If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Chaos and the trade unions.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The firemen are going to strike and it would seem that some of the rail unions are going to join in, the premiership may even have to be postponed! :eek:
What are your views?
Do you think that firefighters deserve 30k and if they do do you think that industrial action is the best way to get it?
What are your views on Bob Crow, would it be irresponsible to run trains when an accident could not be properly dealt with?
What are your views?
Do you think that firefighters deserve 30k and if they do do you think that industrial action is the best way to get it?
What are your views on Bob Crow, would it be irresponsible to run trains when an accident could not be properly dealt with?
0
Comments
Whether or not strikes hinder the delivery of a vital public service is inconsequential.
I'm not questioning the right to strike but whether it is a good thing to do when lives are put at risk?
Let's play a new game in Politics!
It's called....
*roll of drums, please, maestro*
Spot the bloody obvious contradiction in terms! (Game)
:rolleyes:
As I said, inconsequential.
I actually refuse to believe you've just said that? You can put a price on a life just like that? You can argue that a strike for money is worth LIVES? Is everything subjected so heavily to your neo-liberal, pseudo-intellectual whittering ramble that you've actually lost sight of your own humanity?
I honestly reckon that if we examined the real life actions of most people who frequent here, I would be among the 'most moral'. I said in another thread that most people who advocate ethics are hypocrites anyhow (in my experience anyway
As for placing 'worth' on life, I don't think any life is inherently superior to another. How could fire crews be at their most productive if they are unhappy regarding their working conditions.
But, any time you'd like to compare notes on reality, pal, you're more than welcome.
I actually refuse to believe you've just said that? You can put a price on a life just like that? You can argue that a strike for money is worth LIVES?
Err... If you follow that reasoning we could stop paying the fire service at all, on the basis that they cannot stop giving the service they do, on account of the possibilty that lives may be lost.
I saw in a paper the full list of workign requiresments, pay benifits and perks the fireservice gets, and after 10 years ( i think) the package still sucks, and is only slightly better than the 9 -5 job i have had for 18 months... an di don't need to put my life at risk.
I say pay them what they want....
But that would leave doctors, nurses police, garbage men, etc etc etc unfairly left out... and in need of pay rise's themselves....
Thats it.. there is obviously no other course of action but to privitise the fire service.
(yes, that was a joke)
Its not right, sadly they have already held London to ransom 3 time already and its made getting to work very difficult.
I think the government is right not to back down on pay, If one pubic service gets an increase they all will want one and I would imagine that would mean more Taxis for everybody:(
The pubic service people I feel really sorry for is the nurse! They are well under pay and under staff! (and you don't hear them grumble that often!!)
How were the Tube strikers of the 70’s beat (Was it the 70’s or the 80’s they striked?)
If you say that risking life deserves more reward than most jobs (possibly true) then builders should be amongst the top earners, is this likely?
I think DJP's point is that it might be considered wrong to risk lives to get more money (from a rather good starting point) thus I don't think your counter-argument about no pay at all quite works..........
This is from the office of national statistics
Have you drawn any conclussions from them (other than not to start a career in construction)?
SHould they strike?
Should they be allowed to strike?
There is certainly no question in my mind of them being 'allowed to strike' that is their right but if I were a fireman and more people were dying on the days of the strikes because I wanted 30k pay, I would feel pretty guilty.
On the flipside using this moral thinking then the firemen could never strike, so what could they do if they are being unfairly treated?
I really can't make up my mind...........
The firemen SHOULD strike, what theyre being paid is an insult, and when theyre not there people will soon realise how much theyre worth. They put their lives at risk to save otehrs, yet theyre paid less than a trainee accountant. Who, of course, fuck up this world with their money-flinching.
If people dont like it then they should lobby their MP to give them a pay rise. And if that doesnt work consider yourselves taught a lesson- DONT VOTE CONSERVATIVE (and, yes, New "Labour" as as blue as Maggie Thatcher).
But these Unions get greedy and its there downfall. I think the public is undecided about where they stand on this because we don’t know all the details.
But by no means should the Government crumble on these issues of pay increase for public services I think!, you give them an inch & the Unions will they will try and take a mile!
The Government has another upperhand, its almost X-mas time and I’m betting most of the people thinking of striking has families and no one wants to be sort of money in X-mas time. So hopefully they will back down.
Its bad enough already in London without further taxes, If the Unions win and get their full pay increases, I bet the Government will bring in new taxis and stealth taxis!
and who wants that?
I will leave the rest of the post alone because I'm nice and don't need to tear it to shreds.
But I'd quite like to go in a stealth taxi please. Only problem is; how would you know where they were to hail them???
Edited to add; You've just got to love Sun readers....
But how do you work out taht if you give the unions an inch theyll take a mile? Because Good Ol Rupe says so? Only cos he hates the nunions, and sacks people belonging to unions from his newspapers.
Unions mean people are protected in their work, and its only scum like Rupert Murdoch who believe otherwise. Sometimes they get greedy, like with the RMT, who, I agree, are scum, but most unions do little more than provide workers with legal assistance when it comes to discipline, for instance. Which is surely a good thing.
Oh, and Scum readers are only undecided because (a)Murdoch says so and (b)They want good public services without paying for it.
Lmao:D
But you know what I meant right?, No need for me to edit it and change it is there?
*Another reason why I fear posting in Politics, my grammar*
If i say that the people who run our day to day lives (fire, hospital, refuse, teaching and crime prevention staff) deserve a pay that allows them to live in the area they serve, and have families and raise their (adopted) children.
Skilled jobs (nursing and fire staff, for example) deserve more again.
Firemen work 48 hours a week, and many have to take secondary jobs to pay for there living.
I don't believe this is right.
In order for this to be paid for i think that wages over £55,000 should be taxed at 60%, and over £90,000 should be taxed at 75%.
Now i'm waiting for some-one to steamroller in and say that comunism doesn't work.
Why tax at such high rates? 75% and 90% will result in a selective brain-drain from the country, and we'll just lose all the tax and GDP that these people provide...?
I agree that firefighters deserve more pay, but arguing that they put their lives on the line, and then risking lives to prove a point is ludicrous. They deserve money because they save lives. To then neglect this duty is undeserving of the raise.
Nope, I just recall reading about the 70's or 80's and how the tube drivers wanted more and more money. I figure now is just history repeating itself
I do know about Unions, and I also know a lot of fire fighter and tube drives don't want to strike but because the vast majority do the rest have to follow because of them being in a Union.
I have no problem with Unions as a whole, Just a few public services ones & how some of them are run and by whom! (Bob Crow)
Lol, I'm undecided because I don't know all the facts, I'm only saying what I see and how I see it. I think most people are also unsure on some of the issues.
We pay through the teeth for our public services!! And if certain unions get their way we will be paying a lot more. I don't fully know how much tube drives are asking for (roughly) but I did read (Not in the Sun i might add) that Bob Crow wants/wanted to "double or even treble" there pay. :eek:
And I've not been following the fireman strike that much but I believe they were asking for 40% raise. That to me sounds like too much! And if you give an increase to one, the rest will want increases as well
Which will come back to the public paying more taxes.
I don't think it's too much for the job that they do, but you're right about everyone else wanting an increase too. Everyone wants more money.
They knew what they were getting themselves into when they decided to become firemen. If they don't like it then they can go get another job. There are plenty of people who'd be more than happy to do the job with the current rate of pay.
I would proprose that public sector workers get differing pay depending on where they work.
Thus in this particular case firefighters in say London or Sussex or some other southern place could get a 30-40% pay rise to reflect the cost of living in that area, firmen in the NE could get maybe a 5- 15 % pay increase along the same principle.......
What do you think?
Although many other cities are catching up to London prices and
doing the same. I used to be disgusted at London prices but now Birmingham is not too far off.
How does that sound to you?
Sounds fine to me, but the union bloke....
The fact that they won't even wait for the pay review makes me wonder if this is the unions (not just the firefighters) digging their heels in. I hope we don't get a return to the mass strikes of the 70's.
Thank god Thatcher sorted 'em all out
What I cannot accept though is their threat to walk out, on a total strike. There are other means they could use which would not have such a huge effect on public safety. It worries me that they are putting their wage increase ahead of the lives they are supposed to try and protect.
As for other Unions staging walk outs, I have no problem with this and if they do then the blame lies squarely at the FBU's door. Health and safety cannot be ignored and the increased risk of death or injury resulting from a lack of cover is something which muct be taken into consideration...