts in 10 years, well after the jokers who created it (Blair, Brown, and the dodgy financiers) have been consigned to the history books. The cuts which will eventually get us out of this mess will be forgotten, and the people who will take full credit for fixing the problems are probably waiting on their A level results as we speak. If you think it's depressing now, wait till labour get voted in at the next election. The cuts will most likely continue anyway, Balls will go on a wanton spendathon, and Milliband will be representing us on the world stage. God help us all. (might have gone a bit off-topic, apologies) CJ1989
  • Score: 0

1:21am Thu 12 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

Well, there's so many points there, I won't respond to them all. But firstly, on the matter of this particular industrial dispute, in which you steadfastly stay tied to the fence, I'm so curious as to why you consider unions no longer needed? If they're no longer needed, why do you remain so confused by all these biased opinions ? And if unions are no longer needed, well, it's not for me to tell you where you must obviously stand.

However, this will be the first of one of probably several shocks for you, where on earth are you ever expecting to get your unbiased reports from? Reports are put together by people. And people have opinions, which are always biased. Nobody's going to give you, look, here's the truth about this, you find what you believe it to be.

And as for being 'well off the regular scale' politically, this might be shock number two (out of politeness I won't point out any more out). For instance, out of those of us who have defended unions on here, I can tell you that Boris, Romantic, Nora and me, at some stage, have all moaned about Labour abandoning its roots. I'm not sure about UpandAtem, but I'm guessing anybody who rightly says the failure to support the miners was the worst mistake, was probably not that impressed with New Labour. I can also tell you that in my blue collar tea room (and OK we're all over 40, but I'm not sure how many under that age even know about left and right), New Labour is roundly condemned as the Tory party mark II project. This is history well before your time, but what happened is the so-called centre ground lurched to the right, and New Labour followed in its wake.

New Labour wasn't throwing money at things in some sort of old fashioned Keynesian approach. Although, yes, it did throw money at things like the NHS (so it could boast about spending increases), it did so at PFI projects, bringing far more private companies in. New Labour was a carry on of Thatcherism, and even most of the Tory party realised this. The gap between rich and poor continued to widen under New Labour, as it has since 1979, this was not a government of the old fashioned Keynesian consensus era.

But of course its most rampant Thatcherism was in the money markets. Deregulation is a key feature of neo-liberal economics. And where did all these years of Thatcherite, all bow down to the free market, end up? Speculative finance (currency trading; and derivative trading, that's buying something in 6 months time, but setting price now, ie, gambling), has always been with us. In the late 80s it was around the same size as real world GDP. But at the point before it crashed it reached 25 times.

Now, that really is 'your something for nothing' society'! And that's what we're paying for now, but, actually, not all of us. The top 1000 in Britain have increased their combined wealth by a third in the three years of recession alone (that report's from the Sunday Times Rich List by the way).

History will show you that a society with ever increasing income divisions, will have ever increasing social unrest. It might not be politically motivated, but the riots remain the result of the 'something for nothing society', and that's at the very top.
Well, there's so many points there, I won't respond to them all. But firstly, on the matter of this particular industrial dispute, in which you steadfastly stay tied to the fence, I'm so curious as to why you consider unions no longer needed? If they're no longer needed, why do you remain so confused by all these biased opinions ? And if unions are no longer needed, well, it's not for me to tell you where you must obviously stand. However, this will be the first of one of probably several shocks for you, where on earth are you ever expecting to get your unbiased reports from? Reports are put together by people. And people have opinions, which are always biased. Nobody's going to give you, look, here's the truth about this, you find what you believe it to be. And as for being 'well off the regular scale' politically, this might be shock number two (out of politeness I won't point out any more out). For instance, out of those of us who have defended unions on here, I can tell you that Boris, Romantic, Nora and me, at some stage, have all moaned about Labour abandoning its roots. I'm not sure about UpandAtem, but I'm guessing anybody who rightly says the failure to support the miners was the worst mistake, was probably not that impressed with New Labour. I can also tell you that in my blue collar tea room (and OK we're all over 40, but I'm not sure how many under that age even know about left and right), New Labour is roundly condemned as the Tory party mark II project. This is history well before your time, but what happened is the so-called centre ground lurched to the right, and New Labour followed in its wake. New Labour wasn't throwing money at things in some sort of old fashioned Keynesian approach. Although, yes, it did throw money at things like the NHS (so it could boast about spending increases), it did so at PFI projects, bringing far more private companies in. New Labour was a carry on of Thatcherism, and even most of the Tory party realised this. The gap between rich and poor continued to widen under New Labour, as it has since 1979, this was not a government of the old fashioned Keynesian consensus era. But of course its most rampant Thatcherism was in the money markets. Deregulation is a key feature of neo-liberal economics. And where did all these years of Thatcherite, all bow down to the free market, end up? Speculative finance (currency trading; and derivative trading, that's buying something in 6 months time, but setting price now, ie, gambling), has always been with us. In the late 80s it was around the same size as real world GDP. But at the point before it crashed it reached 25 times. Now, that really is 'your something for nothing' society'! And that's what we're paying for now, but, actually, not all of us. The top 1000 in Britain have increased their combined wealth by a third in the three years of recession alone (that report's from the Sunday Times Rich List by the way). History will show you that a society with ever increasing income divisions, will have ever increasing social unrest. It might not be politically motivated, but the riots remain the result of the 'something for nothing society', and that's at the very top. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.
Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Thu 12 Jul 12

LC1971 says...

Sdapeze wrote:
Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.
I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption".
This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action.
The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!).
Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.[/p][/quote]I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption". This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action. The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!). Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing? LC1971
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Thu 12 Jul 12

LC1971 says...

Sdapeze wrote:
Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.
I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption".
This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action.
The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!).
Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing?
[quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.[/p][/quote]I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption". This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action. The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!). Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing? LC1971
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Dug says...

Interesting points, both CJ and Winston.
Interesting points, both CJ and Winston. Dug
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Thu 12 Jul 12

romantic says...

LC1971 wrote:
Sdapeze wrote:
Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.
I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption".
This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action.
The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!).
Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing?
Very good point, LC. The firemen are not unthinking sheep who would strike without properly weighing up the pros and cons. Sdapeze might get his views from the tabloid headlines, but the truth is most people out there do not want to strike. It is there as an ultimate measure. It means a loss of earnings, for a start. In the case of the firemen, it could potentially mean dangerous situations do not get dealt with. Do you (sdapeze, I mean) think that they would do this just on the say of a union boss? I don´t believe that.
[quote][p][bold]LC1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sdapeze[/bold] wrote: Literal diarrhea. What are you lot on about? The point is that union bullies are hell bent on disruption and need to be opposed.[/p][/quote]I don't believe that a dispute which has taken over 3 years to reach this action can be described as being "hell bent on destruption". This a 'last resort' and many questions have been asked of the union before taking this course of action. The workforce are not led, but lead the union with the support when appropriate, with a balanced and sensible view with all facts considered (and known about!). Being prepared to take a financial loss in this current climate to purely defend cuts is surely no bad thing?[/p][/quote]Very good point, LC. The firemen are not unthinking sheep who would strike without properly weighing up the pros and cons. Sdapeze might get his views from the tabloid headlines, but the truth is most people out there do not want to strike. It is there as an ultimate measure. It means a loss of earnings, for a start. In the case of the firemen, it could potentially mean dangerous situations do not get dealt with. Do you (sdapeze, I mean) think that they would do this just on the say of a union boss? I don´t believe that. romantic
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Thu 12 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

They clearly need a few more fires to fight. They seem to forget that they are the employees not the bosses. They should do as they are told or ship out. Meanwhile, the nurses get on with their job, on a fraction of the deal that these trouble makers are on. They don't moan and grizzle or come out on strike. They do their job. Firemen should learn a lesson from workers like the nurses and be thankful for the preferential deal that they already have.
They clearly need a few more fires to fight. They seem to forget that they are the employees not the bosses. They should do as they are told or ship out. Meanwhile, the nurses get on with their job, on a fraction of the deal that these trouble makers are on. They don't moan and grizzle or come out on strike. They do their job. Firemen should learn a lesson from workers like the nurses and be thankful for the preferential deal that they already have. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 12 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

Sdapeze - You really have said nothing new there, and your points have already been well countered. I look forward to seeing you on the picket lines with the nurses, when the public sector strikes to smash the pay freeze, this autumn.
Sdapeze - You really have said nothing new there, and your points have already been well countered. I look forward to seeing you on the picket lines with the nurses, when the public sector strikes to smash the pay freeze, this autumn. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Thu 12 Jul 12

jut1972 says...

haha! smash the pay freeze Smithy? I admire your optimism!

Essentially Sdapeze is right. This is not about protecting "us" this is about protecting outdated practices and looking after number 1.

This isnt the first strike they have held, both the fire brigades union and the management need a kick up the arse to get this resolved. Any dispute that rumbles on for 3 years isnt helping anyone. Strikes achieve nothing, the management are probably glad the union have saved them a few quid in wages.
haha! smash the pay freeze Smithy? I admire your optimism! Essentially Sdapeze is right. This is not about protecting "us" this is about protecting outdated practices and looking after number 1. This isnt the first strike they have held, both the fire brigades union and the management need a kick up the arse to get this resolved. Any dispute that rumbles on for 3 years isnt helping anyone. Strikes achieve nothing, the management are probably glad the union have saved them a few quid in wages. jut1972
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Thu 12 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

My optimism? Probably best you read my comments above about the real nature of unions today - with their money off car insurance - to see I'm not that optimistic. But I've got to use the rhetoric.

But, Jut, pretty sure you haven't looked into this dispute at all. All this rubbish from politicians about not cutting front line services. 100 full-time fire station crews have been lost in Essex since 2008. However, back room staff have been increased by 7.5%. Drive very carefully, Jut.
My optimism? Probably best you read my comments above about the real nature of unions today - with their money off car insurance - to see I'm not that optimistic. But I've got to use the rhetoric. But, Jut, pretty sure you haven't looked into this dispute at all. All this rubbish from politicians about not cutting front line services. 100 full-time fire station crews have been lost in Essex since 2008. However, back room staff have been increased by 7.5%. Drive very carefully, Jut. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

10:24am Fri 13 Jul 12

Sdapeze says...

My point is that nurses will not go on strike because they are dedicated to their jobs and to service to the public in general. The fireman stuff is purely political, led by anarchists who have a hatred of Tories. Why should we, their paymasters, be implicated in this spite? Why don't they instead turn their attention to helping the poor, the aged, the disabled, etc? They don't because all they think of is their own selfish aims to get richer at our expense.
My point is that nurses will not go on strike because they are dedicated to their jobs and to service to the public in general. The fireman stuff is purely political, led by anarchists who have a hatred of Tories. Why should we, their paymasters, be implicated in this spite? Why don't they instead turn their attention to helping the poor, the aged, the disabled, etc? They don't because all they think of is their own selfish aims to get richer at our expense. Sdapeze
  • Score: 0

9:51pm Fri 13 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

The first ever picket line I went to support, was at the hospital, with nurses, and other NHS workers. Great to see people on strike, not for more, but in defence of the service they give.
The first ever picket line I went to support, was at the hospital, with nurses, and other NHS workers. Great to see people on strike, not for more, but in defence of the service they give. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Sat 14 Jul 12

angryman!!! says...

Most of the fireman I know feel they have to go along with the union as it will damage future prospects if they are seen to go against them.
I lost all respect for the fireman when they went on strike about a decade ago for minimum wage of about 26k, who had to go in and fill their place, soldiers who were starting wages of less than half of that!
Most of the fireman I know feel they have to go along with the union as it will damage future prospects if they are seen to go against them. I lost all respect for the fireman when they went on strike about a decade ago for minimum wage of about 26k, who had to go in and fill their place, soldiers who were starting wages of less than half of that! angryman!!!
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Sat 14 Jul 12

6079 Smith W says...

Well that's OK then? Because soldiers receive a terrible wage, then so should fire fighters. Not what I'd call an impeccable logic.
Well that's OK then? Because soldiers receive a terrible wage, then so should fire fighters. Not what I'd call an impeccable logic. 6079 Smith W
  • Score: 0

11:44am Sun 15 Jul 12

angryman!!! says...

Or maybe if you had an open mind and could look at both sides of the argument, you would question the morale legitimacy of striking for better pay when
1. Your replacements are getting payed half of what you earn.
2. You signed up to that job and new the pay.
3. Most fireman already supplement their wage by working second jobs and that many would argue is the reason why they are striking now as the shift patterns will be altered so that they can no longer do this.
Before you start gasing, I personally believe those in fire brigade, police, army and ESP nurses should be treated a lot better. However I think everyone is effected by cuts and the fire brigade need to take theirs, and striking should not be allowed for those that jobs directly save lives!
Or maybe if you had an open mind and could look at both sides of the argument, you would question the morale legitimacy of striking for better pay when 1. Your replacements are getting payed half of what you earn. 2. You signed up to that job and new the pay. 3. Most fireman already supplement their wage by working second jobs and that many would argue is the reason why they are striking now as the shift patterns will be altered so that they can no longer do this. Before you start gasing, I personally believe those in fire brigade, police, army and ESP nurses should be treated a lot better. However I think everyone is effected by cuts and the fire brigade need to take theirs, and striking should not be allowed for those that jobs directly save lives! angryman!!!
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 17 Jul 12

whisky51 says...

Angryman, you need to check your facts. The strike has nothing to do with shift changes - in fact, not changing the shift pattern is the one thing firefighters and management seem to agree on!

Secondly, the reason so many firefighters have second jobs is because they need to, NOT because they are greedy!! And because the pay is rubbish! Ten years ago they campaigned for £30k a year and didn't get it - 10 years later and they still earn nowhere near it and while I would agree £26,500 before tax a year is a decent wage, bear in mind they are obliged to pay 14% of this towards a pension that pays them ⅔ of their annual wage when they retire; a pension that is under threat, even though the Fire Service pension pot is extremely healthy and self-sufficient. How much do you pay towards your pension fund? Nothing like 14% I know! I believe the average take home wage for an Essex firefighter is around £1500 after deductions - great for a young, single person but not a lot for someone to raise a family on with prices rising all the time and no pay rise since 2008. Do you really believe that taking home little over £300 for a 42 hour week, being prepared to risk lives by walking into burning buildings to save lives is overpaid?

Anyway, the strikes aren't about pay, pensions or shift patterns, they are about cuts. Cuts that WILL cost lives. Cuts that have already seen 160 firefighter posts (out of 820ish) lost over the last three years and cuts that the Chief of ECFRS hopes will do away with another 100 firefighters! But why should he worry, he doesn't even live in Essex and he was able to claim back his Stamp Duty and £24,000 in furnishings when he moved down from Nottinghamshire to Suffolk to take up his post, on £169k. These cuts that you so obviously believe should take place, should start in the new, £10 milion HQ that ECFRS have had built at taxpayers' expense, where HR, IT and other backroom staff have almost doubled in number. Ever seen an HR director put out a fire? Cuts to frontline services should be a final, final final resort, not as the the Essex Fire Authority and the management of ECFRS believe, a starting point.

By the way, the previous Chair of the Essex Fire Authority who employed the current Chief Fire Officer has publically apologised for his decision and feels he has failed the people of Essex by employing this man. The photo in the Gazette last week showed that on the picket line at Brentwood Fire Station were THREE Tory councillors who totally believe that these cuts are WRONG! Have you ever seen Tories on a picket line before?? Surely that tells you something?
Angryman, you need to check your facts. The strike has nothing to do with shift changes - in fact, not changing the shift pattern is the one thing firefighters and management seem to agree on! Secondly, the reason so many firefighters have second jobs is because they need to, NOT because they are greedy!! And because the pay is rubbish! Ten years ago they campaigned for £30k a year and didn't get it - 10 years later and they still earn nowhere near it and while I would agree £26,500 before tax a year is a decent wage, bear in mind they are obliged to pay 14% of this towards a pension that pays them ⅔ of their annual wage when they retire; a pension that is under threat, even though the Fire Service pension pot is extremely healthy and self-sufficient. How much do you pay towards your pension fund? Nothing like 14% I know! I believe the average take home wage for an Essex firefighter is around £1500 after deductions - great for a young, single person but not a lot for someone to raise a family on with prices rising all the time and no pay rise since 2008. Do you really believe that taking home little over £300 for a 42 hour week, being prepared to risk lives by walking into burning buildings to save lives is overpaid? Anyway, the strikes aren't about pay, pensions or shift patterns, they are about cuts. Cuts that WILL cost lives. Cuts that have already seen 160 firefighter posts (out of 820ish) lost over the last three years and cuts that the Chief of ECFRS hopes will do away with another 100 firefighters! But why should he worry, he doesn't even live in Essex and he was able to claim back his Stamp Duty and £24,000 in furnishings when he moved down from Nottinghamshire to Suffolk to take up his post, on £169k. These cuts that you so obviously believe should take place, should start in the new, £10 milion HQ that ECFRS have had built at taxpayers' expense, where HR, IT and other backroom staff have almost doubled in number. Ever seen an HR director put out a fire? Cuts to frontline services should be a final, final final resort, not as the the Essex Fire Authority and the management of ECFRS believe, a starting point. By the way, the previous Chair of the Essex Fire Authority who employed the current Chief Fire Officer has publically apologised for his decision and feels he has failed the people of Essex by employing this man. The photo in the Gazette last week showed that on the picket line at Brentwood Fire Station were THREE Tory councillors who totally believe that these cuts are WRONG! Have you ever seen Tories on a picket line before?? Surely that tells you something? whisky51
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree