r2r agreed today

[dave bev]

wee b, you make no mention of using the term 'comrade'?

lee, roles are based on the activities firefighters undertake, or can reasonably be expected to undertake. (apart from the rolls they eat of course) i believe the rolemaps can effectively still be applied to ranks if anyone has the will. it seems as if some chief fire officers have already recognised this - why not therefore continue the process?

dave bev

[steve walker]

Hi,

This "rank to role" issue seems mainly a semantic issue. Rank = military = nasty. Role = non-military = nice. It stretches the usual definition of "role" and confuses most people (me included). You could call "Station Officer" a "role" if you wanted.

Are CFOs now Brigade Manager Cs?

This (inventing new words for perfectly good existing ones) is one of my pet hates - IDPS (Iddly Diddly Piddly Squat) = training. Proactive = active or is sometimes used meaning to "anticipate".

Steve

[Andy Cole]

I appreciate that there are probably good reasons for the changes that I'm not even going to pretend to know anything about but it can seem a little bit stupid.
Our brigade must have spent alot of money changing everything that said Somerset Fire Brigade to Somerset Fire and Rescue Service! in essence the same bloody thing surely? and why can we not call it an RTA any more but instead an RTC? Does it really matter?, does it change the way we respond to it?? Can we not say the same thing about Station Officer to Station Manager does it really make that much difference at the end of the day?

[dave bev]

andy, thats why it is so confusing - station officers may not be station managers - some may be watch managers! i have been involved for quite some time in this process and still believe that all the benefits of ipds (not idps steve!) and role maps could have and still can be applied to the existing rank structure. role maps effectively replace the old firemans job description (with them now being extended into all 'jobs') and i also struggle to see why the statutory exams were ditched instead of being updated. all those years of 'brigades' complaining no-one was taking the statutory exams and therefore reducing the numbers available for promotion didnt help. i wont even start talking about the flaws with adc's and selection processes!

dave bev

[steve walker]

Thanks for the ipds correction Dave.

I think that detailed job descriptions are a useful way of defining what job we are supposed to do. However there should be a real commitment to use plain english; the role maps are useless if we cannot understand them. I have a suspicion that sometimes these things are deliberatly made obscure. This could be because the people who develop them dont actually understand them themselves or they want to be in a position to "interpret" them in different ways.

Are we trying to lump together; rank (level of authority), job description and pay grade under one heading (role)? Maybe we should separate them out.

Steve

[wee brian]

I think it makes sense to move from military sounding names to ones that describe what you do. Of course in the airforce they have, Pilot Officers (Pilots), Flight leuitenants(in charge of flights), Squadron leaders (incharge of squadrons) etc.

[colin todd]

Careful Brian. If your policy were adopted there might need to be a new role of a 'Not very mucher'.

[steve walker]

Yes Brian but there are many other jobs in the RAF with pilot officers etc who are not pilots. Generally "ranks" are found in organisations that work in stressful, dangerous, fast changing situations. Off the fireground, decisions can be mulled over, argued, different options explored. On the fireground things are usually getting worse and the speed of our reaction is vital to save life and property.

We have got bogged down with rank; mainly because we have tied it to our pay. We make Inspecting Officers SubOs not because we want them to be in charge of an incident but because they deserve SubO money.

Incidently, there is no need for more than 6 levels of rank: 1st (Firefighter - usually works in pairs). 2nd  looks after up to 3 pairs of firefighters (1 pump). 3rd looks after three of 2nd rank (3 pumps). 4th looks after three of 3rd rank (9 pumps). 5th looks after three of 4th rank (27 pumps). 6th looks after three of 5th rank (81 pumps). Simplistic I know but it would be a good basis for incident command.


Steve

[Lee999]

Good thinking, now what shall we call these new ranks?...........................mmm........................I Know, how about - Leading Firefighter, Sub Officer, Station Officer, etc, etc
Then we stop anyone above the rank of SDO coming on and messing up jobs! Oh, and just so we know who everyone is - why dont we all wear markings on our uniform?

I jest, but then again im serious.  

The system works for us, why change it?

I personally am perfectly happy with rank structure and markings. And in my experience i am in the majority.

[fireftrm]

Yep Lee you may be happy, but ranks have gone and roles (with their insignia) are in - we will have to wait of rthe 'what comes around..............@