FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: Peter on August 06, 2005, 07:59:08 PM

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: Peter on August 06, 2005, 07:59:08 PM

I have seen a copy of the consultation paper put out by GMC proposing a 5 watch, 10 week rota system (2 2 4 +  Staff then provide flexible cover to bring hours up to 42/week averaged over the year) which provides stable minimum staffing with full cover and efficiency savings. It looks the basis for a new way forward. Any views out there?

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: dave bev on August 06, 2005, 08:29:13 PM

i can see the garden wall from where im sitting, if i stand up i can see a bit further - is that helpful?

dave bev

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: Peter on August 06, 2005, 09:38:48 PM

Thanks Dave
Next week I will see this,
http://www.algarve-luzbay.com/webcam/cam_page.html
but tonight its work!

How about an informed answer!?

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: fireftrm on August 07, 2005, 10:49:33 AM

Not seen it, perhaps if we knew where to view it we might be able to give you some opinions.

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: dave bev on August 07, 2005, 02:37:37 PM

peter, how can an informed answer be given - you havent provided anything on which to base an answer! however i'll try to imagine one for you if thats ok?

let me see, hmmmmmn - ok minimum crewing levels across all watches, any shortfall provided by 'staff rota' where 'staff' can be told at a moments notice where they will be working for the day (no doubt sold on the premise of 'you might not be required, therefore you get the day/night off' (although this WILL turn into your leave allocation further down the line) and the 'staff' rota wont get any overtime payments for additional travelling cos they can be expected to work anywhere within the brigades area. my crsytal ball would also suggest that words and phrases such as 'family friendly' 'service driven community safety strategy' 'training reserve' will also appear through the mist.

as fireftm suggests - this is all crystal ball stuff cos we havent seen the proposals! i wonder if any is true though? am i a gambling man? did england win the second test?

dave bev

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: Peter on August 07, 2005, 08:34:56 PM

Fireftrm & Dave - apologies, I don't know if it is lurking on the web somewhere, it saw it via a private email, though the document says for consultation with rep bodies, so I would have thought someone at FBU would have access somewhere.
I take it Dave you would prefer the West Mids option?
http://www.wmfs.net/pressreleasedetail.xtml?id=91
I can't say it appeals to me.

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: dave bev on August 07, 2005, 10:37:06 PM

apparently the west mids membership prefer their option, so long as the authority actually do what the TAP requires them to do - and there are a few outstanding issues that still need to be AGREED - otherwise my7 understanding is that the 'option' doesnt exist without the agreements that the professor attached to the ruling.

dave bev

ps. yes someone at the fbu does have access!

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: scott on August 08, 2005, 06:34:16 PM

How does the wmfs 6 days of shifts, fit in with the grey book, I thought there had to be 2  24 hour periods clear of duty every 7 days?

Title: GMC Proposed Duty System
Post by: dave bev on August 09, 2005, 09:21:48 AM

scott, with due respect im not going to start to suggest ways of changing current duty systems. i'll refer to my previous postings that there is not real need to change any current duty systems - all and any of the issues that may be raised or perceived (cos many are perceptions based on 'i think') can be addressed within the current duty systems if there is a will to do so!

dave bev