Firemen

[bignairy]

Are the firemen just greedy b*%&^(�$ds who care more about their pay than peoples lives?

[whocares]

Yes.

[lisaj]

difficult debate: my personal opinion is that they do deserve a pay rise. The government seems to have taken advantage of the fact that it is their moral duty to not strike and as such have not given them the same kind of pay increases that they have to many other workforces. Compare that with the tube strikes, which whilst paralysing London frequently, do not risk lives - as such, the drivers don't care whether they strike or not, and have managed to get ridiculously large pay increases as a result: as a londoner, I've been personally offended by their blackmailing of the capital every year.

[TheHitMaker]

No they are not. I feel that the firemen are asking what would still be a low wage for someone who is risking their life every shift. They have tried every other method for getting what would be a fair wage for the work they do - to no effect. Although they are striking a number of firemen have left the picket lines to help fight fires where life was in danger. It is a difficult argument, but I feel that the firemen are doing what they have to do.

[5029]

It is dfficult. While I agree that their jobs are demanding, valuable and often dangerous, I also think that they all knew what the wage was when they signed thir contracts, so what right do they have to strike now? In other countries (France I think) firefighters are trained like paramedics and get paid much less.

[desertrat]

Although firemen risk their lives it certainly isn't everyday. The majority of calls are mundane. The 40% pay claim was an opening bid to ensure that at the end of the day they would still receive a substantial pay increase. A large part of the blame for the current rise in outrageous pay claims lies at the feet of the Government who seem quite happy to award themselves significant pay and benefits increases. The unions are also abusing their power in suggesting that if the Government does not give in then the current donations to the Labour party will cease.

[Shatnerfan]

Yes. They claim 'poverty' but they get more than the national average and, as stated in earlier answers, their terms are fabulous and they signed up for the job in full knowleedge of the salary. They can't really be viewed as downtrodden heroes when they're better off than many and they're happy to prolong the suffering of others in the greedy quest for more money.

[coemgen]

I agree totally. What I don't understand is why Tony Blair et al can afford to give themselves a 40 % pay rise, but they can't give the firefighters 16%.How come the firefighters rise would affect the economy but not Blairs lot? If anyone is greedy it is the teachers in London who are on strike for more pay.Although even there I can understand that they need this to be able to afford to live near their jobs, with the cost of property as mad as it is.

[rja211077]

It IS, like any strike, tantamount to blackmail and I do think they're being unreasonable. They definitely 'aimed high' in the knowledge that they'd be bargained down to something they'll probably (secretly) be delighted with. Comparing it to the MPs' pay rise is not fair. MPs (particularly cabinet) are not paid particularly well considering their responsibility, accountability and profile and whilst I agree that a 40% pay rise is too high, giving 650 odd people a 40% pay rise is not going to cripple the country like giving it to thousands of public sector workers (nurses, teachers, etc) would. And let's not even start on the footballers' wages. It's a totally unsuitable comparison.

[oabyone]

Come on get behind these guys, they'll be there when you need them. Can we say that about any politician?

[Gef]

40% is well over the top but what is reasonable? Firemen, teachers, nurses, police, doctors - how do you decide who is worth what? Answers please to 10 (or 11) Downing Street.

[lisaj]

since it's such an issue, why not set up a ballot with the public to vote: everybody goes to a voting centre and writes a number between 0 and 40 on a bit of paper - the average is the percentage increase the firefighters receive, and the government (for once) just do what the public (collectively) want and figure out how to make it fit, rather than fulfilling their own agenda. Never gonna happen, but wouldn't it be oh-so-nice if the public got a say in how the country was run for once? That brings me on to a side point... Tony Blair has lost my vote once and for all with the simple line (from PMQT) "A 40% increase for the firefighters will require a 30% increase in income tax and cuts in spending in education and healthcare". I've never heard such utter cr@p!

[archhippy]

I live in rural somerset where we rely on a volunteer fire crews they know the back roads and best roots to fires on the moor.they sat out on strike when they could have been earning money from there every day jobs i agree human life should come before money greed is one of the seven deadly sins.

[davver]

well I think we have seen during the strike that the army has done just as good a job as the firefighters. The problem is that the firemen are doing a job that about 95% of the time is almost completely safe. And for most of their shift they are asleep, or sitting round watching telly, reading etc. Yes, they are alert waiting for a call, but they are still not working. One marine who was filling in during the strike said he felt like leaving the marines, becoming a fireman and getting higher pay. "I'm for an easy life" he added. The other public services are disastrously underfunded and underpaid (eg nurses) and they need much more training and have much less applicants than the fire service that has 40 applicant for each place!