FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Service Training OR Recruitment => Topic started by: Guest on September 16, 2004, 10:10:21 PM
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 :?:
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
i would message if i knew how to!!
try my em on oncs@fbu.org.uk
dave bev
-
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]
-
It would appear from the comments on the message board that no one seems to know where this one is going.
One minute we are being told by the FBU that when the IPDS -(idly piddly diddly squat) kicks in and we are maintaing our competency skills, whether we are Retained or Wholetime, we are classified as Community Fire Fighters on different Shift Patterns.
There will always be the dinasour element who will still refer to the Retained as PART TIME.
Should we try a different approach under the umbrella of "Family Friendly working conditions " to reduce the hours of the Retained element and transfer to Wholetime?
Is it not the case now for the "Wholetime" who provide 42 hours a week cover, against the average 120 hours of a Retained Fire Fighter, should in fact be addressed as Part Time?
Whats the view of the RFU? anybody wish to comment?
-
Cod
When IPDS kicks in? It is in. The new Grey book makes that clear, so does the fact that we are now being paid by our roles - without IPDS then we cannot be assessed against these role maps, nor can we have PDRs and PDPs. Any FRS not doing this now should have the union on their backs.
Dinosaurs calling RT Part-time? Well actually it is the confused only. Part-time has only just appeared as a duty system! Retained is still there as another, along with the existing shift and day duty systems. Retained is not part-time it is another system.
The 120 hours cover against 42 argument...... a spin doctor's attempt I suggest. The 42 hour duty system is one where the employee is at work for the 42 hours (whether on a 2 day 2 night - 8 day cycle, day duty, day crewing, or flexi-duty system). The 120 hour duty system is on-call only, not at work, and with a 2 hour commitment to attend for training/assessment. Good try, but don't go applying for Alastair Campbell's job just yet.
The RFU opinion? Well that I await with interest, after all they have been very vociferous in negotiations on the pay for retained, the duty systems, the inclusion of 2 x 24 hours completely free of duty - leading to the full cover now being 120 hours, taking legal challenges on the pension and IPDS. Also they are well ahead of the game on RT to WT and WT to RT issues. Or have I got them confused with another body?
-
HI
I joined the RT service 5 years ago,I had to do written tests,physical,and a medical.They placed me on to a two year program.In which i hadto complete the same competence based program as a WT would do within hi 15 weeks training.At present i do not know if i will have a fulltime job as i may be being made redundant.So i asked for a transfer from RT to WT, I was told i could not transfer as the ipds was not in yet in our service.What i need to know is if any service in this country are taking transfers from RT to WT.
Which service?
And what are the polices and proceedures?
If poss can i have a copy off the above polices and proceedures?
Thankyou for your help
Phil
-
I am a rt ff and yesterday I tried to apply for the position of a wt ff within our brigade as I was under the impression that we are now all classed as competent firefighters, I was told by our personnel dept that I could not apply as the wt and ret have different selection procedures.
well dont different brigades also have various type of selection? and yet they are accepting applications from transferees.
Once again the ret is second best in the eyes of the brigade and the union.
so much for parity and equal oppertunites.
Although I have heard that some brigades at last are recruiting from retained,lets hope that it is the start of things to come.
-
Hi
I would of thought with the amount of interest on this page we would of at least got a message from the fbu or even the rfu.But even the reps i have asked have not taken this on or ever come back to me at all on the subject,Which in turn makes me question why am i in the union?
I would not mind if this was a isolated case,But it is not.So i suggest any body who has any story to tell successful or not please send me it.And i will collate all information up and when i have some thing i will e-mail you all.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Phil :?
-
phil, sorry to burst your bubble but this site is not the proper place for the fbu to make statements. i do so as an individual, and at times run the risk of falling foul of the rule book, but so far have managed to stay on the right side of an etremely thin line!
can i suggest that you put your concerns/comments/questions in writing and send them into head office fbu, assuming you are a member, and ask for a reply from the retained ec member,at the same time as sending copies for the same action to your brigade and regional reps (who should always be the first port of call). if you dont receive a reply then you could forward that to the national officers at the fbu to ask why no-one has replied?
hope it helps in terms of understanding the position, as for asking for info from brigades, why not write to them aswell, in particular your own brigade??
dave bev
-
Sorry to intrude on this thread, which I know nothing about, but I just had to admire the professional stance, Davey. Equally, I just hope you are not getting too conventional and boring. The world needs radicals intent on overthrowing democratic govenment! Very best wishes for the new year!!!
-
Phil
Very sensible answers from Dave, as expected.
As to your 'sucesses' perhaps a question that you could pose to your representaive body, they may well know where these have occured, indeed should. They may not be in any position to divulge that information on here as it may well form part of local negotiations.
Beleive me it has happened, ask the rep. bodies and also your management - now there is a thought they know don't they?
-
hi,
i've been down this line myself. I used to be a DFS Firefighter (7yrs) and retained (10 yrs). I decided to join the wholetime but had to start at the same place as everybody else.....the application form! I was lucky and managed to get a job. But i still had to do a 16 week recruits course and be a probi/ unqualified for 4 yrs. Not sure what the score is now but it doesn't seem to have changed much!
-
Being retained in kent myself, i have come across this problem of wanting to transfer WT. The thing is, no matter which station you are on, and which FRS you are in, retained guys are very hard to replace! Especially if you are retained during the day. This could be a big part of the problem, with brigades not wanting to create more problems for themselves. I dont know how this fits in with the rest of the country, but 44 of the 66 stations in Kent are retained, so compromising appliance manning is simply not an option.
-
Just to let you know about Tyne & Wear FRS who have looked at a Retained firefighter transferring into a W/T position. A training needs analysis was carried out, the outcome was that the individual was lacking in several areas especially the technical knowledge. I believe it was decided that a full course was required to bring the individual up to the required standard.
Most of TWFRS retained firefighters have a transfer in to joi the W/T.
-
Im retained myself so I know where a lot of you are coming from, I cant believe though how some people think they have the right to transfer to WT purely because theyre RET. Just one of the obvious problems would surely be the RET training program.. As an average, the amount of training time over the YEAR would be in the region of 60-70 hours (think about it and tote up the actual time training, not standard tests etc), WT would of got in over 80hrs in less than 10 weeks...
-
fireftrm. I haven't read the whole of this discussion. I get the impression that you haven't experience of being a RT firefighter. I live and work in a rural area and lot's of rural areas are covered by RT personnel. We do frequent CFS and also fire safety visits. I also note that someone has stated "waste of money" for bringing the RT in on standby. Well, our nearest WT station is 10 miles away. We are the closest station with sufficient RT staff to standby on a regular basis. This usually happens when both WT appliances are sent out.
I don't believe that the WT - RT transfer is a viable option at the present moment in time however I can't see it being long.
Many times i've been on jobs and had WT staff to work alongside and they ask are you WT? If they can't tell the difference then that's definitely a positive step towards RT to WT.
On another point whoever was talking about 120 hours RT/48 hours WT cover.... It's not exactly the same is it. You're not on station 120 hours per week!
-
Frankie
I don't know what gave the impression that I don't understand the retained? Everything I have written is from experience, both in my present role as a SM, T/GM at this moment, managing 6 RT and one DC/RT station in a very rural area covering 2,000 Km2. Before joining WT, which I have been for 15 years, I was a RT Ff with 5 years experience. Most, and by no means all, of the RT in my area do CS (note we long ago dropped the F as our strategy is the safety of our community in all areas). None do FS visits, indeed you are the first example I have come across of RT carrying out legislative inspections, many WT no longer do this. If you look you will see me arguing that RT should/can transfer to WT but would do so with some development needs, I gave CS and FS as examples, that was all. Now how does that marry with your suggestion that I have no experience of your role, I rather believe I am well qualified to comment and do so with confidence.
I do believe that the transfer is a viable option and have just seen 4 of my RT staff do just that. Along with another 8 colleagues from around the service they are on a 2 week induction, which includes soem CS and FS input. Fortunatley for me they are also going to carry on some RT commitment as they are form areas where we have diffciulty recruiting, one of the reasons for my suggestion that the transfers may improve RT recruitment is that this having ahppened is giving us another tool to encourage RT staff.
It was me that said bringing the RT in to standby is a waste of money - but if you look you will see that I was refering to staff on the same station as the WT. We utilise next stations for stnadby cover, which obvioulsy means a retained appliance will cover our DC station if both there are out, no problem, not a waste. But if the DC pump is out the RT staff are not brought in, this would be a waste of money. It would also disrupt their full time employment, with many employers unhappy to have their staff brought in to the station just to await further calls and do non-incident work for us while there. One such employer is opposite the station and used to find this very galling when we did it, around 15 years ago.
I agree about the professionalism of RT staff, especially at incidents, but also in other areas. In my experience they are enthusiastic about their role and the service.
You also make, or attempt to make, some point about the 120 v 42 hour duty. I think you were agreeing with me but it wasn't clear. One poster suggested that the WT Ff should be referred to as Part-time because they only do 42 hours and was upset that RT were so referred to by some. I made the entirley accurate response that the 120 hours is on-call and the 42 hours is at work, thus they are different duty systems and made clear what RT should be called. I stand by that and feel it is unquestionable and am glad that you appear to be on my side, thanks!
-
Looking back over this topic there has been some good point thrown into the pot.I am currently pressing my brigade on this subject but once again have been fobbed of by the HR manager who said i should call him to discuss this further yet strangely enough he is now on leave for 2 months.
I beleive that Dave Bev mentioned speaking with Union reps as they should be aware of any progress that has been made on this, that avenue i tried but appears that my station rep does not want to ask this question.
I thought i would try the ODPM to see if they could pull some wool over my eyes or provide me with a response and below is the response i got
I was interested to receive your e-mail regarding you being unsuccessful in your
transition from retained duty system to wholetime within your Fire and rescue
Service.
As set out in the National Framework, all fire and rescue services will make
appointments on the basis of merit and open competition and employ best practice
in the operation of appointment and promotion for all staff in line with legal
requirements and the principles of IPDS.
-
mark, not all reps of any organisation knows everything. do senior officers know everything when asked. ask your rep to 'point' you in the right direction or contact your brigade sec/regional officials
dave bev
-
MArk I have just had a very interesting, though disppointing, discussion with someone who has hit a 'can't do it it is not legal and no FRS has done this'. I work for a FRS that has without any legal barriers, nor can we find any. The FBU were invovled fully and included int he design of the process. Drop me aline on my email address if you wish.
-
Fireftrm, I do indeed agree with you wholeheartedly on the fact that whoever said that WT should be refered to as P/T because they do "less" hours is talking complete nonsense. I wasn't aware of your experience of R/T stations. We do however take on FS and Risk assessments of local areas, sometimes in conjuction with other R/R or with WT personnel.
I have no inclination to transfer from R/T to WT because I earn far more doing two jobs and enjoy the two very different environments.
It would be a shame to see new recruits using RT stations as an "easy" back door entry into WT stations..... Plus the fact that Training Sub's would have no one to beast for 16 weeks!!
-
A retained colleague of mine,applied to join WT. He was duly called up to attend the first day of tests.On his return, you could see by his face that he had failed."Bad luck",we said,"Thanks", he said and then booked on duty ,'turned out',sat in the back of the pump next to two WT.
Even he saw the lunacy of this, and promptly joined the police(full time of course!)