Transfering from Retained to Wholetime

[Guest]

Hi

   Does anyone know of any Brigades that allow a transfer from Retained to Wholetime,Or from the MOD to wholetime.And how do you go about this.Could you please e-mail me with any help or information at all on the subject,Even how far you have got.(philaldridge2@tiscali.co.uk)


                       Thankyou for your help


                                            Phil

[Steve Mc Queen]

As a Defence Firefighter(and retained Watch Manager)I  applied to transfer directly into Leicester Fire & Rescue. I had an Interveiw with the Personnel Officer who was quite positive, it came to nothing, I am still interested in transfering,and with IPDS being the new standard, am hopefull that it is not too far away.

[Guest]

Hi

   can you really see them letting us tranfering into the Wholetime when tis could open a whole can of worms.I have been informed that if we have completed the competences firefigher baed there should be no reason why we could not transfer.But i feel at the moment that it is all unfair on us as retained.We are good enough part time but not fulltime.And no one seems to want to help us get to were we want to be.

                     Phil

[Guest]

phil not sure about your comment re no-one wanting to help, however if thats your experience then im sorry.

my personal stance is that anyone who is good enough should be allowed to join/transfer. i dont understand why there is a reluctance to allow direct transfers from retained to wholetime, i suspect that someone somewhere is keeping an eye on crewing levels at the retained stations., though i may be way off the mark to suspect something so devious.

it used to be 'held up' that as it was a 'job' the application process must be open to everyone including non retained on an equal basis, im not sure of the legality of this but suspect it will need to addressed.

things are being discussed and developed as we 'chat' - there was a discussion at the fire conference on the same/similar issue and there was no conclusions though south wales will be spending some time looking at the process as a result of the discussion.

the truth how i see it is that authorities have known this has been coming for years (it really is that long) and the fact thay they havent resolved many of the important issues show perhaps a lack of understanding or even real comittment on their behalf. i suggest you try to get the issue raised via your rep body (assuming youre in one - sorry for that!) i know the fbu is looking at the issues and one of the reasons we pulled out of the retained working group was because of what we saw as no real commitment to the real issues by many on the group (long story - sorry)


hope this helps - though i suspect it wont - but i can assure you there are some who are trying to sort it! i will probably be attending the fbu nat retained committee meeting next week to discuss/explain some of the rank to role issues and to see if any light can be seen at the end of the tunnel!

[fireftrm]

Dave

The same basic issue as for transferees, another forum discussion. There is absolutley no reason why any firefighter, irrespective of their duty system, should not be available for transfer to another service, station, or duty system.

I do doubt that FRS are worried about retained crewing levels - indeed my experience is that the opposite is the case -  the attitude being that the opportunity to transfer to a full time post is a great recruitment tool for the retained service. If every retained entrant subsequently joined fulltime (extreemly unlikely as many join with very well paid existing jobs and want only to be Rt) then we would have a pre-trained entrant and still get around 3 years RT service out of them. It would only create problems with RT management (where would they come from?).

The main issue for existing RT staff will be demonstrating their competence, as may be the case for some WT!, this may be a problem where they do not carry out CFS and fire safety visits..............

A very major problem is people assuming that the new roles and Grey book mean that they are now all competent. They are not , they have been so deemed for PAY PURPOSES ONLY.

[Guest]

Interesting we still use the word retained,,I thought it was part time now,That would infer easy cross over,either way,full to part or tother way.Now that part time recruits could be doing same(similar) recruit training  It wil be intersting seeing the first Employment tribunal decision,I know a part time watch manager with IFE members,exteremly competent trainer and all the skills needed to transfer stright into a full time instructors role  but he was told,Different job contracts no cross over,I wonder if that will change with modernisation :?:

[Guest]

I would like to throw some questions into the debate.
1.    I understand the FBU wish to persue Wholetime Retained, I am led to believe that a Watch Manager WT, unless there was a specific vacancy, would have to ride as a Community Fire Fighter.  Does this now imply that the Retained training is considered better than the WT or does it mean that even the WT training counts for nothing.

2.  On a WT/ Retained Station, eventually a time will come when the WT appliances are engaged on Fire fighting duties and the Retained are called into Standby.  At this point, the Retained are the first pump for attendance for any eventuality.  Seems were good enough then!  More so, on soley Retained Staions, they are always the first appliance: But obviousley not so highly trained or competent,  but do the council constituates for the region receive a reduction in their Council Tax Bill?

Your comments  are welcomed.
Captain Cod.

[fireftrm]

Points:

Potter - the correct term is still retained, as per the latest edition of the Grey Book, Part-time is a duty system that presently does not yet exist and will be for part-time work (I assume set hours rather than the on-call retained duty system).

The R/T Watch Manager with IFE Member unfortunatley - (and I don't necessarily agree but that is down to there being no cross-mapping work yet done by IFE) - this has no relevance to the competence of any FRS staff. The training competence may allow him to apply for a trainer post, as long as evidential, but his WM competence is still only for PAY PURPOSES until proven. At the time what he was told would have been the case and still really is. I know of a similar, reverse situation, WT WM told their comptence was pay only so if there was a RT WM post then apply and take it in development, if suitable.

Captian Cod - the FBU wish to pursue WT/RT? I don't really think this is the case, the employers do, the FBU would agree with me I am sure. I believe that the WT WM should not take up a Ff role as he/she may no longer have a full competence in that role. They should join in development, with a Personal Development Plan, and remain so until competence in the Ff role proven. Skill decay. They could more easily take on a RT WM role though (see above about true comptence rules!). It does nothing to proving anything about levels of training at all, I don't get your argument there at all.
2.And your point is?
I guess when on standby (why does the station need to bring in the RT to standby when the WT are out, surely this is a total waste of money - they can turn out on aleters when and if there is another call?) you carry out assessments of competence (simulations/scenarios), do standard tests, hydrant testing, building inspections, risk assessments and community fire safety? Obviously.
Not so highly trained and not so competent? Well if you say so, good to see you recognising your own development needs. They will be in your PDR and PDP already then?
It seems to me that the council tax payers are paying the same to you as they would to the WT staff, so why should they get any discount? Indeed if they stopped calling the RT to cover at the station, rather than remain on alerters the they could get their saving that way? Personally I think that getting you in and the having you do all those things above, which you must as you are doing the same job for the same pay, is a good thing. Gets more work done and gets evidence toward your proof of competence. Keep it up, don't tell your FRA about the savings they could make by not bringing you in though!

[Guest]

All

       1. Is there a Brigade taking on RT to WT which are not using IPDS?


        2.If WT can now cover on a RT station to cover sort falls in staffing levels why can`t a rt to the same on a wt station?

[fireftrm]

Phil2

1. I can see no way that any service could do this. Unless the competence can be evidenced then entry into the Firefighter role would have to be from start.

2. I think you mean - if a WT can cover at a RT station to make up for staffing deficiencies, then why can't the same apply in reverse? The strange part is the 'now' - I don't understand this. WT staff have always been able to cover at RT stations. My FRS has used this as long as I have been in the service (too many years to mention). So nothing 'now' has changed. If your FRS has just started then so be it, but it is only a policy change, nothing else. If you are referring to WT doing RT duties, then that is a different matter. WT/RT has also been there for decades, just that until the dispute resolution the FBU had a 'ban' on this. RT covering for WT staffing deficiencies is another issue altogether. Until the comptence is demonstrated then this can't really happen, most (and I am not saying all) RT duty personnel do not carry out CFS, Fire safety visits or other areas of the NOS, this makes using them in a part-time fill-in problematic. Not that it can't happen, just that it probably wouldn't. In the future, with all competences evidenced, we will have a totaly flexible use of staff to cover where, and when, required. But not just yet.

[Guest]

fireftrm, you seem to be doing pretty well in terms of considered responses, -  i would like to see if these questions being asked have been asked of the brigade/management in writing and what responses have been supplied.
 
so, everyone asking questions instead of obtaining personal views start asking your brigades what is going on

ps the retained is a duty system and shouldnt really be used to define a group of workers.

firefighters are conditioned to one duty system or another, hence firefighters (retained), and i cant see the day quick enough when we all accept there should be and is no difference in terms of pay or competency and it truly is just a reflection on the duty system a firefighter is conditioned to.

[fireftrm]

Dave Bev

I would welcome a personal chat with you on some of these issues - message me?

Further updates for the previous poster Phil2 and others:

Phil2, point 1. Thoughts............(and why did I not say this before?) any FRS not doing IPDS? There can't be any, the pay scales and Grey Book now have the roles, no ranks. So how can any service not be using IPDS in some way? As Dave says - ask these questions of your management and get your union officials to chase them too!

I now know of a FRS taking RT (deemend competent for pay purposes only) from their service in as WT - straight transfer. The Ff will have a PDP but will be on competent pay from the start. Another RT applying from a different FRS is to undergo a transferee test - just like any WT Ff applying for the same job. Both of these individuals will go straight to a station with the PDP (assuming the second passes - there are existing WT who fail miserably!).

Out of interest my FRS will be doing just the same and advertising internally, only, shortly. We will sift by a test of literacy and numeracy to level 2 (as is indicated by the successful completion of the Ff NOS - so good test) and a practical skill test. The sift will be necessary as there will be less posts than applicants! This will be the same as we use for WT transferees. We will also be giving full development to those who fail to pass either lit/num or pratical tests; after all we want them to be competent Ffs! We are committed to staff development and have an agreement with a learning centre, they are able to offer the Adult Literacy and Numeracy tests - so our staff can actually get the Level 2 qualification.

[Guest]

Let me just through this into the melting pot.
If a retained ff is allowed to join wt but has to pass a series of tests first what happens if he/she fails the tests?
Can of worms or what.
If a Ff is riding a retained appliance today just when his pager goes off who is going to give him a reason why they can't ride the wt appliance when the bells go down in the station. When all is said and done its the same.
You arrive at an incident and commited in BA, your partner is from the local retained station, only differance is he arrived on another appliance.
If we can work together then we can work together! if you get my meaning.

[Guest]

i would message if i knew how to!!

try my em on oncs@fbu.org.uk

dave bev

[fireftrm]

Guest:
Q. If a retained ff is allowed to join wt but has to pass a series of tests first what happens if he/she fails the tests?

A.  The Ff would identified training needs and therefore return to their station with a development plan. A point to note is that inter-brigade transfers inlcude a medical - irrespective of age - so a RT member applying and failing the medical, with an uncorrectable problem, would be  discharged from their RT contract as a result.

The remainder - quite and this already happens in some cases, RT riding with Wt and vice versa. As to working there on a shift then see my earlier responses. No problems are there?

[/i]