I see they are going on strike after all.

Disgraceful.

Water Fairies? There'll be flying pickets as well then.

I agree, after all, if someone was going to fuck my pension over, whilst voting for an increase in their own, I wouldn't be pissed off one little bit

Sack em all. Plenty of others would do it. Lads made redundant from the army. It would be a pay rise for them and a walk in the park after Afghan.

There wouldn't be room for all the redundant army lads in the Fire Brigade though. Maybe you could recruit the others to a general strike breaking and lefty beating group called the Freikorps and then declare yourself Fuhrer in a few years time. Worked very well in inter-war Germany.

Excellent reply Mr Toulouse

Hey Mr Imp, should we send round redundant army lads to do your job with the Missus when you have an argument with her?

To much race to the bottom to fill the Mans pocket and fools are falling for it.

And as a side note, don't people volunteer for the army so they can't complain when they get posted abroad. I've noticed the government aren't attacking the armed forces pensions. Why's that?

Yes and they do not complain. They get on with it. They don't have the right to strike as that would put lives in danger. They suffered pension cuts and will suffer more. They suffered redundancies and will suffer more. Joining the fire service would be a hefty pay rise for most of them and a far easier life.

There is no money. Everyone is suffering. If you want to pay extra taxes so the fire service are exempt from their fair share of suffering then find some like minded folks and start a campaign.

Absolute tosh!

Mega corps are making billions in profits and laying people off. Why? Is it cos they can't afford the staff or is it cos their short term shareholders are greedy?

No money around my arse!

Of course. And the fire fighters going on strike will cause some of that cash to be diverted to preserve their pensions and then their putting lives at risk will all have been worthwhile and then for fighters won't have to mooch in bins in their retirement.

On the other hand I don't see many fire fighters trying to hassle women and starting fights on their R&R because they haven't dodged bullets in some foreign shithole and think they've a god given right to do that.

In case you weren't aware a pension is deferred wages for when you retire. Why not just stop all pensions and increase people's wages equivalently while they work instead. After all its all in their contracts.

Whoops, I forgot contracts only mean something to the Man and only count for Him!

Of course fire fighters are saints as well as being hard done by. And servicemen and women are thugs. I admit defeat.

Generic fall back line there. I graciously accept your unconditional surrender.

Pooly Imp you appear to have a grievance the way some of your posts read. Whether this is actually against firefighters or because your pension has been changed I don't know.

This action being taken by firefighters is not simply against their contributions going up or the fact they have to work longer(up to 60) A firefighter at the moment retires at 55 now lets say the changes comes into effect tomorrow and that a 55 year old firefighter was due to retire in a couple months with full pension, he now has to work another 5 years. He carries on with his pension contributions having gone up . He works another 3 years but old age etc catches up and he can't carry on. He under these new conditions can be sacked. Pension lost. All of it. So a pension he had worked for an extra 3 years before being unfit GONE. Is that right. And not a pension scheme he joined. Do you want firefighters aged 60 attending any incidents. Taking in to account that some of them will be women and without sounding sexist a 60 year old woman is probably going to be less fit /strong etc than a 60 year old man

I've recently found out that unless I want to have a good chunk of it taken away I can't claim a pension I had from a previous job until I am 67. When I joined the scheme it was 55.

Robert Maxwell spent the Mirror Group occupational pension fund and it was rightly seen as theft. Successive governments have effectively done the same with public sector pensions and now have to reduce the payout because they spent the cash that the workforce paid in and the state of the economy means that they can't/won't borrow to cover up for their stealing. How anybody can think it is wrong for the FBU to fight against that on behalf of their members beggars belief. You could maybe argue it is pointless and that they won't win but their cause is certainly a just one.

Bob you can't reason with the brainwashed have nots. We have it at our place. People who actually believe in a benevolent multi national company who have given us our pay and conditions through largesse and not through fighting to get and keep what we have.

Like I've said before. It's a race to the bottom to allow millionaires to become billionaires and people fall for it time after time.

People need to ask their grand parents and great grandparents the conditions they had to endure!

I agree with your point about fighting to keep what you have. However what is your last comment about my grandparents and great grandparents had shocking conditions in which to work and they would give their right arm to have the ones we have now or lifestyle that a current job brings (if you have one that is).

Doesnt this sort of make your last point null and void?

I think Fatty's point was we could be heading back towards the kind of lifestyle previous generations had to put up with.

Do you think it is the "man" who is going to part with the cash to preserve these pensions or is it going to be Mr and Mrs Tax payer yet again? I think you know the answer. Its ok though, we are well accustomed to supporting those genuinely poor and needy in this country so fire fighters can just jump on board as they obviously fit the bill.

I think the government has made an error. They should have made the fire service like the police and the military. Unable to strike as to do so would endanger lives.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to withdraw their labour?

It's only the other side of the coin when employers withdraw wages and conditions!

Oh, and why won't the Man target the £85 billion lost through tax fraud by huge companies? Cos they are part of the same machine that's why!

Pimms all around in some circles.

Like I said Pooly_imp you have a grievance.

Current contribution by a firefighter is 11% towards his pension. New contribution up to 17%. Don't just say that firefighters are wrong, don't just say take away their right to strike.

Is an increase of 6% right if your answer is yes, let me have your reasons/opinions for it being right.

Do you want 60 year old men and women attending fires/ RTA's ,Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. If yes give me your reasons that 60 year olds can do the physical work.

Do you believe that someone who has worked in the Fire service for somewhere near 40 years(new service term) but is classed as unfit at 59 can lose his /her full pension that he/she may have paid into for 39 years is right give me your reasons/opinions Why ?

You say they're putting lives at risk. Maybe someone has has done that !!! The firefighters are going to incident(s) because someone else has doing something /or something has gone wrong that has initially put the lives at risk. A firefighter stood on a picket line is not responsible for someone dying in a Cyanide leak somewhere on the Seal Sands is he ?? Or is he/she ? Because even if they turn out to it then the chances are anyone caught in the leak is dead before they arrive.

All Fire Brigades fit FREE smoke alarms in homes there's no reason to get caught in a house fire nowadays. I can play devils advocate. I can give reasons why I know this industrial action is right for firefighters, you haven't give one reason why it wrong.

Don't be holding your breath for a reasoned reply, Bob.

There ISN'T one

Give me a reason why the tax payer should pay instead of the fire fighter?

The fact remains that there are bad folks out there and there always will be. Accidents happen and they always will. This provides the military and emergency services with employment . The police and the army can't strike for good reason. The same good reason why fire fighters should not. It's not right or wrong, it's just necessary. People go into these vocations knowing they cannot strike. The effect a little different to postal workers, train drivers and teachers.

What they should have done (and may well negotiate) is leave those with more years of service less effected than those with less. But still times must change. The fire fighters pension of old is not affordable and they must follow suit with other public sectors. As for working until 60, I do not agree with the dramatic picture of a clapped out, ready for the knackers yard, silver haired grandad struggling to lift a hose in his dotage. Like the army, there are still roles to be fulfilled by those whose days of jumping in and out of Fox holes every day are long since past.

If the job is unsuitable then there always remains the option that is open to us all. Leave and find a better job.

Not affordable? Fuck me we're supposed to be the 5th richest country in the world!!!!

This.

Give me a reason why the tax payer should pay instead of the fire fighter?

Firefighter is paying up to 17% of his/her wage . You can tell when someone is losing the argument they answer a question with a question. Firefighters have said they'll talk they haven't ruled out a compromise,the government have been the ones who are forcing things on the FBU. democratic government or dictatorship ?

The fact remains that there are bad folks out there and there always will be. Accidents happen and they always will. This provides the military and emergency services with employment . The police and the army can't strike for good reason. The same good reason why fire fighters should not. It's not right or wrong, it's just necessary. People go into these vocations knowing they cannot strike. The effect a little different to postal workers, train drivers and teachers.

People go into these vocations knowing they can't strike. Agreed. Firefighter go into there vocation knowing they had the right to strike. it was a legally run ballot of which 78% of the members said enough is enough. That a big majority Can the Police/Army change the rules to strike NO. So why should you or a government take away something that firefighters have the right to. You still not give me one reason why they shouldn't strike by the way. This it putting peoples lives at risk is bullshit, already told you others do that.


What they should have done (and may well negotiate) is leave those with more years of service less effected than those with less. But still times must change.

They did that when they introduced the New Firefighters Pension Scheme after last industrial actions. They said leave Old alone introduce this new one where contributions were less and service tenure increased, They now want to change that, so what reason are you going to give now because your agreeing with why they going on strike Leave it alone introduce new for new firefighters. I agree with you,


The fire fighters pension of old is not affordable and they must follow suit with other public sectors. As for working until 60, I do not agree with the dramatic picture of a clapped out, ready for the knackers yard, silver haired grandad struggling to lift a hose in his dotage. Like the army, there are still roles to be fulfilled by those whose days of jumping in and out of Fox holes every day are long since past.

There are no other roles for them. Simple as that. What would you like someone who has been happy as a firefighter only to do. he can't do a job that requires promotion qualifications if he/she only ever wanted to be a firefighter and not an officer. Tell me what you'll have him/her do.

If the job is unsuitable then there always remains the option that is open to us all. Leave and find a better job.

So you've paid 39 years into a pension are you going to walk away. Idiot

What they should have done (and may well negotiate) is leave those with more years of service less effected than those with less. But still times must change.

They did that when they introduced the New Firefighters Pension Scheme after last industrial actions. They said leave Old alone introduce this new one where contributions were less and service tenure increased, They now want to change that, so what reason are you going to give now because your agreeing with why they going on strike Leave it alone introduce new for new firefighters. I agree with you,

Dont have an answer for that one. We agree. Its totally unfair. Sounds like sufficient concessions and comprimises have been made already. Sincerely.

What a great idea! Bring back the Tans.

It also the old firefighters pension scheme they want to change as well. So someone with 20 odd years is stands to lose. The FBU stood against different pension schemes for many years . Then as you say they compromised and give way on a number of things. Only for years later the incumbent government to move the goal posts again. and basically force this industrial action.

In Scotland the strike call next Wednesday will not take place as the Scottish parliament have continued to talk. it's government figures which show that firefighters could face the sack and loss of their pension as well, not the FBU's.

And one final point the FBU have agreed that if a "major Incident" occurs it will exempt firefighters from strike action if they volunteer to help. Hardly the actions that are "putting people's lives at risk" do you agree. Permission to break own strike action. name one other union who has ever given permission to do that apart from the FBU which did the same in 2002/03

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t_gu#story

Interesting read from the Guardian.

We have an aging population that is living longer, people can twist all they want but the current agreed pensions are unworkable
That doesn't mean alongside that that something doesn't need to be done about income inequality and rich fuckers taking too higher % of the wealth, but whatever way you spin it public pensions can't stay as they are
The alternative is you dig your heels in, ultimately go bankrupt and get fuck all, different country I know but Detroit is an example of this

Genuine question here, would you be ok with retirement at 55 but any job they took after 55 their salary would come out of their pension ?
Btw I agree with you there needs to be some middle ground, and it's not right someone walks away with nothing, though that seems an extreme example
The unmistakeable fact is the demographics of the developed world are changing, my advice to the young kids is get involved in health care- going to be a sought after profession very soon, especially geriatric care

Would Blair/Brown and numerous MP's be happy to take their retirement and pension then give up any fee they get from after dinner speeches, or the equivalent taken out of their pension.

I would have to put in £45000 to get 1 years MP's pension. They go on about scrapping final pay pension settlements. They have a funded final settlement pension.

Thier pension increase has been suspended for something like a year. . A firefighter/policeman pay more % for their pension than an MP does. Firefighter 17% MP 13.75% MP 3 times more wage per year.

To quote yourself
You always know you are losing the argument when you answer a question with a question
I agree with you on Blair and mp's, but that isn't the question I asked

Just because one thing is wrong doesn't make the other thing right

It sounds a bit like what they did to us. Introduced a new pension for new workers and then decided they were going to make it mandatory for all in 2015 (except the longest serving). However they did decide that any benefits we ran up on the old scheme will be preserved. I do wonder how long it will be before they push our retirement age back to 60.

Ultimately this is a generational question, how much will the you g be prepared to fund the old
And ultimately , sadly to quote mr Eastwood in Unforgiven
'Deserve has got nothing to do with it'

No your asking me to answer for others. I have my pension. I haven't worked for 4years so your question is irrelevant to me.

????

By that logic the whole subject is irrelevant to you so why comment ?

Yes I'll give up whatever wage I pick up from my monthly pension. It'll be nothing. But because I'll do it doesn't make it right. Hence why I won't comment, no other reason. Will you do the same?

I have a pension that I contributed to. I got that after 31years. Working alongside some great blokes who simply because they're few years younger than me may now have to pay a larger % of their wage to a pension fund and work years longer. That gives me the right to comment on the issue.

My pension keeps my head above water I worked for it others have done the same.

I think you should work till your 60 pay extra towards your pension fund and if you become unfit for doing whatever it is you do then whoever is your employer can sack you then and there and you lose everything you've paid towards your pension. Oh and then any redundancy as well.That could happen to firefighters. There's the door there's your P45, not our problem. The Thatcher self self self generation appears to still be around.

It like a mortgage company suddenly coming to you and saying sorry tripledecker I know its not your fault but your going to have to pay us another 5 years payments before you can have the house !!!!!

My point was a general one around people having a job and a full time pension at the same time,
However you hit the nail on the head when you said people younger than you have to pay more, that is the reality for everyone, the old are sucking up an exponentially larger % of tax revenue year on year
Is it 'fair' to ask the younger generation to increasingly subsidize the old when it becomes evident there will be nothing left for them when they get to that age
Clearly the issue is not binary and a compromise needs to be reached but the status quo won't be sustained

Is it right to move the goalposts not once but twice. The government IMHO thought a strike ballot wouldn't be carried. Why did they believe that. Because a lot of firefighters are on the New Firefighter Pension Scheme (NFPS) and not the old Firefighters Pension Scheme (FPS) So they believed that those on 40 years service and lower contributions and therefore lower pension would not vote for something they weren't getting. The FPS won't exist in the Fire Service within a few years all the older serving firefighters will have retired/took their pension. Those left will be on the NFPS. Government have took on something they don't have to, Because those those joining nowadays join the NFPS,

It's it good to move goalposts at all I agree.
But it also needs to be recognized times and circumstances change, and what was originally promised is no longer sustainable, and eventually you have to stop kicking the can down the road,

I might be wrong, but I think that Tripledecker gadgie just thinks that everyone should die sooner which leads me to expect he's notabout to see his pension expectations on paper any time soon.

The bit about losing your whole pension if you are sacked is untrue. As you have contributed to your pension it cannot be withheld



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If your sacked in fire brigade you can lose your pension. I can type fact but although it is it doesn't make it true

You wouldn't get summarily dismissed if you were incapable through age, health etc to do the job. This is capability and might lead to dismissal but they couldn't cancel pension entitlement.

If you were dismissed for an act of gross misconduct that might be different but not for the reasons you suggest Bob, such as being to old/unfit for the job.

from what I know sorry Poolie tim but your wrong it may happen because they're can use capability

[quote="Fetish_Bob"] alongside some great blokes who simply because they're few years younger than me may now have to pay a larger % of their wage to a pension fund and work years longer. That gives me the right to comment on the issue.
/quote]

Just like the rest of us eh!!

Yes as I said you can be dismissed for capability but that would not result in summarily dismissal because that is for acts of gross misconduct.

Capability would not result in loss of pension benefits. We have employment law to protect people from this and the Fire service would be in tribunals daily if they stripped peoples pension right, of which they contributed to, because they couldn't perform the role due to ill health or loss of fitness.

They could take a fair bit off the pension bill by having a cull of fat coppers. Anybody too porky to chase a skinny smackhead more than 400 yards gets a warning to lose weight and if they don't do it it should be OK to treat them like badgers. Massive saving on pensions for the public purse and fitter coppers hurtling round their beats instead of eating chips in their cars. Everybody wins except for criminals and fast food outlets.