FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: Guest on September 21, 2004, 08:48:29 PM
-
Latest news from Lincolnshire.A number of Retained firefighters from Grantham station have been kicked out of the FBU for being first responders.Well done FBU .another good move to promote member/union relations.These same retained lads was out in support of action over the pay dispute....what happened to the primary aim of a firefighter...quote "TO PRESERVE LIFE"
Apparently if an appliance is off the run for a first responder call,it cant be mobilised for a fire call for say a persons reported.The FBU and wholetime brothers didnt like it....so what happens if say its attending an RTA?.Not fire related,or am I missing something.Smells like double standards.
Any other brigades had any similar problems?
-
FBU officials in said county need a good kick up the a***e. They should be bloody lucky any of us want to stay in the union given the shambolic handling of the pay demand, the PR surrounding the dispute itself and our subsequent shafting in terms of the 'modernisation' requirements surrounding the pay award.
To kick members out in such a manner for exercising a democratic right to manage their own lives in this manner is nothing short of stalinist dictatorship.
The FBU needs to wake up or it will lose the hearts and minds of its moderate rank and file.
Fraternally yours,
Mike
-
The retained arm of the fire service is usually a high profile community supported group of lads and lasses who are well respected within their respective communities, can you imagine how much support and respect they would loose in the community if they did'nt respond to such incidents. Having said that this would also have the same effect on the whole time stations, after all as was said our main aim is to preserve life and if the FBU officials have a problem with that then they are in the wrong union. It's time we were allowed to move on, not only by the FBU but by the fire service employers, we have a job to do so lets get it done and stop arguing like a set of kids in a play ground.
-
To the last post I say "here here"
Red tape, bureacracy, politics are all clogging up the fire service and the other three emergency services - where will it stop?
Not only the mergency service but many other organisations too.
It has to stop somewhere and when it does the proverbila will hit the fan with quite some force. Glad I retire in 5 years time!
-
Further information with regard to my original post can be found by visitin www.granthamtoday.co.uk.
-
i understand the frustrations re fbu policy, but if you want to change them 'do the work' re changing policies! i do actually believe that the principles in the policy are fine however i think there is some room for addressing some of the issues in the policy especially in rural areas. who knows what is being looked at in terms of reviewing long standing policies (wink)
i would however make the point that as fire deaths have increased perhaps we should deal with the issues we are there to deal with - rome burned while nero fiddled - apparently? instead of chasing 'headline catchers' - when we have driven down fire deaths utilising a zero tolerance im sure there will be other work for us to do.
and why is that those in managerial positions dont carry defibs ( i know its not just defibs) etc including the cfo. what about workshops, internal mail carriers - every service vehicle in fact.
one issue that needs resolving is the funding issue. mid and west cannot make full financial recovery of costs for their schemes, so who pays - the fire service - so what falls off the shelf, personnel and stations? what do we stop doing.
ps i wonder how many 'fire peeps' are responders in their spare time, without pay, fully committed etc. why does it have to impact on operational response cover - approx 70% are off duty at any one time - thats over 40 000 volunteers to attract to the scheme, then add the off duty police - bet thats at least twice as many - sorted!! over 100 000 volunteers providing a service for their communities, doing something that is not their core function in their occupation - all it costs are defibs and training for them all.
lets keep all the post offices open and keep one in every corner shop or major store/factory/commercial premise,school - equip the posties, theres thousands of them, all driving, cycling and walking in their communities - who cares about not getting their mail on time if it saves lives?
if were gonna sort it on a community basis then let the community take on the responsibility - theres pleanty of 'slack' in the community apparently theres a whole 'grey army' out there?
names to be submitted to the person who keeps all the good ideas in a box under the bed
-
I am one of the 3 who have been expelled from the FBU, after the shafting we got from the strike/pay dispute, I dont see how any retained members can now support the union.
I thought the bain report stated that appliances should carry defibs and firefighters should be trained to use them!, then the white paper that was brought in by the ODPM a few weeks ago that stopped the latest strike action stated that we should all be co responders (the FBU signed up to both of them) so am I missing something by doing the co responder.
I am not worried that I have been kicked out of the FBU,all I know is that I will try and save lives, that is what I joined the fire service for.
-
'FBU expelled- 'why should the retained stay in the union?' Following the decision to at last give pay parity with the wt the retained did best of all out of the dispute. I have been informed that in some cases pay parity plus 16% equates to around a 40% pay rise. Although you personally feel disillusioned please don't make this a wt v ret issue.
-
1) the fbu never signed up to the bain review, in fact it refused to take part whatsoever
2) the white paper was responded to by the fbu and many of the comments were ignored. responding during consultation is not 'signing up'
if you read my earlier post i stated that there is a way to change policy. if you did something against brigade policy would you be expelled from the brigade? but this issue is best dealt with by looking at the whole process. i agree some ff will potentially save some lives by co-responding, but are you first responding to the station - which can be up to 5 mins, then waiting for another to join you, which can be another 5 mins (using standard fs response times)? or are you responding as a member of your community using your own vehicle and yes even with a blue light if need be. ie as part of your main(?) occupation, the fbu doesnt stop you co responding it says that if you do as PART of your fire service contract then obviously you have different views to the fbu and there seems little point in you being in an organisation that doesnt have the same ideals as it has.
i never cease to be surprised by people who stay in an organisation whose principles they are so obviously against without staying in and trying to change those principles. if they are against the policies and dont want to work to change them then why do they wait to be 'invited' to leave. why cant they do the honourable thing and leave of their own accord, with no animosity, recognising they have different ideals and viewpoints. and if things change at a later date everyone can reconsider their positions
or is it so they can complain about being shafted and how unfair life is?
this shouldnt be a discussion on wholetime, retained, volunteer or in time part time. this should be a discussion on who is best placed in the community to deliver and then ensuring the funding is available to deliver the required level of service to the community .
too many people are turning the provision of service into a retained versus wholetime issue. it isnt. its about service delivery and the 'camps' that are springing up do nothing to move this issue forward. they are about creating a division between the wholetime and retained, why? because,
'if the workers are united, they will never be defeated' SHAM 69
just to let you all know - these are my personal views and not necessarily the view of those i represent
-
Agree with you partly, however in recent years the gap has slowly been widening between the views of rank and file and our own executive council. It shouldn't be as simple as 'if you don't like the menu eat elsewhere'. At the end of the day the EC should reflect the opinions of the membership not direct us to satisfy its own ends. Exactly how much consultation has been undertaken by those at the top in order to identify the direction the membership want the union to take on any number of issues (co-response included). Not a lot.
Sadly there is little the membership seem to be able to do to influence policy given that many who aspire to and attain high office within the union have strongly held political beliefs that are often radically diffrent to those moderates who dutifully pay their subs year on year.
It seems to me you are sounding the death knell of an already weakened and demoralised union if you encourage those who do not share the views of the top table to bog off and whinge elsewhere. Efforts might be better directed at consolidation and reconstruction in the wake of what even those within the union might regard as having been a challenging and emotive chapter in our history.
yours fraternally
Mike
-
mike i hoped i was saying stay and change things but if views really are so far apart then perhaps the fbu isnt the organisation for some? and i suggest that to all levels of the union irrespective of position! its little point in developing policies that the members wont or dont adhere to and its little point if members wont do as there rep body suggests or advises.
the fbu is in my opinion, its members not the ec, they are there to represent the views of the members, if members want changes then there is a way to do that. if members are not being listened to then put it in writing and demand answers. the problem is often that those who do have so much to offer dont have the available time to give to making things better
as regards revisiting policies - i can tell you that i know as fact that that is happening, what i dont have is the authority to make public in a public forum, information that is the property of the fbu, but if members ask the question through the structure then they should be told.
weakened union? demoralised? im not so convinced but i suspect you are pointing out your local experience so i can only hope that it changes in not to distant a future becasue we need all those members who support the fbu and its policies.
i am trying to convince members of the benefits but obviously sometimes i dont get my point across properly in the midst of all the 'correspondence' so thanks for the opportunity to put the case straight that i want every firefighter, in whatever role theyre in, in the uk to be a member (in its fullest sense) of the fbu
-
Duly noted, appreciated and concurred with. Many thanks.
-
mike, as if by magic and to show policies are being reviewed- latest circular relating to wholetime retained (one of the many policies being reviewed) is available on fbu web site. it probably doesnt go far enough at the moment in terms of 'members who left or were forced to leave' due to w/t ret but i suspect that things may move along on that front also (eventually) if enough 'nudges' are given.
dave bev
(ps i honestly didnt know this was coming, though i do know there are other policies being looked at!)
-
The fact still remains that retained firefighters who have supported the union through thick and thin,on this occasion have been shafted by said union.
There comes a time when you have to make a stand for what you believe in.No one can fault the lads for wanting to save life and i understand that quite a few have been saved.
The problem has been escalated by a few"hard core" union members on the station,who think they can bully people into doing what they say as"the voice of the union"......welcome to the 21st century gentlemen...times are moving on.Maybe if they are so against preserving life,they should be looking for a different line of work...dont think we've heard the last of this one !!!
-
Once again why refer specifically to the fact that these expelled members were retained. They would have just as likely been expelled if they were w/t. Or do you feel the outcome might have been different if they were.
-
whether they be retained or wholetime..the unions stance was bang out of order...saving lives is our priority,which the union dissagrees with.and furthermore...its only the lads at Grantham station that have been expelled.Other retained lads at purely retained staions in Lincolnshire havnt been expelled.....now its not rocket science to work out the logic behind tht one.Grantham is day manned,w/t-ret,so they can afford to have a few members expelled...but the union have got to keep the boys in the sticks sweet...(just in case they need some support on the next strike)..so if anyone has a valid arguement as to why the FBU is employing double standards...id love to hear it...
Now we know FBU reps read these pages..and they are extremely quiet on this one
-
i did a long reply but got bored!
simple answer - if they havent been subject of an official comlaint then no action can be taken, so if youre not happy - deal with it instead of moaning on here!
if they have been subject of an official complaint and this hasnt been actioned there are processes for that aswell, again someone needs to raise the issue via the regional sec
dave bev
ps im still bored
-
FBU has always had double standards. As a TUC affiliate we should abide by the socialist principle of one man one job. How then does this fit with the retained duty system and w/t who engage in part time work. Fact is unless you do abide by this principle you have been in breach of ethical trade union policy and the union has tolerated such actions for years.
Double standards, its a fact of life.
Mike.
-
i also used to smack my children then campaign against violence!
yes, youre right there are double standards in everythng we do and i accept it goes on, but when i really feel agrieved i do something about it
not sure of the tuc socialist principle of one 'man' etc ...... now that is double standards what about women .. though my missus would say she already has more than one job
retained - no probs as far as im concernend, wt working part time - fine by me - just pay the taxes etc -
ethical trade union policies - youre going to have to provide the evidence for the specific policies including the one person one job sketch.
ps the fbu doesnt have a monopoly on getting things wrong sometimes, though i do believe the members and officials of the fbu try to do things correctly.
like my school reports used to say 'could do better' i would hazard a guess that they would still say that now plus 'room for improvement'
but then i never thought i was the finished article!
but this is the finished article or rather the last article im posting in this thread cos this discussion isnt actually resolving anything or informing anyone of anything other than personal opinions, if you want things to change then try to change them as part of the union movement and preferably the fbu, you wont change them on here!
-
Sorry Dave if i appear to be having a go. The point i am making is that far from nit picking we all must accept the existance and on occasions validity of double standards. For example in modern society political correctness produces impractical policies that exist on paper only due to their implementation being out of touch with reality.
As for the point about 'one person one job' this was an old chestnut uttered by a previous branch official of mine. I believe he was referring to a policy from the 70's when there was an increase in manufacturing industry unemployment and a 3 day week. Needless to say it has never been adhered to and indeed said union official moonlighted on his days off.
I myself don't get bogged down in the unfairness or hypocrisy of double standards. As you said we all have them to a greater or lesser degree and on occasion choose to practice other than what we preach.
C'est la vie mon ami.