Bonzo77 Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 I have nothing against Fire Fighters. I am not happy about them using their industrial muscle to obtain disproportionate pay and conditions however. They are not skilled men and should have pay and conditions at a level that reflects their unskilled status. Other labourers who are not in a strong union cannot hold the country to ransom. I don't think you understand what a fire fighter actually does, do you? To say that they are unskilld is highly incorrect. Also, they are not using their industrial muscle to obtain disproportionate pay and conditions. They are using their industrial musche to hold on to the package that they already have, the one they signed up for, the one that made the position so disirable in the first place. The fire service isn't a highly paid job. The pension that they get after completion of service IS very attractive. Take this away and you will not attract the right people for the job. It's hard work; people think they just sit on their backsides all day waiting for the bell to ring, but this is so untrue. They have to maintain a certain level of physical fitness, otherwise they can be dismissed. If they are not training themselves, they attend schools, businesses and teach fire safety. Other than the night shifts, they are constantly busy. ---------- Post added 11-08-2014 at 17:38 ---------- The bankers aren't crap at their job, London is the financial centre of the world. What happened in 2008? Are we still paying for it now? Are bankers paying themselves million pound bonusus again? If the bankers didn't cause this, maybe I've been living under a rock for the past 7 years?!? Sorry, but they messed things up, which makes them pretty crap at their job, if you ask me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted August 11, 2014 Author Share Posted August 11, 2014 Yes. I know what Fire fighters do. They get paid for keeping fit, or being asleep on nights. When they are not doing either of the pre-mentioned they point their hoses into a fire to put it out. They do not serve a 4 year apprenticeship like skilled people do. When Fire Fighter jobs are advertised, they are always very massively over subscribed, so we can afford to lower their pay and conditions. (Supply and demand?) No point arguing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted August 11, 2014 Share Posted August 11, 2014 And how are the lowly paid workers in the private sector going to get better pay if not for the unions pushing for it? Are the unions actually pushing for better pay in the private sector? How exactly are they doing this? Last time I checked they were all gung ho about immigration which is by far the biggest factor that has led to the stagnation of private sector wages over the last 15 years. ---------- Post added 11-08-2014 at 20:18 ---------- I don't think you understand what a fire fighter actually does, do you? To say that they are unskilld is highly incorrect. Also, they are not using their industrial muscle to obtain disproportionate pay and conditions. They are using their industrial musche to hold on to the package that they already have, the one they signed up for, the one that made the position so disirable in the first place. The fire service isn't a highly paid job. The pension that they get after completion of service IS very attractive. Take this away and you will not attract the right people for the job. It's hard work; people think they just sit on their backsides all day waiting for the bell to ring, but this is so untrue. They have to maintain a certain level of physical fitness, otherwise they can be dismissed. If they are not training themselves, they attend schools, businesses and teach fire safety. Other than the night shifts, they are constantly busy. ---------- Post added 11-08-2014 at 17:38 ---------- What happened in 2008? Are we still paying for it now? Are bankers paying themselves million pound bonusus again? If the bankers didn't cause this, maybe I've been living under a rock for the past 7 years?!? Sorry, but they messed things up, which makes them pretty crap at their job, if you ask me! Who do you think caused the boom which preceded the bust? Bankers don't pay themselves bonuses, the banks do. And if they generally paid too much, they'd go out of business. Well except when the Labour party decides to bail them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lily may Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Retiring at 55 unless medically unfit is far too young. No one should be expected to do a job they are unfit for therefore other work should be taken to fill in the years to the pensionable time. The pension accumulated Is still there when you retire but expecting to take it at 55 is unreasonable, it's possible you would have more years as a pensioner than in employment. Most people with private pensions work way beyond 65 now. In many cases including mine because we are still fit and like the stimulation of being employed. PS my 2 son-in-laws are firefighters so I am well briefed about their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted August 12, 2014 Author Share Posted August 12, 2014 Who do you think caused the boom which preceded the bust? The banks, by being reckless with their lending and investing. Who do you think caused the don't pay themselves bonuses, the banks do. And if they generally paid too much, they'd go out of business. Well except when the Labour party decides to bail them out. Banks make billions in profit every year, that's after they've paid their staff the bonuses. I'm not against bonuses being paid. I used to work in a bank and I know that some of those people genuinely deserved a bonus at the end of the year. But after bringing the country to its knees and taking billions from the government to bail them out.....they deserve nothing! I'd have let them go under. Some of them are still part owned by us, yet they are handing out bonuses again, while the government take privileges away from our fire service?!? No one can dress this mess up and convince me it fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 12, 2014 Share Posted August 12, 2014 Are the unions actually pushing for better pay in the private sector? How exactly are they doing this? Last time I checked they were all gung ho about immigration which is by far the biggest factor that has led to the stagnation of private sector wages over the last 15 years. ---------- Post added 11-08-2014 at 20:18 ---------- Who do you think caused the boom which preceded the bust? Bankers don't pay themselves bonuses, the banks do. And if they generally paid too much, they'd go out of business. Well except when the Labour party decides to bail them out. As far as I'm aware, there is a union for just about every type of job in both the public and private sector which workers can join, (at least I don't think they've made joining a union illegal yet, although it is definately discouraged.) Unfortunately union membership in the private sector has dropped drastically for various reasons and we see the results in poor wages, poor working conditions, lack of job security etc. Some young people don't even know what a union is or does, and that's just the way the employers like it. Anyone trying to raise awareness is quickly shown the door. Also insecurity, part time hours, casual labour, 0 hours etc, all common in private business, don't lend themselves to union membership when in fact they are needed here more than anywhere. We are returning to the dark ages for some workers in the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.