Station closure

[Lee999]

Fireftrm

Im not sure if you are being deliberatly contrversial, but I know that you know your above statement will, to say the least 'raise eyebrows'.

Im not prepared to go down the WT/RT comedy cul-de-sac, but what I will say is:

The RT people should be considered for WT jobs. (as oppose to being offered positions)

[rips]

As Firetrm has said other Brigades have already started taking transfers from
Fire fighters working the retained duty system into the W/T duty system.
Why not put a transfer in and find out? If you do not formally show an interest how does your employer know you are interested.

[Lee999]

Rips

yes, why not.

I have considerable experience working with FF's on both (if not all) duty systems. It is true to say that many RT people I know would be an asset to the WT Service.

So yes, apply and see where you get.

Problems begin to arise when we talk about 'no questions asked' straight transfers, without probation. This leaves me feeling uncomfortable.

It may be an economic way to get bums on seats, but is safety taking a back seat?

Every time we discuss this matter, the same old chestnuts will come out.
Some RT people will be offended by the fact that some WT people dont think a straight 'no questions asked' tranfer is appropriate, and so on.

It is important not to get bogged down with specifics and not to talk of individuals.

The RT system is not the WT system, there are differences in standards, experiences and skill levels. In a word competentcies.
I have, as a Fire Service Manager direct experience of this, both on and off the fireground.

We need to tread very carefully here, there are loads of quality people working the RT system, and if they want to join, we should help them, in fact we should activly encourage them. Then we need to bridge their skills gap.

But there is an obvious flip side to this coin.

[fireftrm]

Lee I am not being controversial, deliberate or otherwise. That is except to those who still bury their heads in the sand when presented with the truth about the RT now being merely a duty system - RDS as it should now be termed. The RDS personnel should be offered WT posts if there are any vacant, then or in the future. Otherwise it would (surely) be illegal to make them redundant. It is not legal to replace a redundant persons position, so if you make x number of Ffs redundant you may not employ any more. As the RDS is a duty system and not a different job then I would suggest that a good legal case could be made to show that if they were not offered vacancies then those vacancies are illegal.

Other services have made straight transfers so there is a precedent and the role is not of RT Ff it is of Ff on RDS. There is no difference only the duty system that the role holder works. That is the case, there may be those who don't approve or agree, but they can argue away till the cows come home, the facts remain.  

I agree that there are some who lack the expected levels of competence, due to lower experience or skill (training/development) but these would be addressed in any PDP they receive on transfer.

[Lee999]

I agree with all you say, and would like to say that I am the last person who might be tempted to criticise those on the RDS(as we will now call it).

Generally speaking, I am not oppose to the idea of utilising the skills and experience of selected people.

The Derbyshire case is one I wouldn't like to go into, as you say there may be some difficult legal arguments to be had, and im not competent enough in that area to give an informed opinion.

So if we could speak more generally, then I think it might be prudent to accept applications from RDS people, and if employed then they might be given training to bridge the gap to a point of 'safe to ride'.

Following this, their PDP would act as a probation type period.

This said, it can never be a 'free for all'. Standards must be maintained, but I agree that oportunities should be given to quality RDS people with something to offer.

The only reason for granting a straight transfer would be financial, not good enough for me im afraid.

[fireftrm]

Lee I have something of an issue with the idea that RDS personnel would require training to brideg a gap to the point of 'safe to ride'. We already employ and utilise them as operational firefighters, they ride now. What may be required after a TNA is development to the full Ff competences, if any. With the changes to the Grey Book and pay strcutures someone on the RDS system is a Ff on a different duty system, they have to have the same competences and we require them to demosntrate exactly the same as those on the 2-2-4 shift, or day duty. Ther eis no difference.

RDS personnle have already transferrred to 2-2-4 shift system and will continue to do so, this is not a might it is already happening. FRAs that do not accept this may face challenges and should be setting up the systems to allow them to operate a fair and equitable transfer system, with some allowance for persosn to join from outside. This avoids the 'you can only become a shift Ff if you live within 5 mins of a RDS station and join that first. Which would not be fair. We propose an allocation of future posts to RDS staff, 'off the street' and other FRA transfers.

Note that the ADC process will allow anyone to apply for any management position, a RDS member may move straight ot shift CM, so may someone from outside the service. This is reality not controversial ideas.

[Lee999]

mmmm.ok

I said i wouldnt, but we have now gone down this horrible cul-de-sac.

I accept all that you say, but I suspect you know and probably agree with what im thinking.

[johnno]

An interesting debate guys and I take on board what you are saying about standards and training and I agree that if needed then RT Ffs should be brought up to scratch although i think this would come naturally through training more often instead of 2hours a week and through experience gained when turning out on a regular basis. I cannot speak for each individual but only put my own case accross which is 15 years service 12years as L/Ff, IFE premilinary exam, and still pleanty of enthusiasm.
P.S how do you put in for a transfer would it be on a P2.

[fireftrm]

Not knowing what a P2 is, apart from a pump drill, I woudln't know. I presume it is osme form that Derbyshire use - remember that such things are service specific.

First thing is to contact the FBU and enquire about those FRAs that have already been through the procedure and have them discuss with DFRA about instigating the same.

[rips]

Tyne & Wear have carried out TNA on all their FF under the RDS, for two reasons.
1. To find out what if any, are the needs of the RDS FF as a whole group.
2. Any individual has expressed an interest in transferring to the 2-2-4 system. Then when accepted for transfer any skills and knowledge gap can be addressed.

[lpp18]

At our recent W/T  Recruitment over 2/3 of the RDS FF who applied failed the selection tests.
RDS FF are recruited on their availability to serve THEIR local community and not automatically the BEST candidates for WT posistion
That said our RDS FF do an excellant job,with many recruited to WT posts.
If they are the best person for the job they will have no problems at all appling along side Joe Public