Forum menu
djglover - your last post confirms what i have suspected, that you are not fully aware of the facts in this dispute and are regurgitating right wing propaganda, do yourself a favour pop down to your local fire station and pick up a couple of free smoke alarms, the on duty watch will probably fit them for you if you need them to as well, and while your there ask them about the dispute and hear another perspective from the horses mouth. Bet you don't though
Well we can hear all about it from firefighters here and I have battery and hard wired smoke alarms in the house, 5 in total. I looked at right and left wing press and the union website before posting. I actually got the 188 bit from the Guardian. I have some symathy with your plight, but I don't support the strike if you haven't fully explored negotiations, seems the union want to go for maximum publicity by striking on 5 Nov before this could be resolved. Why were agreements not reached in the 90 day consultation period?
Scamper - Member
Have the Union and LFA sat down to discuss/negotiate the proposed shift patterns? And if they haven't, why are one/both parties stalling?
Yes there have been negotiations, earnestly since about June, so far everything the union has put forward, including proposing 24hour shifts, has been turned down flat, the employers have only made one offer in all this time but have invoked section 188 of the trade dispute act(?) as they don't believe enough progress is being made, which is true but mainly because the current form of negotiations is " Choice A or Choice B, or we will just sack you all and give you what we want" We want a negotiated settlement, hence the strikes, if they committed to negotiations without imposing an unnecessary deadline the strikes would stop immediately, unfortunately it does seem that the LFB aren't to keen on reaching a negotiated settlement.
djglover - it takes two to negotiate.
djglover - fair enough i see your some of your point and hope some of my last post explains a bit. I am far from a complete lefty but my honest opinion is that there is a concerted effort being made to break up the union in London, there have been occasions where this dispute could have probably been resolved or at least averted the strike action, but the senior management do seem to have gone out of their way to inflame situations and really aren't taking the negotiations seriously, and it would seem they have no intention to either, only another 31 day and they can legally start terminating contracts, from an insiders perspective it seems that that was always the plan.
I know that TJ, what did the union offer in terms of a compromise to the Options tabled, or did they just refuse. There are key pieces of info we don't have and it doesn't make either side look good, but it appears to make the union look worse. To me
dj - on the LFBU site:
At the meeting, the FBU set out its proposal for 24-hour shifts. Brigade representatives noted the proposal, sought clarification on a number of points, and said they would respond more fully in due course.
http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/latenews/10072010.php
whatever "24hr shifts" means.
Why not just cancel bonfire night or move it to decmber , the 25th sounds a good date.
Whenever they strike its going to cause concern and upset for peopl ewhos homes burn down, or get killed or injured in rta,s
and failed torybruneep - Dale is a journalist too
Political career
In May 2005, Dale stood in the general election as Conservative candidate for Norfolk North, losing to the Liberal Democrat incumbent, Norman Lamb; Lamb was elected with a 10,000 plus majority as opposed to 483 at the previous election, which he fought against David Prior. Subsequently Dale acted as chief of staff to the losing leadership candidate David Davis in the run-up to the 2005 Conservative Party leadership campaign. In August 2006, it was confirmed that he had been added to the Conservative 'Priority List' of candidates to fight the next general election. However his ambitions were further frustrated in 2007 when he applied for the Conservative candidacy for the safe seat Maidstone and The Weald, but failed to get past the first interview stage.
In October 2009 he ran for selection for the Conservative safe seat of Bracknell in order to succeed Andrew MacKay, who stepped down at the 2010 general election. Dale came third in the run off ballot behind Rory Stewart and the eventual winner Dr Philip Lee.
On 17 June 2010 Dale announced on his blog that he was resigning from the Conservative Party candidates list and would not be standing at any forthcoming parliamentary election.
Dale is noted for his sometimes provocative blog statements. The rescue of the Chilean miners he has referred to as a "bore-a-thon". he has compared Greenpeace protesters with Al-Qaeda terrorists and informed the employer of a protester at Parliament Square about his presence there during his lunch break.
Yup all round top guy.
There are key pieces of info we don't have and it doesn't make either side look good, [b]but it appears to make the union look worse[/b]
and that is what the management want.
err, yes bruneep. He's a tory AND a journalist...as I said. And those are trasncriptions of an interview, not editorial. Does his being a tory make them less true an account then?
He also is Editor of Total Poltics and interviewed Peter Mandelson recently.
He also publishes political books by such well-known tories as Peter Kilfoyle MP (Lab), Peter Watt (Lab general sec) , Paul Flynn MP (Lab) etc etc
Your point is?
you seem to hang on his every word
I read widely. so should you it seems.
Whats this about a threat to strike on bonfire night? Is that newspapers trolling?
24 hr shifts - Is that safe? My wife is a military nurse and is on her knees after two (in theory) 12 hour shifts on two following days.
djglover - Member
I know that TJ, what did the union offer in terms of a compromise to the Options tabled, or did they just refuse. There are key pieces of info we don't have and it doesn't make either side look good, but it appears to make the union look worse. To me
Your right it doesn't make things look good for us, one of the downsides of unionism in the 21st century, we don't have access to a lot of funds to spend on spin doctors like the management do (your money, if you pay tax, incidentally)and despite what the daily mail would have you believe, union leaders aren't manufactured in a Bob Crowe clone factory they are elected from within our ranks and may not be the worlds greatest pr specialists, pretty sure the info is out there though.
Its the quality of what you read not the quantity.
Scamper - Member
24 hr shifts - Is that safe? My wife is a military nurse and is on her knees after two (in theory) 12 hour shifts on two following days.
They are widely used in the U.S. and Canada as well as other parts of Europe i believe for firefighters, as long as adequate rest facilities are in place there shouldn't be a problem, no worse than 4 consecutive 12 hour shifts on 4 days as your wife will no doubt confirm.
Bazz - its just to make it easier to maintain a second job though isnt it?
Or is there an alterantive explanation for the FBUs demand for 24hr shifts over 12/12s?
It seems ok for Mr Coleman to have many jobs
[url= http://www.london.gov.uk/profile/brian-coleman/register-of-interests ]http://www.london.gov.uk/profile/brian-coleman/register-of-interests[/url]
Brian Coleman s understood to be the second highest paid councillor, on £118,499 a year. He gets £38,177 as a Barnet councillor and cabinet member — up from about £27,000 last year — plus £53,439 for sitting in the Assembly and £26,883 as chairman of London's fire service.
Mr Coleman said: “I work about 100 hours a week... and have had three days off since Christmas. I'm not pleading some special case, just saying that ... these salaries are not unreasonable.
and a competent Ff gets £28,199.
bruneep - if it makes you feel any better he only gets paid twice the hourly rate equivalent than a FF. Small mercies.
Anyway, back to the question - why are the FBU wedded to 24 hr shifts as opposed to 12/12s then?
Stoner - Member
Bazz - its just to make it easier to maintain a second job though isnt it?Or is there an alterantive explanation for the FBUs demand for 24hr shifts over 12/12s?
Are you for real mate? seriously? Most firefighters i know don't have a second job, sure some do but they are the minority. Some the reason for 24hr shifts, for the employers it achieves all their stated goals of 12hr shifts plus it reduces stand bys by half and hence overtime payments by half, reduces vehicle moves and reduces shift changes to once every 24hrs instead of twice, for us it means we cut our journeys to and from work by half and the associated cost.
for us it means we cut our journeys to and from work by half and the associated cost.
so is that it? reducing commuting?
why are the FBU wedded to 24 hr shifts as opposed to 12/12s then?
Where did you get wedded from? Do you know how a union works? It was proposed by one of our branches (fire stations) and received enough support from members (firefighters) that the union negotiators were duty bound to put it forward in negotiations, had the LFB accepted it it would still have to go to a general vote as to whether it would have been finally accepted.
Stoner - Member
for us it means we cut our journeys to and from work by half and the associated cost.
so is that it? reducing commuting?
Well when your quite happy with your existing shift pattern and don't see the need for change because the arguments are weak any bonus is a bonus, i spend £180 a month commuting if i save half of this whilst on a 3 year pay freeze then i'd be in favour.
I'm probably missing something fundamental but how can a 24 hour shift be the same as two 12 hour shifts. Surely during the 12 hour shifts it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect the fire fighters to be doing something during most of that time be it maintenance or fire prevention stuff as well as responding to call outs. Certainly if you work 12 on 12 off in manuafacturing you are working for those 12 hours (obviously with breaks). If you work a 24 hour shift surely we're not expecting people to be awake for 24 hours straight? Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation that there would be some significant rest periods within the 24hrs. Therefore we're paying people to be asleep so they can reduce their commutes.
From the outside it appears the FBU is living in a parellel universe. Maybe someone with more knowledge can explain it for me?
Wow i'm surprised it took this long for the rancid bitter right wing to leap on the "sleeping at night" bandwagon.
The proposed 24hr shifts were the same as one 12hr day shift and one 12hr night shift together, yes there is a stand down period in the night shift when we are "only" required to respond to emergency's, the same as there always has been, same as is in the current 12hr proposals by management, although it has been shortened a little bit, and the same as there always will be all the time we are required to maintain a rapid 24 hour a day 7 days a week response to emergency's.
To be honest Bazz, your coming across as bitter left wing now
http://www.firebrigadedispute.co.uk/
Worth reading. I fully support these guys, they do a good job only to be treated like sh|t by pen wielding idiots.
Lol, trust me i'm a moderate, but i do hate the bitter and rancid right wing that choose to only ever see the worst of everthing.
Wow i'm surprised it took this long for the rancid bitter right wing to leap on the "sleeping at night" bandwagon.
Well rather than insult the poster why dont you explain why the FBU wont move to 12hr shifts when you claim there to be so little impact?
His point was perfectly valid - during a 24hr shift there needs to be time for firefighting and then sleeping and "useflu" standby time. During a 12hr shift there doesnt need to be any sleep time (since that is done in off time), so the useful standby time makes up a greater proportion of the shift period. What feature of this do the FBU disagree with?
As for "wedded to 24hr" Im referring to the FBU response to the contract change demands made by the employers. The ONLY response (other than call a strike ballot) to the contract proposals by the LFBU has been to put a business case for 24hr shifts.
nickname - Member
> http://www.firebrigadedispute.co.uk/Worth reading. I fully support these guys, they do a good job only to be treated like sh|t by pen wielding idiots.
Good find, it's all true and well worth a read.
Isn't the core of this dispute down to the timing of when shifts start? The peak time for calls is 6pm?
The shift change over time is also 6pm which results in a significant overtime cost for any crews sent out just before 6. By changing the shift start / finish time, a greater proportion of the calls would be resourced in normal paid time rather than overtime.
I can't be sure on this as the "facts" on firebrigadedispute don't have anything about the timing of shifts or the times for peak calls.
His point was perfectly valid - during a 24hr shift there needs to be time for firefighting and then sleeping and "useflu" standby time. During a 12hr shift there doesnt need to be any sleep time (since that is done in off time), so the useful standby time makes up a greater proportion of the shift period. What feature of this do the FBU disagree with?
Re read my post, there has always been a stand down period at night because simply put there are some hours of the day generally 0100hrs to 0500hrs where there is no other work other than emergency calls that can be done, and it has generally been accepted that a rested firefighter is more efficient than a tired one. The 12 hr shifts proposed by the LFB management still contain a stand down period, the 24 hr shifts proposed by the union is simply 2 12 hour shifts bolted together.
so do you mean in a 24hr shift an FF will sleep from 01:00 to 05:00 and at no other time?
Farmer_John - Member
Isn't the core of this dispute down to the timing of when shifts start? The peak time for calls is 6pm?
No it is not, the core of this dispute is that rather than negotiate a settlement to a change of contracts the management would rather sack the entire workforce and impose new terms and conditions.
Bazz - do you have a copy of the ballot question btw?
Stoner - Member
so do you mean in a 24hr shift an FF will sleep from 01:00 to 05:00 and at no other time?
I believe the actual proposed stand down period is midnight to 0500hrs, and there would certainly be no sleeping outside of these hours, we simply have to much to do. But it's all academic now as the proposal was turned down completely.
Stoner - Member
Bazz - do you have a copy of the ballot question btw?
Sorry no i don't.
so then, a FF working a 12/12 shift pattern would work 12 day hours, go home for 12 hours, kip, come back for 12 day hrs. Fire Brigade gets 24hrs solid graft from the day shift. The night shift work 12-5 hours so that's 14hrs in two days. Tot it up and you have 38hrs of graft in a 48 hour period.
on a 24hr shift you have day one guys working 20hrs solid, then home to kip when the next lot come in to do another 20hrs giving 40hrs total.
All sounds good for 24hr shifts so far but there's no way a FF is going to work 20hrs solid is there?
The nature of our work is that the really hard graft bit generally only lasts for 3-4 hours i.e. at a large incident before your relieved, the rest of our time is spent carrying out inspections, visits and community work, all slower paced and there would be meal breaks as there would be on the 12 hour day shift. So your right it does, from a productivity point, make better sense to have 24 hr shifts. Makes you wonder why they rejected them so quickly doesn't it?
were are only paid for 42hrs not 48hrs
A quick google of news reports suggests these negotiations have been going on 5 years so I can (almost) understand why the Brigade is loosing patience with the Union and moving to the end game.
However, the Union can't reject the Brigade's suggestion on shifts (and also their compromise plan) and at the same time moan about how bad the Brigade is for not adopting their 24hr shift plan!
Seems some heads need banging together.
were are only paid for 42hrs not 48hrs
fair enough, but you can see why the cynic would say that a 24hr shift is designed to be the cushtiest for the FF? Complete your weekly hours obligations in two days = 5 day weekend for other jobs (after a bit of a kip, naturally)
Not 5 years at all, read the link that was posted earlier plenty in there, but to clarify there has been suggestions that it was changed but the councillors that make up the London fire and emergency planning authority had failed to reach a consensus up until 14 months ago, last August they voted on the changes and the vote failed, at this time the authority was made up of 5 tories, 3 labour, 2 lib dems, and 1 green, the tories voted for and the rest against stating they didn't think the given reasons were good enough, the brigade were given up to 18 months to re think and re draft the proposal. Then a couple of weeks later one labour councillor defected to the tories and the tory leader of the authority called an emergency meeting where the vote was taken again and not surprisingly passed by one. They then spent the winter and spring drawing up their battle plans presumably as there were no negotiations, before stalling through the start of the summer because they didn't want to talk to some of the union negotiators. Finally negotiations started in June 2010. So nearer 5 months than 5 years.
Then a couple of weeks later one labour councillor defected to the tories
I blame Labour.
😉
I couldn't give a toss if a fire fighter does sleep for 8 hours of a 24 shift, I'd still rather they were 10 minutes closer to the appliance when the shout goes up.
Hampshire were apparently trying to reduce crews from 5 to 4. I'm no genius, but I can't see that that's going to make anyone safer including the fire fighters themselves.