Firemen

[fatty]

May have been covered and sorry if i missed it.

 

Striking over pensions. They are having their terms changed so they have to work more. Shall they accept it like the rest of the nation or get special treatment for the wonderful job they do and get paid rather well for whilst enjoying a rather lot of time off for their sidelines. Discuss.

[Guest]

There is a thread somewhere

 

But this takes the biscuit;

 

 

"However, if a person has worked as a firefighter for a long period of time, they aren't really able to do any other jobs."

 

 

I wonder how many don't have a 2nd job?

Edited September 25, 2013 by boltondiver

[MalcolmW]

May have been covered and sorry if i missed it.

 

Striking over pensions. They are having their terms changed so they have to work more. Shall they accept it like the rest of the nation or get special treatment for the wonderful job they do and get paid rather well for whilst enjoying a rather lot of time off for their sidelines. Discuss.

 

Currently there is a right to retire on full pension at age 55 (previously was at 50 with 25 years' service).

The age at which a normal firefighters job can be done clearly doesn't stretch to 65, or even 60.

This is a benefit denied to almost all others. But for this they pay a minimum of 11% of their pay - yes, eleven percent!

Clearly the chances of ill-health retirement are far greater than for a council clerk.

If you've ever been in a flat where the light fittings caught fire (as I have) you will not begrudge them a better deal than most.

I have always felt that the additional risk should not be met from personal contributions, but the union has clearly failed its members in past negociations. Now the Gov't are saying that individual firemen can retire at 55 with an adjusted pension. Adjusted? Make that reduced by 40%.

[Carlos]

Same argument for all emergency and medical staff then? Plus the armed forces that risk their lives 24/7.

 

There's loads of fit 60 year olds. Some of the old lads down the gym are stronger and fitter than most kids.

 

None of us are retiring on full pay. I'd jump at the chance of 60% myself. I'd take it tomorrow, sounds fucking brilliant.

[Spider]

I had a customer thank me for saving their life a few years back when I managed to get a new laptop to them within an hour.

 

I'll probably have to work until I'm 153 years old.

 

they know the risks. Not that I'm denying the stunning job they do. Not in any way. But they know what's involved.

[Casino]

can they not do stuff around the station

 

some clerical stuff, rack up the balls etc

[no balls]

A girl at work said today, "well they do save lives".

That's alright then, give them whatever they want.

It's a good job some of us have swinging bricks

[Guest]

Currently there is a right to retire on full pension at age 55 (previously was at 50 with 25 years' service).

The age at which a normal firefighters job can be done clearly doesn't stretch to 65, or even 60.

This is a benefit denied to almost all others. But for this they pay a minimum of 11% of their pay - yes, eleven percent!

Clearly the chances of ill-health retirement are far greater than for a council clerk.

If you've ever been in a flat where the light fittings caught fire (as I have) you will not begrudge them a better deal than most.

I have always felt that the additional risk should not be met from personal contributions, but the union has clearly failed its members in past negociations. Now the Gov't are saying that individual firemen can retire at 55 with an adjusted pension. Adjusted? Make that reduced by 40%.

 

 

 

Is that a Malc fact?

[Sweep]

Can the older ones not just drive the big trucks, surely that's simple enough for them

[Guest]

Currently there is a right to retire on full pension at age 55 (previously was at 50 with 25 years' service).

The age at which a normal firefighters job can be done clearly doesn't stretch to 65, or even 60.

This is a benefit denied to almost all others. But for this they pay a minimum of 11% of their pay - yes, eleven percent!

Clearly the chances of ill-health retirement are far greater than for a council clerk.

If you've ever been in a flat where the light fittings caught fire (as I have) you will not begrudge them a better deal than most.

I have always felt that the additional risk should not be met from personal contributions, but the union has clearly failed its members in past negociations. Now the Gov't are saying that individual firemen can retire at 55 with an adjusted pension. Adjusted? Make that reduced by 40%.

 

 

BTW, Malc

 

 

How can we afford this continued largesse?

[tomski]

 

 

There's loads of fit 60 year olds.

True granny porn hasn't had a high like this since 2002.

[Carlos]

Or go out and about in the community using their vast experience in fire prevention. Charlie says...

[Eavesy]

You'd like to think that everyone in this country would be willing to make some sacrifice to get this country back up to standards, including saving countless jobs and possibly lives if you want to be extreme about it. Whether it be pensions, paying abit more tax now and having one less holiday a year for 10 years or having to work an extra few more years on an already very low retirement age.

 

Clearly this isn't the case.

 

Firemen are going to come out of this with a damaged reputation if it carries on like this and day strikes turn into week strikes.

[Traf]

Firemen are going to come out of this with a damaged reputation if it carries on like this and day strikes turn into week strikes.

I lost a lot of respect for them when that cunt Gilchrist dragged them out on strike last time.

And how overpaid was he BTW?

[no balls]

I'm not sure he dragged them. They could've said no, couldn't they?

[MalcolmW]

 

None of us are retiring on full pay. I'd jump at the chance of 60% myself. I'd take it tomorrow, sounds fucking brilliant.

 

They are not retiring on 60% of full pay - its 60% of fullpension, so at best 40% of pay (and they have being paying 11% for the privilege)

Police also pay at 11% but there are far more desk jobs available for police than firemen

 

BTW, Malc

 

 

How can we afford this continued largesse?

 

Well those who break the rules with second jobs should forfeit excess benefits.

And make council workers pay 10% of thei salaries into pension funds istead of 5.5 to 7.5%.

.

[MalcolmW]

You'd like to think that everyone in this country would be willing to make some sacrifice to get this country back up to standards, including saving countless jobs and possibly lives if you want to be extreme about it. Whether it be pensions, paying abit more tax now and having one less holiday a year for 10 years or having to work an extra few more years on an already very low retirement age.

 

Clearly this isn't the case.

 

Firemen are going to come out of this with a damaged reputation if it carries on like this and day strikes turn into week strikes.

 

I think they would say they are being asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden. And they would be right.

[Guest]

They are not retiring on 60% of full pay - its 60% of fullpension, so at best 40% of pay (and they have being paying 11% for the privilege)

Police also pay at 11% but there are far more desk jobs available for police than firemen

 

 

Well those who break the rules with second jobs should forfeit excess benefits.

And make council workers pay 10% of thei salaries into pension funds istead of 5.5 to 7.5%.

.

 

 

11%?

 

Malc;

 

Do you have any idea the cost of their pensions?

 

 

11% hardly scratches the surface

[Guest]

I think they would say they are being asked to shoulder an unfair share of the burden. And they would be right.

 

 

 

In who's opinion?

[MalcolmW]

11%?

 

Malc;

 

Do you have any idea the cost of their pensions?

 

 

11% hardly scratches the surface

 

Yes.  Pensions was an area of my professional expertise.

I am well aware of the total cost and the reasons for it. Essentially the high ill-health retirement experience (and death rate in service).

[Come on MickyD, find the time to come aboard]

[Guest]

Yes.  Pensions was an area of my professional expertise.

I am well aware of the total cost and the reasons for it. Essentially the high ill-health retirement experience (and death rate in service).

[Come on MickyD, find the time to come aboard]

 

 

Go on, what does it cost to provide?

[MalcolmW]

Go on, what does it cost to provide?

 

37.5% at the last four-yearly count.

[Traf]

I'm not sure he dragged them. They could've said no, couldn't they?

Sorry, I thought I'd put quotation marks around the word dragged.

 

iPad wanker.

[Smiffs]

The age thing is only a good argument when they have mandatory fitness tests for the rest of them.

 

Fit 58 year old or fat 42 year old huffing his way up a ladder?

 

Who do you want?

[Guest]

37.5% at the last four-yearly count.

 

 

Why the fuck should we have to find 25%, in addition to paying for our own

 

 

That, in my view, is unfair