The Firefighters

[immunodiffusion]

[s]The_Farwall wrote on 11:35, 15th Nov 2002:
The only way for the Government to be fair in this kind of action would be to give an equivalent pay rise to all it's other underpaid workers, the nurses and student-doctors and teachers and all the rest.

Yes, exactly! You seem to be arguing as if this is a bad thing - surely all public sector workers deserve a pay rise. People say 'the government can't afford it' - but why not? The government can afford whatever it likes - they can set tax levels at whatever level they like, and everyone has to pay. If they set tax levels at sensible levels they could afford a payrise for all public sector workers.

However, even if the government, for whatever reason, will not do this, the firefighters still deserve a payrise. Nurses and teachers are paid more than firefighters at the moment (student doctors aren't paid at all, as with all other students, but that's another matter). The firefighters are one of the most underpaid of all the public-sector occupations, and deserve to receive at least a salary comparable with other similar public sector jobs, such as the police. There is nothing ridiculous about asking for this at all.

[KT]

While there are firefighters who are effectively breaking the strike when needed (see examples above) i have heard reports that there are others who are not so generously spirited.

Apparently there was a situation where the voluntary firefighters who are not on strike(as they get no wage anyway) were prevented from answering a call because the strikers had tampered with the engines and superglued the garage doors shut. This is simply irresponsible, they can strike if they so choose but preventing others from saving lives by causing criminal damage is unacceptable.

There are also problems for those still working who are not getting emergency calls because the calls are being diverted to other places by the operator. They are on duty but can't do abything because they're not getting told about calls!

[kensson]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 14:14, 15th Nov 2002:

Yes, exactly! You seem to be arguing as if this is a bad thing - surely all public sector workers deserve a pay rise. People say 'the government can't afford it' - but why not? The government can afford whatever it likes - they can set tax levels at whatever level they like, and everyone has to pay. If they set tax levels at sensible levels they could afford a payrise for all public sector workers.


Quite right. There's plenty of money to send troops around the world to fight pointless wars, but apparently not to fund the workers we rely on.

[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[splittter]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 14:14, 15th Nov 2002:
Nurses and teachers are paid more than firefighters at the moment (student doctors aren't paid at all, as with all other students, but that's another matter). The firefighters are one of the most underpaid of all the public-sector occupations, and deserve to receive at least a salary comparable with other similar public sector jobs, such as the police. There is nothing ridiculous about asking for this at all.


Look ... mostly I agree with the gist of what you're saying ... that a pay rise across the board of the public sector is due ... but if you think nurses are paid more than firefighters thats just a lie

if you're going to try and make a point at least get the facts straight.
A newly qualified nurse makes over £5,500 less a year than a newly qualified firefighter. To get what firefighters get now would be a 34% increase for a nurse.

Teachers have a pay scale, 6 bands ... of which half are above a firefighter, and half are below ... for figures see:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/NHSstaff/ ... 30,00.html

http://www.askatl.org.uk/pay_and_condit ... 2/qs02.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1936910.stm

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User splittter wrote on 14:37, 15th Nov 2002:
if you think nurses are paid more than firefighters thats just a lie


Ok, point taken. Nurses deserve a pay increase too, as do all public service workers.

Teachers start on 17,595, which is above a firefighter's starting salary, and teachers deserve a pay increase too.

The government spends about 22bn pounds a year on defence. If this money were instead put into public service salaries the government could afford pay increases across the public services.

[rubbermuffin]

People keep saying that firefighters are causing deaths. No. Fires cause death. Firefighters save lives. They are not being allowed to do their job as they are not being paid the right amount. The govt. can afford what it wants to afford.

The govt. 'budget' does not show how much money the govt. has to spend, merely how much it is prepared to spend.

More money for nurses, teachers, and firefighters is absolutely correct. If they have to strike to get it, tough.

[loveridge]

The government can afford whatever it likes - they can set tax levels at whatever level they like, and everyone has to pay. If they set tax levels at sensible levels they could afford a payrise for all public sector workers.

Correct, however, by increasing taxes, could it possible that another finanical problem would occur within a group of workers? If so, we'd be in the same problem again.

I agree that more should be paid, but the government only has so much. If we put money somewhere, then something has to suffer, then we'll all have something new to complain about.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]loveridge wrote on 18:32, 15th Nov 2002:
by increasing taxes, could it possible that another finanical problem would occur within a group of workers?


If tax rates were raised in the top tax bands only this probably would not have a major negative effect on the economy, because only people who are very rich already pay tax at that level, and could afford to pay a lot more. Also, it would be possible to reallocate government funds to fund public service pay increases - it depends where the government's priorities lie.

[Al]

"If tax rates were raised in the top tax bands only this probably would not have a major negative effect on the economy, because only people who are very rich already pay tax at that level, and could afford to pay a lot more."

Well, that's fair! Make the people who pay the most pay even more.

[hr]"The greatest enjoyment from existence is living dangerously"

[rational-mind]

[s]rubbermuffin wrote on 17:54, 15th Nov 2002:
More money for nurses, teachers, and firefighters is absolutely correct. If they have to strike to get it, tough.


What you are saying makes no sense. How are you coming to your conclusion that these groups of people deserve more money? You are asserting it, but you fail to give a reason. Why give pay rises to those groups and not to others? What is your _objective_ way of determining whether someone should get a pay rise?

[loveridge]

Well, that's fair! Make the people who pay the most pay even more.

True.

[pelopidas]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 16:57, 15th Nov 2002:
.

"The government spends about 22bn pounds a year on defence. If this money were instead put into public service salaries the government could afford pay increases across the public services."


Rubbish the government spends 30bn a year on defence, and it still can't even afford the gas for the navy to go on nato exercises, etc etc.
Squaddies work far harder, train harder and have a job that requires far more guts than being a fireman, yet on completion of training they only get 12,750 a year. yet at the moment :THEY ARE BEING PAID FAR LESS TO DO THE SAME JOB, WITH FEWER NUMBERS, LESS TRAINING AND OUTDATED EQUIPMENT.

These firemen do not deserve our support they are being greedy, endangering lives and attempting to hold the government to ransom.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

You have to take into account with a squaddies wages, that much of that income is disposable as their food, housing and associated costs are already taken care of - as far as I understand. I do think that the defence budget is adequate though, there is merely a need for greater efficiency - as there is in most public sector services.

I also have to strongly disagree with taxing the highest band tax payers more, all that will encourage people to do is leave the country for economically warmer climes - like America and such and if that isn't shooting ourselves in the foot, I don't know what is.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]pelopidas wrote on 03:07, 16th Nov 2002:

Squaddies work far harder, train harder and have a job that requires far more guts than being a fireman,

Were the army to go on strike, what would be the result on the people of Britain? Nothing. The fire service go on strike, and houses burn. Ipso facto, the fire service is more important than the army.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Al wrote on 20:10, 15th Nov 2002:
Make the people who pay the most pay even more.


Make the people who have the most pay more.

[Al]

"Make the people who have the most pay more."

They already do. I just question the fairness of making them pay even more. If levels of income tax were graded it might be defensible, but at the moment, under the present system, it is not.



[hr]"The greatest enjoyment from existence is living dangerously"

[lLynn]

Were the army to go on strike, what would be the result on the people of Britain?


First and foremost the army are not allowed to go on strike. Neither are the RAF, Navy, Police etc as they are considered too important to be allowed to strike. It should be the same for firefighters.

I totally agree firefighters deserve to be paid more but 40% is unrealistic.

16% has been offered as long as the fire service modernises. Almost every other industry has to accept modernisation etc as part of their pay deal why cant the firefighters?

I would also like to add that in my opinion and that of many others Mr Gilchrist has his own political agenda and is only interested in what he can get for himself. HIS OWN INTERESTS COME FIRST NOT THOSE OF HIS MEMBERS!!!!!

[bernd]

'I think we all should get our pay doubled and for us students I believe we deserve some form of income sponsored by the tax payer. All of us are worth it. And should we run out of money (which I doubt) we can storm the big companied with their fat cats and steel the money they have stolen from us in the first place......'

Well, welcome to marxist wonderland, enjoy it till a hangover sets it: Money illusion.



[hr]"The three stages of government: If it works, tax it. If it still works, regulate it. If it stops working, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

[steve taylor]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 13:17, 16th Nov 2002:
[s]pelopidas wrote on 03:07, 16th Nov 2002:[i]

Squaddies work far harder, train harder and have a job that requires far more guts than being a fireman,

Were the army to go on strike, what would be the result on the people of Britain? Nothing. The fire service go on strike, and houses burn. Ipso facto, the fire service is more important than the army.
[/i]

fire service more im portant then the army, wot drugs are you on get into the mod websight and open ur sad mind we are vital and the defence budget is poor as are kit is way behind the rest of the world yet WE are respected throughout

[LeopardSkinQueen]

If you're a member of the armed forces, you're not acting as a very good ambassador for them, are you? That was completley incoherent.

Could you please give a few examples of how the armed forces are more important than firefighters?

[hr]The philosopher Didactylos has summed up an alternative hypothesis as 'Things just happen. What the hell.'