suffolk dispute fbu press release

[dave bev]

FIRE BRIGADES UNION ACCUSES COUNCIL OF MISLEADING PUBLIC OVER CUTS TO FRONTLINE FIRE SERVICE

Suffolk Fire Brigades Union has accused the county council of misleading the public over fire service cuts. Although the council has now admitted that they are indeed axing 12 firefighters from the 999 frontline service, the council’s claims that 9 of the jobs will be switched to prevention work is untrue.

The fact is that only six posts will be switched to “desk-jobs” and not the nine repeatedly claimed by the council.  These six posts will only have swivel chairs to sit on rather than fire engines.

The other three “jobs” claimed do not in fact exist. The truth is that they intend the additional work of three firefighters to be given to existing staff to do on a short-term, part-time basis on top of their normal 42-hour week.

The union also questioned the council’s commitment to prevention and community safety which is used as a justification for the planned cuts. Prevention inspections have been slashed and spending on community safety cut by two-thirds in recent years.

Suffolk FBU brigade secretary Vince Jell said: “The council have to come clean and admit they are only switching 6 of the jobs. The other three jobs do not actually exist, it is simply a paper exercise requiring our Members to take on the extra work of three invisible firefighters.  

“Axing the 12 frontline posts means they don’t commit new money to prevention or community safety. It’s a half-measure to fill in for previous cuts in prevention and community safety – a half-measure at the expense of the frontline 999 service.”

 “This is not about change or modernisation it is about old fashioned cuts in council services. These cuts make our work less safe and the public less safe and they have to stop.”

dave bev

[oilybum]

Think this is going to go on for a bit. One the one hand the local FBU have been brought to the point of enough is enough as uniformed posts have been pruned over the last 10 years at least.

In the other corner the CFO and County are adamant the union is not gonna tell them how to manage/deploy the resources they decide they need.

So both sides are confronted with loss of face if they give in. And that is often the biggest hurdle to ending any dispute.

[dave bev]

all disputes of any kind are only ever sorted out when the two sides to the dispute decide to compromise their position - i do say two sides although rumour has it one other organisation has expressed their concerns with the proposals by the brigade - but are they prepared to anything other than wring their hands in despair? answers on the back of a postcard please - you know the address! (ps you may not need to use all the back of the postcard for your answer!!)

dave bev

[colin todd]

So let me try to understand this as an outsider. There are two parties who need to compromise over the 6 and 9 position. Would a sex counsellor help at all?

[fireftrm]

Coiln you are truly warming the cockles of my tickle gland today.

As a continuation of the theme, I have often pondered whether living so close to the A69, as I do, has lead to some of my oral conversation skills?

[colin todd]

Having driven many times on the A69, I have found it to be constantly up and down.

[dave bev]

a much more interesting addition to the thread -

FIRE BRIGADES UNION ACCUSES SUFFOLK FIRE AUTHORITY MISLEADING PUBLIC AGAIN

The Fire Brigades Union has slammed Suffolk fire authority for misleading the public once again after it suggested that the Government and Audit Commission had given backing to planned changes that include cuts in frontline firefighter posts.

Joanna Spicer, Suffolk County Council portfolio holder for public protection, told the East Anglia Daily Times on August 4*: "We have received assurances from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Audit Commission and the Inspector of Fire Safety that what we are doing is right. The only objections have come from the FBU themselves."

The Fire Brigades Union in-house journal, Firefighter, contacted the ODPM and asked about such “assurances” and whether they related to Suffolk’s local fire cover plan, Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP), which includes the proposed cuts.

A spokesperson for the ODPM said: “We assess the rate of progress on IRMPs nationally. We indicated to Suffolk that their’s is in line with other authorities. It is not up to the ODPM to approve each individual IRMP. Each Fire Authority is responsible for determining and implementing its own IRMP. It’s their plan, not our plan. Assurance sounds like endorse. It’s not our position to do this.”  

As for the Audit Commission, it hasn’t given any “assurances” regarding the proposed cuts either, although in their recent CPA report they note that Suffolk’s IRMP has identified efficiency savings.  

Says Vince Jells, Suffolk Brigade Secretary: “Once again Suffolk fire authority is misleading the public. These cuts have no backing from the Government or the Audit Commission. Clearly the fire authority is seeking to bolster its flagging credibility by dreaming up non-existent support for its irresponsible plans.”  

“We agree with the Audit Commission and the Government’s ambition that more resources should be put into community fire safety to prevent fire taking places in the first place. But despite everyone’s best efforts, fires and other emergencies will continue to happen and when they do the public of Suffolk expect and need the immediate emergency response by frontline firefighters they deserve.”

“This is not about change or modernisation it is about old fashioned cuts in council services. These cuts make our work less safe and the public less safe and they have to stop.”


dave bev

[fireftrm]

Indeed it is Colin, even has a tendency to become wet when the River South Tyne comes over it.