colin, thanks for your kind words that will no doubt keep me warm in the chills of winter as i struggle to keep my kin from the ravages of the capitalist warmongering state. if i become a capitalist will i still be allowed to sing the red flag, whose colour is truly a deepest red?
mike , i note your comments though i would ask that you refrain from portraying me as sexist. i admit to being ill informed over many issues, particularly on the specifics of your non ops ACO. however i would ask that you actually read my posts before offering your arrogant stance on this topic. i have attached most of them below - some i havent cos they are direct answers to questions, but if you think i may have been ill informed in my response then feel free to highlight exactly where. i apologise in advance for using capitals to explain my thought process - but i cant work out how to enter italics etc DOH!
strange one that about the uniform, seems she had an issue with uniforms bit as soon as she took up dcfo post she promptly pulled one on!! ------- AM I ILL INFORMED OR IS THIS FACT?. THIS RELATES DIRECT TO AN INDIVIDUAL AND I AM HAPPY TO WITHDRAW MY COMMENT AND APOLOGISE IF IT IS NOT FACTUAL. I DONT CARE WHETHER BRIGADES HAVE UNIFORMS OR NOT - I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE A PRINCIPAL OFFICER WHO WAS TOTALLY AGAINST THEM SUDDENLY APPEARS TO START TO WEAR ONE! (I WILL WITHDRAW MY DIRECT COMMENT IF THE INFORMATION I HAVE MAKES ME ILL INFORMED)
the issue of 'civilianising posts' seems to get mixed up with a whole variety of issues. i personally am not against anyone who brings benefit to the service so long as it not at the expense of the service, and i dont care 'what they are' its what they can bring that matters, and of course thats where the real debate needs to be held - SO DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS COMMENT AT ALL? OR AM I ARROGANT IN SUGGESTING THAT I SUUPORT ANYONE WHO BRINGS BENEFIT TO THE SERVICE SO LONG AS ITS NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SERVICE - DOES THIS MAKE ME 'ANTI NON UNIFORMED OR NON OPERATIONAL' - I HATE THOSE PHRASES AND WILL USE THE PHRASE ' THOSE NOT EMPLOYED UNDER GREY BOOK CONDITIONS OF SERVICE'
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
well that starts the debate oily - anyone want to 'air' an alternative view? - PERHAPS I WAS HOPING TO BE BETTER INFORMED? AND START A DEBATE. I WOULD SUGGEST THOUGH FOR THIS DEBATE TO BE WORTHWHILE ANY COMMENTS MADE DURING THIS DEBATE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS A VALID VIEWPOINT EVEN IF YOU FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE - ITS ABOUT READING AND UNDERSTANDING AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT INFLUENCED THAT VIEWPOINT INITIALLY.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
as for lack of or limited /promotion opportunities - its not me selling the family china - it seems absurd that the very same cfo's who are pushing this are expecting and actually getting support from those being subjected to this potential lack of opportunity. where are the voices of those people - i dont see them creating any issues over this - anyone who may be rank and file members of officials of other trade unions/associations care to comment about how they view this issue, or does history already tell us what their organisations view is?
I SAY GIVE TURKEYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR CHRISTMAS!! ------
THIS RELATES DIRECTLY TO POSTS WHERE GREY BOOK CONDITIONS APPLY - AM I SO WRONG IN WANTING TO PROTECT JOBS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ATTRACT GREY BOOK CONDITIONS OF SERVICE? IF OTHER POSITIONS/POSTS ARE REQUIRED THEY SHOULD NOT BE AT THE EXPENSE OF EXISTING POSTS - IS THAT SO WRONG?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
geoff, saluting - where have you been!!!
there is at least one brigade where everyone calls the cfo by his first name - interesting times - what will happen to cfoa (cacfoa) as you prob know it when all the cfo's have no fire service background - how will they offer professional advice on technical issues, of course some will cope pretty well because thay may have 'other experiences' that give them the ability - but some others?
THE PHRASE ' SOME OF THEM WILL COPE PRETTY WELL ETC. MAY SUGGEST TO YOU THAT I RECOGNISE THE SKILLS SOME (THOUGH I HOPE ALL) WILL BRING TO THE SERVICE - THERE ARE MANY TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT I WOULDNT BE ASKING THE ADVICE OF A CFO (OR A UNION REP FOR THAT MATTER!) OVER.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
i hope non uniformed cfo's/principle officers who havent progressed through the structure and therefore gained practical skill application are NOT being set up for prosecution under manslaughter/corporate killing - leading a fire brigade IS different than managing a business!
i only hope for all concerned that any development process properly equips people for their role, whatever their background/position in the structure
YOU MAY NOTE THE PHRASE 'LEADING IS DIFFERENT THAN MANAGING' IT WAS INTENTIONAL! IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT I AM TRYING TO SUPPORT THOSE APPOINTED AND TO ENSURE IF THEY ARE ASKED/REQUIRED TO UNDERTAKE AN OPERATIONAL COMMITTMENT (OR ANY ACTIVITY) THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY EQUIPED/TRAINED BEFORE THEY DO SO. - IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? AM I SUGGESTING THAT THEY SHOULDNT BE UNDERTAKING ANY SPECIFIC ACTIVITY ?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
i dont have any problem with ANY competent person making decsions appropriate to their competence - (but simulation is not acceptable to demonstrate competence for this unit!!)
THIS WAS IN SPECIFC REFERENCE TO OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY BUT THE SENTIMENT IS THE SAME - I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY (THAT WAS IN BLOCK CAPITALS IN MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE FOR A REASON!) COMPETENT PERSON MAKING DECSIONS APPORPRIATE TO THEIR COMPETENCE - PERHAPS THAT WOULD SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT I ACTUALLY SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIALIST HR PEOPLE INTO SPECIALIST HR ROLES TO ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY READ WHAT I HAD WRITTEN AND COULD THEREFORE BE 'WELL INFORMED' ABOUT MY POSITION!
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
colin, but the cfo does make cs decisions and corporate responsibility is part of managements right to manage (or can we forget that right cos it doesnt suit?) - THIS RELATED TO CRTICAL SAFETY DECISONS ONLY BEING MADE BY THOSE COMPETENT TO DO SO - DOES THIS MAKE ME ANTI ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE DECSIONS - I CANT BELIEVE YOU WOULD SUPPORT CS DECSIONS BEING MADE BY SOMEONE NOT COMPETENT TO DO SO - AGAIN I DIDNT MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO WHETHER 'GREY BOOK EMPLOYEES' OR NOT.
wee b, not all cfo's are daft, in fact very few of them are. they do however have opinions on a wide variety of subjects, some of them valid opinions. the trick is only listen to the ones who do know what theyre speaking about - a bit like consultants and union reps really !
DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN?
mark - even operational firefighters were 'civilians' before joining the fire service? - DOES THIS HELP? 'CIVILIANS' IN COMMAS WAS INTENDED TO SUPPORT JUST YOUR POINT THAT WE ARE ALL CIVLIANS AND THOSE ON GREY BOOK CONDITIONS NOW, WERE NOT BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED ONTO THEM!
as for the ' FRS being here to provide convenient non competitive promotional opportunities for us 'old smoke eaters'? - a really good change management phrase i might add, i am dissapointed that you felt that the previous appointments and promotions regs etc were not competitive - i certainly found them to be competitive in my experience. perhaps you have an experience of being promoted as a matter of convenience?
i am pleased that you are supporting your HR person - whatever conditions they are employed under and agree that its about competence to do the job, (not qualifications which you seem to think are a sure sign that someone can 'do the job') - i also agree that 20 years smoke eating (you do use a lot of emotive and 'headline' statements appropriate to change management dont you!!) might not enable someone to demonstrate competence in HR, but then again surely its the individual and their personal skills. knowledge and attributes that matter, NOT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE PREVIOUSLY a point you make so well that it competely destroys your position. there may be some 20 year smoke eaters who are more than capable - what about retained personnel whose main occupation might be in that very field of expertise. would 20 years smoke eating exclude them from appointment, i could go on ........
in finishing i would like to make it clear - i personally am not against anyone who brings benefit to the service so long as it not at the expense of the service, and i dont care 'what they are' its what they can bring that matters. i dont have any problem with ANY competent person making decisions appropriate to their competence. if other posts are identified as being required within a brigade then they should be posts addiditonal to the establishment and not at the expense of the current establishment. and i would finish by saying that any non grey book employees SHOULD be paid at the equivalent rate of pay within the brigade - work of equal value should attract equivalent pay, and call on someone who is so obvously well informed within Shropshire to raise the issue and strive to ensure that those staff that includes those who may not be heads of departments are paid a salary equivalent to grey book staff where the work is of equal value. then i will start to believe the fire service is a progressive organisation
dave bev
