Firefighters' strike - Nov 5th

Impeccable timing by the FBU.

BBC Report
________
SPICE WEED

 

[The Masked Geek]

So my point stands? Our pay and conditions are similar. What deduction do you see in your monthly salary for your pension? I was led to believe that your pay was adjusted as no actual deductions take place. AFPS 75 is non-contributory and the full pension can be taken at age 55.

Our pay is set at a figure comparable with civvy street.

It is then reduced by an amount to cover the pension.

Then we get it topped up with the X-Factor - this is the figure we see.

We may not see a "pension contribution" in our pay packets but that does not mean that they don't happen.

 

[firestorm]

Is it legal ?


Yes unfortunately it is ,however, by terminating existing contracts and offering new contracts, they do open themselves to unfair dismissal claims. and any consultation must be meaningful.

 

[firestorm]

MG, your pension, along with the civil service pension, is the only non contriibution pension paid for by the pubilc purse. Though I agree this is a side issue to an earlier point with regards to our "cushy" conditions and pension.

I'm on record on this forum stating I'd like to see your pension enhanced. Some things are worth paying taxes for, your pension is one of them.

You don't get the pension you deserve, you should get more.

 

[firestorm]

Yawn, didnt we have all these arguments during Op Fresco!

No. That was about pay. This is about us being sacked.

 

[Smokinbarrels]

I cant see how they can cut the fire service anymore than they have. I was shocked to learn that the RAF Fire Service have more on duty at night than my local fire station which is in a city centre?

 

[firestorm]

Smoking, this initial issue isn't about cuts at this time, though the employers want the 12 hour shift so then can reduce night time cover and remove fire engines at night in the future. They of course denied this untill someone leaked the confidential report that tabled it.

 

[252]

An employer is legally required to consult its trade unions when it is 'considering' redundanicies.

Consultation should begin at least 90 days before the redundancies .

A section 188 notice serves as notice that an employer intends to make a number of employees redundant (in this case all employees!) and that the required consultation period has begun.

Their purpose in doing so in this case, is to then offer re-employment on new terms and conditions.
Still can't see the problem?

Is this legal?,im sure its been tested in employment court before

 

[firestorm]

Yes, its legal. It was legislation introduced in 1992 and has been used before, though its never been used on this scale.
If it goes ahead, lets hope it doesn't, the employer does leave himself open to claims of unfair dismissal. The members who've shown most resistance to this are women firefighters who'll stuggle to get 12 hour childcare, 4 times a week and those living a distance away from London who'll see less of their young families. Something you are all to aware of in your jobs.

 

[The Masked Geek]

Is this legal?,im sure its been tested in employment court before

You can't be made redundant from a job that still exists. Maybe the terminology is being bent out of shape.

 

[firestorm]

Keep posting and I'll do my best to answer any questions you have. I'm off for some sleep after a rough couple of night shifts.
I'm glad its a fairly civil thread though I do understand the hostility shown at our action.
Thanks again.DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[252]

You can't be made redundant from a job that still exists. Maybe the terminology is being bent out of shape.

I tend to agree,there must be more to this than meets the eye,employers will have consulted some pretty high powered employment law specalists to cover thier asses but as this is being presented(or at least as i am interpeting it)on this forum its clearly illegal.

 

[KingGuin]

FS
as a matter of interest:

Was there a properly constitued ballot?
Did the TBU give the FB requisite notice of ballot?
Do you consider picketing Contingency stations to be secondary?

As an aside if the FB are offering "suitable alternative employment" (regardless that its the same job with changed T&C) then, legislatively they can make you redundant without recourse if you do not accept that offer.

Time for ACAS methinks.

 

[grumpyoldb]

You can't be made redundant from a job that still exists. Maybe the terminology is being bent out of shape.

Yes you can. It happened to me where long serving members of staff claimed seniority. It was last in, first out. DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[252]

FS
as a matter of interest:

Was there a properly constitued ballot?
Did the TBU give the FB requisite notice of ballot?
Do you consider picketing Contingency stations to be secondary?

As an aside if the FB are offering "suitable alternative employment" (regardless that its the same job with changed T&C) then, legislatively they can make you redundant without recourse if you do not accept that offer.

Time for ACAS methinks.

If you are correct that could open up a very large can of worms for 20 year plus employes in the NHS,police,Ambulance,local goverment and others,even the military!DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[Odie]

The members who've shown most resistance to this are women firefighters who'll stuggle to get 12 hour childcare, 4 times a week and those living a distance away from London who'll see less of their young families. Something you are all to aware of in your jobs.

Surely there's the flip side of that, with the night shift being reduced from 15 to 12 hours to balance the shift lengths, then those same women firefighters will see more of their children during those times and need less childcare?

Regrettably, I don't hold out much sympathy with the firefighters on the change of shift lengths. There are numerous places in the RAF that have 12 hour shifts as the norm when they do days and/or nights and no doubt it's the same in other jobs.

The firefighter on Radio 2 earlier didn't sell the reason not to equalise the shift lengths when he started whining on about an extra 3 hours on days where he'd see less of his family (forgetting to mention that he'd do 3 hours less on nights where he'd see more of his family) and working Christmas and Bank Holidays (this year I'm covering the 3rd Christmas Day in 5 years). Sorry firefighters, but your not alone in that and those that already work equalised shifts and on units that have 24/7 manning get on with it.

SWMBO currenty works with Warwickshire Fire and Rescue and, having come from other industries, is amazed at the inefficiencies across the fire service.

In the current climate, with many people having their jobs under threat, taking pay cuts and pay freezes, the firefighters aren't going to get the same support from the public they may have done in the past. Perhaps it's time for them to accept the changes?

 

[KingGuin]

If you are correct that could open up a very large can of worms for 20 year plus employes in the NHS,police,Ambulance,local goverment and others,even the military!DT_Xtremez_09:

Not at all - when we e.g sign on apply for a posting etc our T&C change. These are not redundancies per se; the terminology is misleading. What we have here is a minor change to the T&C of a job. The job will still exist after the changes, whether members of the FBU chose to accept those changes is another thing. I'm sure if I'm wide of the mark, FS will put me right.

 

[252]

Not at all - when we e.g sign on apply for a posting etc our T&C change. These are not redundancies per se; the terminology is misleading. What we have here is a minor change to the T&C of a job. The job will still exist after the changes, whether members of the FBU chose to accept those changes is another thing. I'm sure if I'm wide of the mark, FS will put me right.

I would have thought that changes such as shift patterns and to some extent new duties could have been implemented within existing contracts after all i work for local goverment and having just reread my contract it gives my employers emense scope to change t&c but not wages or protected rights,which are what are usually lost when new employes have to sign updated contracts.



For example i still get double time for Sundays if i am required to work them but people on newer contracts only get time and a half.

Is this a mass attempt to even out firefighters contracts at what will inevitably be diminished protected rights?

If this is the case then the likes of the NHS would be ripe to follow.

 

[Tin basher]

This isn't about pay, its about being sacked. All 5500 of us will be sacked if we don't accept their new contracts.

Actually sacked or deemed to have packed the job in because you don't want to work under the new contracts?

Simply, removing the threat of sacking us and talking will stop this strike.

As above are you being sacked or have you been offered a new contract you don't like and don't want to sign?

Is it legal ? Yes unfortunately it is.

Seems your not being sacked then. Rather the employers are doing something the union think is immoral and perhaps even dodgy. But given the employers legal boys will almost certainly have looked closely at the small print it probably is legal and the unions simply don't like it.

That was about pay. This is about us being sacked.

Really or is it a management attempt to moderise the service and remove long established "spanish practices" that continue to allow some fire and rescue staff enough time off to run a second job if they wish to, whilst catching up on sleep during their primary job. Mention was made this morning of the American Air Traffic situation during the Regan presidency. where they refused a new contract and he called their bluff removed the lot and employed others who would do the work. One mans modernisation is another's erosion of terms and conditions it depends, I suppose, from which side you look at the problem.

 

[grumpyoldb]

Actually sacked or deemed to have packed the job in because you don't want to work under the new contracts?



As above are you being sacked or have you been offered a new contract you don't like and don't want to sign?



Seems your not being sacked then. Rather the employers are doing something the union think is immoral and perhaps even dodgy. But given the employers legal boys will almost certainly have looked closely at the small print it probably is legal and the unions simply don't like it.



Really or is it a management attempt to moderise the service and remove long established "spanish practices" that continue to allow some fire and rescue staff enough time off to run a second job if they wish to, whilst catching up on sleep during their primary job. Mention was made this morning of the American Air Traffic situation during the Regan presidency. where they refused a new contract and he called their bluff removed the lot and employed others who would do the work. One mans modernisation is anothers erosion of conditions it depends, I suppose, from which side you look at the problem.

Now that is the most sensible post on this thread. Well said, TB! DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Aces and Eights]

Actually sacked or deemed to have packed the job in because you don't want to work under the new contracts?



As above are you being sacked or have you been offered a new contract you don't like and don't want to sign?



Seems your not being sacked then. Rather the employers are doing something the union think is immoral and perhaps even dodgy. But given the employers legal boys will almost certainly have looked closely at the small print it probably is legal and the unions simply don't like it.



Really or is it a management attempt to moderise the service and remove long established "spanish practices" that continue to allow some fire and rescue staff enough time off to run a second job if they wish to, whilst catching up on sleep during their primary job. Mention was made this morning of the American Air Traffic situation during the Regan presidency. where they refused a new contract and he called their bluff removed the lot and employed others who would do the work. One mans modernisation is another's erosion of terms and conditions it depends, I suppose, from which side you look at the problem.

Can't wait to see Trotsky's reply. Apparently he's having a kip - must be his 2nd job that is wearing him out,
________
TOYS TUBE