Should the emergency services be allowed to go on strike.

In the UK on these days the fire service is planning to go on strike, 29- 31 October, 2-4 November, 6 November -14 November, 22-30 November, 4-12 December, 16-24 December.

The reason for the strike is over pay and they are asking for a 40% pay increase. Whilst I agree that the fire fighters, who often risk their lives daily, should be paid more I cannot agree with the strike as I feel it will put lives at risk.

The army is stepping in to cover the strike days but their equipment is vastly out of date and frankly not up to the job. More info here.

Should the government step in and make it illegal for the emergency services to strike and impose harsh penalties on those that should strike or should they allow it and potentially put peoples lives at risk.

Note: this is to discuss whether the emergency services should be allowed to strike. Not as to how much they should be paid or whether the government should meet their demands.

 

I'm also from the UK.

Yes, they should. For several reasons. And every member of the public should be supporting them.

First, why should it be the firefighters that step down? These are the men and women that put their lives at risk every day to protect the lives and homes of me and you. Why should they not get paid as much as other public service staff?

Second, if the Government cared that much about the people at risk, they'd back down and give them the pay increase that they deserve. Not emotionally blackmailing them by saying 'you strike and people die.'

Third, it works both ways. The Government will be JUST as responsible for any deaths or injuries caused by the strikes - maybe even more so, as it's the firefighters that are getting paid 40% less than they should be.

I agree that's it's a terrible thing that so many people will be at risk. I'd rather there was a general strike of all non-essential public service staff in sympathy for the firefighters, which could bring the country to its knees just, if not more, easily. But that will never happen. So, show some solidarity with the men and women that risk their lives, every day, to protect our lives and property.

- TheScarletBanner.

 

TSB, I agree with you and stand behind the fire fighters in their demands for a decent salary. I cannot agree with you and support their strike efforts.

By striking they are putting our lives at risk, I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in car crash on the day of one of the strikes. I also think it is highly irresponsible to be striking on the weekend before (2-4 Nov) bonfire night which is probably one of their busiest nights and when they are needed the most.

Currently the majority of the public supports the fire fighters in their demands for a decent salary. I fear that this will soon waiver if people die or are injured due to the strike. Striking is not the way to go about getting their salary increased.

The other question would if this strike goes ahead then should the police force, ambulance service, coast guard or maybe even the army be allowed go on strike for more realistic pay?

 

When it gets to the point where someone is striking, then presumably there is something grossly wrong.
Emergency services sure as hell shouldn't strike; simply put, their job is to protect people. Now, I have no problem with them wanting higher pay rates - hell, they deserve them. And I normally support strikes, like transport ones, just to be different!

E_S

 

TSB, I agree with you and stand behind the fire fighters in their demands for a decent salary.

Thank you. As a Marxist activist, I have met a lot of firefighters organising strike efforts, and they are very thankful for every bit of support for higher salary they can get.

I cannot agree with you and support their strike efforts.

That is a shame. If you support their demands for better pay, it follows that you would also support a strike. The Government are ill-known to hand out 40% pay rises unless straits are dire, indeed.

By striking they are putting our lives at risk,

Well, sadly, one could argue that the Government are also putting our lives at risk, by refusing to back down. I think the firefighters have the moral highground here, considering they put their lives at risk everyday, and their claims are justified.

I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in car crash on the day of one of the strikes.

Neither would I, and I feel incredible sympathy and sadness for anybody who would be unfortunate enough to be harmed as a result of the strikes.

I also think it is highly irresponsible to be striking on the weekend before (2-4 Nov) bonfire night which is probably one of their busiest nights and when they are needed the most.

Well, aside from the fact that people shouldn't be lighting bonfires or using fireworks prior to bonfire night, I agree that the timing could have been better. But these men and women get paid pitiful amounts, and have been for a long time. There could be many reasons why they would choose those particular dates.

Currently the majority of the public supports the fire fighters in their demands for a decent salary.

For which the firefighters are grateful, I'm sure.

I fear that this will soon waiver if people die or are injured due to the strike.

A lack of public support might be a necessary evil for getting better pay. I don't believe the firefighters should be able to hold the Government ransom for huge wages, but 40% on top of the pittance they currently earn is more than justified.

Striking is not the way to go about getting their salary increased.

Sadly, as I've said, the Government isn't in the habit of handing out 40% pay increases without industrial action.

The other question would if this strike goes ahead then should the police force, ambulance service, coast guard or maybe even the army be allowed go on strike for more realistic pay?

Well, as it is, I believe all of those groups - with the possible exception of the Army - already get paid a reasonable wage. The firefighters are direly behind. It's a tough question, and I'd rather handle those specific situations when we came to it, than speculating now.

- TSB.

 

Emergency services sure as hell shouldn't strike; simply put, their job is to protect people.

And that job isn't well-practiced when they're trying to support themselves, families and homes on such low wages. I must admit, I feel more secure knowing they're going on strike and may (will, hopefully), get a higher wage, meaning the living conditions of the whole of them will increase, than I would knowing that they might continue under such abominable conditions.

- TSB.

 

I sympathise with their situation; as someone facing Commonwealth, and therefore British-derived, employment soon I, too, appreciate the need to pay the public service higher. However, I'm of the belief that striking will only harm their efforts.

E_S

 

If you support their demands for better pay, it follows that you would also support a strike.

TSB, I would challenge you on this point that I believe that you can support the fire service's demands for more money but be against the strike.

The BBC makes mention of fire fighters who will not be striking, does this mean that they are not supporting their demands for better pay.

Oh please, lets not let this discussion degenerate into a "Your either with us, or your against us debate" we have enough of those in the Iraq threads

 

Oh please, lets not let this discussion degenerate into a "Your either with us, or your against us debate" we have enough of those in the Iraq threads

Can't disagree there.


Seriously, though, supporting the fireworkers demands for better pay, then condemning a strike, is entirely futile; support for them, alone, isn't going to win them the 40% pay increase they deserve. We can't, as a society, expect to be kept safe 100% of the time from fire, and yet condemn the majority (I believe the figure varies from 82% to 87% of fireworkers supporting the strike, in different countries of the Kingdom) of fireworkers, when they tire of unfair conditions.

The talks that have taken place between the Government and the fireworkers on the issue of strikes have been pretty useless - the pay increases being offered are minimal, and would require the fireworkers to sacrifice the credibility of further strikes. It's obvious they're not going to get what they desire, and deserve, any other way. The best we can do is support them 100%, and hope they get it, so we can go back to being secure that they'll be there to protect us next time our houses or properties burn down.

- TSB.

 

I'm from Canada. Here, anyone deemed an essential service (doctors, teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc.) cannot strike by law. Failure to obey the law means jail time. I remember when I was in grade 12, the teachers were complaining about their wage. They wanted to strike. The government gave them an offer, which the teachers refused, so they just made it illegal for them to strike, and legislated the offer.

IMO, that's the way it should be.

 

When it gets to the point where someone is striking, then presumably there is something grossly wrong

heh, you haven't looked at some of the last concessions from a US labor strike have you? Unions will shut a business down over a pittance nowadays.

As for emergency services it's a catch-22. Morally and ideally they should be able to strike to get fair representation. But if they do you're toying with disaster. They hold a posistion of such power that they hold an unfair advantage over the general public. And if they do strike, people can suffer, not just business. There's no perfect answer but overall I think it's something they just have to concede that it comes with the job title and if things get too bad they can quit or move to another town that pays more (benefits are typically not the issue in these types of jobs). If a town can't keep their police or firemen they'll be forced to enact some measures to correct it. That's about as good as they're going to get simply because of their posistion and importance.

 

We have the same problem here in NYC. Our cops and firefighters are grossly underpaid. They are also forbidden to strike by law. They have this ting called the Blue Flu. Basically, several thousand union members call in sick.

There were even rumors of a police strike for 2 weeks ago. It turned out to a demonstration by some off duty personell.

I don't know about your towns, ut here there is a serious recruiting problem. NYPD loses 300 members a month and each class may graduate 200 every 6 months. The low pay and crappy conditions are just a huge turn off. Raises not only appease the current personell, they would make recruiting a lot easier.

 

exactly DD

KC has a similar problem. They're underpaid, but to combat it they train the officers for free. They work their required 2 years and most go on to better paying areas. The key is getting public awareness of such trends to correct them without going to such extreme measures that would leave the city nearly defenseless against a crime wave or riots.

 

Of course the emergency services should be allowed to strike. The emotive arguments used against such strikes are utter cant and hypocrisy utilised by the unscrupulous career civil servants and failed lawyers that constitute the government in parliamentary democracies.
These nonenties would at least carry a trace element of moral advantage if they were willing to forego their own absurd pay packets, but chance would be a fine thing.
How dare such an intellectual lightweight as Prescott vilify the role of the firefighters. The only danger this rotund individual ever faced was flooding a martini with mixer.
His tired rhetoric reminded me of the hated tories who verbally assaulted the ambulance service as glorified taxi drivers during their dispute.
It's high time public servants received the renumeration they deserve and that the trade union movement reclaimed the populist tradition. Instead of bemoaning inevitable council tax rises or blaming everything on foreigners/illegal immigrants how about suggesting a substantial reduction in wages for our civil servants/politicians, and the most rudimentary steps toward a more redistributive fiscal system.

 

No, they shouldn't. Absolutley not. There are other ways to make their desires known. They can form unions with non-vital services and those services can stike for them. Perhaps the garbage service or public works.

If I were a Firefighter I wouldn't feel right going off work for money when my doing so might mean the death of someone else. Money isn't worth that. The government shouldn't make it illegal but the Firefighters should find another way.

 

Problem is, the firefighters need to feed their families. That is pretty damned important too.

 

I doubt their families are starving. It seems to me that a really dedicated firefighter wouldn't want to strike. That an alternative like the one I suggested would be the prefered method of political action.

 

The problem here is that if firefighters or police strike there's no one else to turn to. There's no surplus of them sitting in a warehouse, no competetor to go to. This is a problem with government provided services. In a true capitalistic market they could because there'd be someone else to turn to. Social provided services do not offer an alternative. When you have such a system (like universal health care even) you are presented with this unavoidable problem. It is just not logistically feasible for it to have a swift resolution. The funds have to be diverted from other places. Taxes have to be levied, the public has to vote. Even if a strike could be quickly resolved (which it can't) there'd still be crimes and fires left untouched while the process goes on. Add into the fact that it's governement and government is hardly swift in action, you're left with a serious problem.

It's not an issue of feeding their families in most cases, but I do feel that a person has a right to a chance of getting ahead. Ends-meet is not acceptable in a career choice IMO. Like I said it's a catch-22. They're penalized for their choice in a career but if you offer them the same rights people needlessly die.

Given the two choices, I choose life.

 

heh, you haven't looked at some of the last concessions from a US labor strike have you? Unions will shut a business down over a pittance nowadays.


heh, US Unions aren't exactly "models" for world emulation are they?

Theoretically, the Army could cover, but I certainly wouldn't want them too. Nor would I want the ES* to strike, mind you!

Basically, cops, firefighters, intelligence personnel, defence personnell ALL should be higher paid. These people are responsible for our lives - though, to be fair, the CIA pays a really good wage.

Ender_Sai

* ES is Emergency Services, not to be confused with E_S whom many wish would strike!

 

I remember the last local fire strike about 5 years ago. The Army tried their best but the equipment they had was not up to the job. I remember seeing the Green Goddess's lined up along the street because they were not allowed to use the fire stations.
[image=http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38369000/gif/_38369909_goddess_engine3_inf300.gif]
These engines should be in a museum, not out on the street protecting our lives, families and homes.

The worrying thing was that sick people took the opportunity of the strike to start fires knowing full well that the cover was not there.

Lets hope that does not happen again.

 

40% is unrealistically high.

It may well be justified, but in terms of trying to negotiate a pay deal, demanding 40% is simply ridiculous.

It will be very interesting to see how this ends. If the government agree to the 40% rise, expect other essential service workers to follow the firefighters' suit.

 

Of course ES deserve good wages but asking for a 40% rise is a joke. No government could agree to that. Imagine if they did, every public sector union would be going on stike for similar pay demands. The sad fact is that strikes like this are engineered by militant union leaders for political reasons. After years of being nuetered by Maggie Thatcher they are have finally started flexing their muscles again. Since Labour came to power in 1997 working days lost to strikes have increased 4 fold.

 

I don't believe they should be allowed to go on strike.

I really think that the Firefighters are ,well "taking the piss" abit.

They want a 40% pay rise,bloody 40% is way out of order and theres no way on earth that they are going to get it.

Yes,they have an important job thats full of risks,BUT they know all about this before they join the fire service.It's not as if they don't know every aspect of the job and it's just sprung on them.

The jobs dangerous,BUT they are paid good money.They wouldn't join if it wasn't would they?

My cousin is a fireman,and believe me he's very 'comfortable' when it comes to money.He gets good money and good overtime.

If they think they need a rise,then cool,but 40%? ,i'd tell them where to go.

Just for the record,my cousin voted against striking.He to believes that 40% is asking abit to much !!!

 

40% is a little ridiculus. But I'm sure its the Union negotiators asking for that and not the firefighters. Probably hired? And doesn't the union get paid a percentage of wages? I don't know, I've never been a member of a union. Rather odd for a Neo-Socialist...

I recall a plant stike in Albany Oregon recently. Apparently the plant ownership, after months of negotiation finally agreed to the original demands of the Union. The Union then rejected the plan...just thought it was funny.

Giving them 40% would start a fire of public service stikes...for Pete's Sake whos next? The teachers? [face_shocked]

 

40% is unrealistically high.

Not when the current wage is unrealistically low.

It may well be justified, but in terms of trying to negotiate a pay deal, demanding 40% is simply ridiculous.

I doubt you'd find it so ridiculous if you were depending on it for existence.

It will be very interesting to see how this ends. If the government agree to the 40% rise, expect other essential service workers to follow the firefighters' suit.

It's unlikely they will. Most of the other public services get a wage that is at least acceptable.

Of course ES deserve good wages but asking for a 40% rise is a joke. No government could agree to that.

Could is different from would. Governments, even the British one, have handed out higher payrises for public service workers before.

Imagine if they did, every public sector union would be going on stike for similar pay demands.

That's speculation, considering that the other public service staff get paid more.

The sad fact is that strikes like this are engineered by militant union leaders for political reasons.

And what other reason would there be? If you're referring to Socialistic tendancies, that's to be expected, considering a pillar of Socialism is an end of worker exploitation.

After years of being nuetered by Maggie Thatcher they are have finally started flexing their muscles again.

And that's a bad thing?

Since Labour came to power in 1997 working days lost to strikes have increased 4 fold.

That's not saying much, considering how crippled unions were in the 80's.

I don't believe they should be allowed to go on strike.

Firefighters have just as much right to go on strike as any other worker.I thought it was a fundamental belief shared on this board that human rights are important? The right to protest unfair working conditions shouldn't be demeaned.

I really think that the Firefighters are ,well "taking the piss" abit.

I doubt you'd feel the same way if you were a firefighter.

They want a 40% pay rise,bloody 40% is way out of order and theres no way on earth that they are going to get it.

40% would be out of order, if it wasn't only going to bring them up to a level comparable with other public service workers. The Government has been known to hand out payrises higher than that before. And they wont have a choice, if the firefighters do strike.

Yes,they have an important job thats full of risks,BUT they know all about this before they join the fire service.

That's no excuse for them to be exploited, at all. We need firefighters. That kind of attitude would ensure we had none.

BUT they are paid good money.They wouldn't join if it wasn't would they?

Frankly, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. They get paid a pittance. And most people choose to be a firefighter, when asked, because they believe it is a noble profession.

My cousin is a fireman,and believe me he's very 'comfortable' when it comes to money.He gets good money and good overtime.

I doubt you're referring to your average British firefighter. If your cousin is indeed British, and he lives 'comfortably,' then I find it easy to believe he has a ranking position or a something else to supplement his income. It's impossible to live 'very comfortably' on what they receive.

If they think they need a rise,then cool,but 40%? ,i'd tell them where to go.

And I'm sure they'd do the same for you.

Just for the record,my cousin voted against striking.He to believes that 40% is asking abit to much !!!

Then your cousin is either very noble and selfless, or he is spineless. I know which one most firefighters would agree on.


40% is a little ridiculus. But I'm sure its the Union negotiators asking for that and not the firefighters.

Firefighters voted, around the Kingdom, 81%-87% to stike for that wage.

Probably hired? And doesn't the union get paid a percentage of wages?

I honestly don't know.

[