JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Justfied or just plain greedy - after wanting the flexibility to carry two jobs a decade ago they now want to retire early too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24092931

RA Dunk

They do an important and dangerous job but at the end of the day it's the job 'they chose' to do. If they got early retirement (which I don't agree with TBH) where would it end? I do a dangerous job so I could ask for it as well surely?

cster

With Health and Safety laws - it's not actually that dangerous.
Having said that, if the tax paying public are stupid enough to make it worth my while to take early retirement, I certainly won't be saying no.

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

That just about sums it up - greed

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Tricky one....... the NHS pension has generally been work for 40 years and get 1/80th of your salary for each year worked as a pension. Changed for the worse recently though.

If I was a fireman or Plod or teacher I would be retired by now on 2/3rds of my salary.

Not sure what they are moaning about.......My state retirement age is 67 do you want me treating you at that age?

Shaun

kenc

iTrader: (6)

There is the argument that you have a younger and fitter emergency service...
Also saying there work isn't dangerous because of health and safety laws is a bit stupid to be fair.
End of the day they are getting good money, good entitlements and possibly early retirement... They also get to scrape dead children out of car crashes and burnt babies out of burnt houses.... Do I envy them... NO.... Do I want there job and all its perks ...NO

Felix.

its not about early retirement as far as i know. They have put another 10 years on their service length for no (or very little benefit)

My friend was due to retire in another 8 years having served her 30 years as agreed when she joined. Now they have just added another 10 years with no increase to the pension pay out

Another thing that they are bringing in are fitness tests for them - no problem for younger service crews, but the same fitness test will carry on until the day they retire. So at 67 they will want you to pass a fitness test (such as the police's level 9 on the bleep test) or else they will say you are not fit for duty and terminate your contract. You will have 3 chances to pass this and it will not matter if you a carrying an injury received from work.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

I have approximately 0 respect for the fire service these days. Having covered the fireman strikes back in 2003, I can wholeheartedly say that their job is a piece of pi$$, massively governed by health and safety. yes, there is always a degree of danger when fighting fires, but that's part and parcel of the job. There are far more dangerous jobs out there, where the folk doing them don't get paid anywhere near as much as the fire service, don't have as good a pension and don't get the job-specific perks that the fire service have.

IMO, man-up, stop whining and get on with it. You should have to be fit to be a fireman, end of. From what I've seen, there's a fair few fireman that are, shall we say, 'lacking' in the physical fitness department.

hodgy0_2

Presumably with the general decline of fires, domestic and industrial in the last 25 years due to the:

Increase in H&S (smoke alarms, fire regs etc) increase in use of central heating (less open fires) the decreasing amount of people smoking at home

We need less fireman than we did anyway,

sure pay for people to sit around watching TV all day, but I thought that's what we do already via the benefits system

jonc

The current normal retirement age for those in the fire service is 55 according to the FBU, the Government are proposing to change this to 60. I would expect personnel like your friend to be less exposed to front line duties in having to lug around 20kg of protective equipment and also breathing apparatus her forties let alone in her fifties and be deployed to other duties that require less physical exertions. A fitness test would make sense if it means that only those with the fitness and strength required for the front line duties ensures the best chance of saving lives.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

Exactly. I also think that they will probably run it n the same was as they do the forces I.e as you get older, the fitness tests get easier such as longer times, less distance etc. I very much doubt it will be a blanket test for all ages!

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

I was going to ask if you got called to many incidents, any child deaths etc, but based on your posts, I'm guessing you've experienced everything in the world possible.

kenc

iTrader: (6)

Your an idiot..
Perhaps when they save a member of your families life.. Maybe then you might in some way have some form of respect for the job they do, then again you probably are to macho to.
If you think they are bad now and no use... What way do you think they will be if 5 years is added on to their service???

I would share your hardened view when it comes to the likes of teachers, bus drivers, train drivers etc etc going on strike...
But when it comes to people who save lives and have to see the things they see I am a bit more open minded

Friday night there was a fire about 4 miles from my house, grandmother of 80 and girl of 9 burnt to death in it.. You don't just switch off after witnessing that... It's a horrible job they have.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

So fireman are the only people that see horrid things? What about police, ambulance, armed forces etc? Im not macho, im just saying it how it is. ive seen some pretty bad stuff in my 3 operatinal tours of afghan and iraq, as have many other members of the forces, but we still continue to do what we do because we want to do it. our pay isnt the best, but personally, i consider myself lucky to have a good job considering the economy, perhaps some firefighters should see it like this. It always seems to be the fire brigade that kicks up stink about pay etc? Yes, there are other public services that go on strike, but it seems that its constantly the fire service that are the repeat offenders (not including tube and train drivers...that's another story altogether).

As said, I have had first hand experience of doing the work they do, and that was 10 years ago, when they did slightly more work than they do now. I am telling you now, it is not a particularly tough job. As mentioned above by another member, they have very little to do now with the introduction of so many modern, high-tech fire prevention devices and the like. Again, as already said above, I hardly think hey're going to make a 55 year old climb up a ladder not a burning building and bring down a 20 stone bloke. There will always be the younger folk to do it I.e the fitter people (which is why they should have fitness tests).

I think at the end of the day, what gets a lot of folks back up is that when you take into account how much work the fire service actually do compared to how much they get paid and the hours they work, there isn't really much of a reason to complain.

Peedee

iTrader: (4)

Not at all, but far far more than most people my age, probably you aswell.

No, no child deaths, but I've seen plenty of dead folk, heads blown off etc on my travels. Why, how many have you seen? COD doesn't count by the way.

On a more serious note, we went to a lot of fires, everything from small dustbin fires up to a Farley big one n a warehouse. I have to say, its a massive buzz from the second the alarm goes off in the station (or TA centre in our case. I'm not TA by the way).

kenc

iTrader: (6)

Peedee
You have some experience but I don't think you have experienced the worse end of the scale regards fireman duties..

What you have experienced in your travels with the army is in a different scenario, horrific but different non the less...

But if you were to ask me which is a bigger waist of tax payers money... Paying a fire man to do his job in the U.K or paying for a soldier to go to another country to fight.... I think you would be upset by the answer mate.

kenc

iTrader: (6)

Also to add..
After reading back through your posts I am struggling to see you point of view..

1. You think they are getting good pay for what they do.
2.You think they do *** all.
3.And you say if they have to work an extra 5 yrs its no problem and that its not like they are going to be asked to do the hard work at that age..

So if you look at points 1 and 2... Do you not think its a bit of a contradiction that you have no problem with an old guy being kept back in fire station polishing shelves for the extra 5 years service???
Every station across the country will have older guys who are being shelterd from the hard work... And this is not a waste of money? Also they will probably have to take on someone to replace them on hard end regardless so you will be paying 2 wages instead of 1 for 5 years... And when the extra 5 yrs are up they will be entitled to more than they were 5 yrs ago.??????

mrmadcap

Not a fireman myself, don't even know any, but it seems there are a few self- righteous key board warriors on here as usual.

Lets hear what your occupations are and I'm sure I will be able to pluck out the negatives and you won't look as perfect as you like to think you are.

jonc

Well then, with your logic, if this is about cost to the tax payer, the Government should enforce early retirement or terminate employment before anyone reaches 55 if they are deemed unable to do any front line duties. I mean Why keep back anyone who are only fit enough to polish shelves back at the station? That is waste of tax payers money is it not? What is more of a waste, paying someone polishing shelves or a soldier fighting for this country?

kenc

iTrader: (6)

I think you need to read my post again.. I'm referring to Peedee logic that they should be made go the extra 5 yrs and that they will be shelterd from front line duties anyway..

That's not my view, I think that is a waste of money.

I can't think of any scenario where adding on years is going up work... Can you imagine today having 2 yrs left of service and them you are told you have 7!!! Your not exactly going to be interested in your work are you.. And more than likely will do f all or go out on sick leave...

The only way IMO it could ever work is offer Early retirement... And new recruits start there work on a new system of an older retirement age... It would only take about 50yrs to fully implement

End of the day... What does the government hope to achieve by this? And what will actually happen in reality??

GC8

I had you down as a thrusting, youthful Dr Kildare character...

DYK

If i were a woman,i could of thought the title thread was referring to something else.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

GC8

I'm more of a Victor Meldrew

Dingdongler is Dr Kildare............. (or even Leslie Phillips AKA his username)

Shaun

tony de wonderful

Just privatise it then.

paulr

My dad is a HGV driver at 77. Surely as firemen get older, they can do less strenuous tasks.

In the end though, it what powerful unions do, get you great T&C's.

tony de wonderful

Professions have more power; Doctors especially.

Work on a zero hour contract at Sports Direct and you'll work until 67 at least for almost nothing.

Turbohot

That's because you have a one-track mind. You are fixated on one thing and one thing only.


Well, when my kids got braces at 5 years' gap from each other, it was a nice dentist who was well above 60, but so very good with his chilled temperament and at his job. My son's teeth now look like some film star's. Daughter's are also very nice, but she did drive him round the bend with several LAs and DNAs. He did tell her off sternly, but very nicely. Age had no impact on his professional ability. I don't know if he's still working. He was, until my daughter dear eventually finished her treatment with him in late 2011.

hodgy0_2

Yes, that's interesting - like everything run on the profit principle, payment should be matched by an associated SLA,

The more you pay the quicker they respond -

The problem is when they respond to people involved in a house fire that have not paid anything towards it, if they do and subsequently save lives, what is the point of you paying for it, if they will come for an emergency anyway

For it to really work a paying customer would have to demand the fire service not respond to people involved in house fires who have not paid

It is the same principle that first class train passengers get, when they are pissed of with chavs sitting in the the first class carriages without pay the first class fare

Why pay if people get it for free

cster

My friend who is a recently retired fireman told me this.
So who am I to dispute what he says?

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Unless it involves saving life they would rather let a building burn to the ground than take a chance - it's a logic you can't really argue with