Messyshaw Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 I know this site doesn't get involved with the 'political' side of fire service life, and long may that continue as it only ever ends up in a bun fight. However, can somebody explain the dispute currently underway re a pay rise linked to some kind of medical intervention trials. I am not sure if this is a LFB or national issue, but I believe its the latter? Just the facts please, as we can leave other websites to scrap amongst themselves about it. Being retired, I am somewhat out of the loop, but remain very interested in these matters Link to comment
Jet Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 In a nutshell they want to pay us more to do more work (I.e co responding) but in reality it's not a pay rise at all and so far the FBU are recommending we accept it or basically quit if we don't like it.... 1 Link to comment
Br9mp81 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Quit the job or the fbu? Link to comment
Jet Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 The job. Well that's what I take from it anyway, either that or go on strike... Link to comment
Dyson Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) ? thats an interesting take on it Jamie. Edited September 2, 2017 by Dyson Spelling. I'm an idiot Link to comment
Jet Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Like it or lump it, that's basically what the FBU have said. Hence calls to change the leadership or the union entirely. Not good times. Link to comment
TandA Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Jamie - I have to say I am surprised at that interpretation. It differs from mine following discussions with officials. I don't like the 2% but it's far from "accept or quit". We can Accept 2% now to continue the trials until April whilst a joint approach is made to Govt for additional funding. If at any point it becomes clear no funding is forthcoming then the FBU have reserved the right to pull out at that point but will keep the 2%. If funding is forthcoming and our role map is widened with FBU agreement then pay will rise 3% more in April and work will be done to agree further rises 2018 through til 2020. Or we can reject the 2% now which will mean the trials stop here and the pay offer will revert to 1% with EMR being effectively dead. We then have to decide whether to accept 1% or reject that, and how we proceed from there. The reasoning behind the recommendation to accept now (as opposed to the recommendation to reject in July) is that the negotiators are now of the opinion that the employers will not be offering any more as they simple do not have any more money to fund additional increases. The only way any more money will be achievable is if the Govt can be convinced of a benefit to society in us doing EMR and so persuaded to stump up. We may not like the 2% but if that is the best offer we can currently achieve then it has to be put to membership with the explanation that it is that or 1% if we reject the 2%. Not where I hoped we would be but not "accept or quit" either. 1 Link to comment
Messyshaw Posted September 2, 2017 Author Share Posted September 2, 2017 Many thanks for the details. I suppose the fear is if the Govt don't fund this initiative, cuts from the fire service budget elsewhere will have to be made to do so TandA; Albeit I only know the details you and others have typed, it seems the FBU have dropped the 1970's 'say no to everything' style of negotiating, are adopting common sense and a long-game approach (for a change). I hope that is the case Link to comment
Jet Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 That's kind of the message I've got personally T&A. This whole dispute (which seems to be mostly between the FBU and it's members!) has not been handled or communicated particularly well and now anyone who carries a pager is getting a whole lot of unwarranted flak! Calls to break up the union and form a different one, not heard that one before Link to comment
Noddy Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 We don't do EMR /Co responding here in WMFS but we are engaged in 'falls response'. We have a few trial stations that get turned out to vulnerable people with pendant alarms who press them if they fall... whether that be whilst going about daily routines, in bed, on the bog, etc... Crews make sure they are OK, stand them up, put them back into bed etc... and then leave (ensuring they are OK to be left obviously). So, the pay issue encompasses far more than EMR/Co Ro so we need to be clear what exactly we are agreeing to if we accept. A FF's role map could look very different! Link to comment
Jet Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 That's a good point Noddy, someone did point out that the agreement didn't specifically mention EMR or any other initiative, just simply 'additional work streams'. We could be giving them a blank cheque! Link to comment
SteelCity Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 A document I saw also stated that you have to be doing the work to get the additional pay so from that I assume that different brigades will have different salaries. Possibly even different pay station to station. Link to comment
Luminoki Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 2 hours ago, Noddy said: A FF's role map could look very different! It already does Noddy. As one of the new recruits being trained by West Mids right now, its in our contract that we must provide falls response. Bearing in mind that theres 28 of us with only 5 stations providing 24 hour response and more intakes planned it will be an interesting picture once development plans are over and these bods start considering moving stations ( and my posting may end up being your old station Noddy ) Link to comment
Noddy Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 ^^^ Yes I know mate. Matt Wrack is coming to see us in WMFS on Monday. Link to comment
TandA Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 12 hours ago, SteelCity said: A document I saw also stated .... Document written by who? And upon what knowledge were they basing the statements? Was it an official document from the union or employers? Was it at least based on an official document? Or were they repeating rumour / stating their interpretation of a Chinese whisper? I am seeing a lot of the last category out there, possibly because of the lack of the first category in a succinct and readable format. I have heard RUMOUR that some CFOs who have tied themselves into contracts to provide some of these services and could be in trouble if FBU members all stopped as it is not in our rolemap are looking at offering 1 person on each machine a pay rise to be the medical response. Now that, if true, is divisive. Link to comment
SteelCity Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 4 hours ago, TandA said: Document written by who? And upon what knowledge were they basing the statements? Was it an official document from the union or employers? Was it at least based on an official document? Or were they repeating rumour / stating their interpretation of a Chinese whisper? I am seeing a lot of the last category out there, possibly because of the lack of the first category in a succinct and readable format. I have heard RUMOUR that some CFOs who have tied themselves into contracts to provide some of these services and could be in trouble if FBU members all stopped as it is not in our rolemap are looking at offering 1 person on each machine a pay rise to be the medical response. Now that, if true, is divisive. It's here mate on Twitter, not official I know but still has a point worth considering: Link to comment
Carl Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 I think with posts of this nature, everyone has a point worth considering. One of the reasons we do not encourage these type of posts is everyone thinks their opinion is the right one with many believing everything they read. As mentioned above, there are forums out there which cater specifically for the issues within the service, and agreements were made between us and them many years ago that this is how the two forums should and would work effectivley. I suggest the original poster has now got the answer to this one and so its probably best to end it there. If anyone feels any different, please feel free to PM me with your reasons why, and if valid we will open it back up. Link to comment
Recommended Posts