More Fire Strikes

[Stew]

/o\

[Sevrok]

pay them more money then they wont go on strike!

[Snurx]

I've never undestood strikers. I mean, it's cool that people claim more money or whatever from their suppressors (Work is slavery lol), but hey, what's the point in asking for a piece of the cake when we should take the whole kitchen!
Strikes don't help, general strike now!

[Nondescript Human]

sack them all

[skiddy]

Cool. Mebby I'll get to drive round in a fire engine for a week or so

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Strikes don't help, general strike now!

!

Anyway, strikes can be seen as purely reformist, but they can also be seen as a step on the road to building solidarity, organisation, strength, etc. Why do you both rioting when you should be destroying the system in one go? Or maybe it's a bit by bit process?

[ChubbyChecker]

The job's piss easy, they spend most of their time doing their other job, and only about 1 in 20 people who apply get the job which shows there's plenty of demand.

Pay them less I say!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by ChubbyChecker

only about 1 in 20 people who apply get the job which shows there's plenty of demand.

Utterly meaningless statistic unless we can take into account of retainment, suitability of other candidates, etc.

At my current job, they received over a hundred applications for the job I eventually got. Which sounds impressive, but at least 50% of those were people who weren't qualified / suitable / lacked experience / did shit application forms etc. Some of the rest did badly in interview/testing, and others dropped out. So out of the initial one hundred, they only had about five suitable candidates.

[Dante Hicks]

Oh and I had sex with with the interviewer, which helped.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yeah what his name again?

Also, as an aside, when they last advertised for call-centre staff where I work they received a 40:1 ratio for applicants:jobs. And that's a relatively poor paying, stressful, fairly rubbish job.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Sevrok

pay them more money then they wont go on strike!

Pay them what they want and your looking at having to increase wages in all the public sectors by the same amount. As it is the fire service is the only public service which doesnt struggle for applicants and .

Also one of their main reasons they feel they should get extra pay is the danger factor and while theres no doubt going into burning buildings is dangerous the figures that were stated on the news actually showed it to be only about the 25th most dangerous job yet one of the highest paid on that list

If money was no object then ok pay them what they want but as it is they are a public service and a fairly well paid public service at that and they get paid what the country can afford. Paying them what they request would mean taking money from other services such as schools to pay for it which just isnt on

[Nodrog]

The "country can afford" whatever it wants to afford - its simply a matter of priorities. I'd have no objection to almost doubling the pay of those working in essential state industries (firefighting/police/etc) - the money saved after getting rid of 95% of government-affiliated workers would pay for it several times over. It's vitally important to have a fireservice which is both talented and motivated; a basic salary of around 35K or so doesnt sound at all unrealistic. I have no problem at all with these people trying to get the money which they feel they are worth.

[JonnyBGood]

I think we should pay people according to the worth of their work to the community. Unfortunately this means we pay doctors and nurses an infinite sum of money, each, as you can't put a value on human life yo.

And for consistency we have to pay firemen and policemen* an infinite amount of money too










*women can be paid six and thrupence

[Nodrog]

Or maybe we could just let the market decide the worth of doctors and nurses, and then pay firepeople an amount of money that reflects the worth of a person performing dangerous work in a monopoly-by-nature industry.

[JonnyBGood]

Monopoly by nature? I seriously hope you can justify this outlandish claim. Personally I value the ideals of the free market far higher than individual life.

[Nodrog]

As in the nature of the fireservice is suited to monopoly conditions - its not the kind of thing that can be provided by the market. Having said that, I havent exactly spent a great deal of time pondering this subject, so it may be that some faggot like queball will popup with a link to an article by David Friedman explaing how firefighting can be provided with far greater efficiency by private companies.

Also, I realise you werent being serious.

[JonnyBGood]

The only things I ever bothered actually reading about were education and health. I assumed that the police force was a monopoly by necessity (****ing gay word nature) but I've never really looked at the fire service. I can see some vague reasons why it could be more efficient as a privatised service though.


PS qbll owns your white ass.

[Rids]

Just what we need, squaddies being loosed on expensive equipment.

[Tactitus]

FWIW, there are some private fire-fighting companies in the US.

[Nodrog]

The problem seems to be that if someone does not purchase fire insurance, they are putting those around them at a very serious risk, since if a fire in an uninsured house does not get extinguised, there's a good chance of it becoming out of control. I could imagine large parts of poorer areas of town burning to pieces in a raging inferno. You could make a similar argument for health care in regard to contagious disease.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

FWIW, there are some private fire-fighting companies in the US.

Well I've obviously got no problem with corporations (or indeed, private individuals) choosing to purchase private fire insurance instead of using the state-provided alternative. The issue here isnt so much who gets to extinguish fires, but whether they will in fact be extinguished.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The problem seems to be that if someone does not purchase fire insurance, they are putting those around them at a very serious risk, since if a fire in an uninsured house does not get extinguised, there's a good chance of it becoming out of control. I could imagine large parts of poorer areas of town burning to pieces in a raging inferno. You could make a similar argument for health care in regard to contagious disease.

I believe the standard operating procedure for private fire companies is to try to extinguish all fires in their area of service. If you are not already a subscriber, then they send you a bill for their services.

I suppose one could refuse to pay on the grounds that one didn't need or want their services or that the price is too high, but that's just a legal matter.

Well I've obviously got no problem with corporations (or indeed, private individuals) choosing to purchase private fire insurance instead of using the state-provided alternative.

These are private fire companies in lieu of any state-provided service.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I believe the standard operating procedure for private fire companies is to try to extinguish all fires in their area of service. If you are not already a subscriber, then they send you a bill for their services.

Well I'm certainly not classing this as being a 'private' service in any meaningful sense of the word; it would be like trying to claim that the BBC isn't part of the state body. There's no real difference between the government mandating that everyone use the service of a particular 'private' company, and the government providing the service directly - a state enforced monopoly is a state enforced monopoly.

[JonnyBGood]

That's so ridiculously not a private service I'm unsure whether or not tact actually meant this was how a government-funded fire service would run?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

That's so ridiculously not a private service I'm unsure whether or not tact actually meant this was how a government-funded fire service would run?

What did you think?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Well I'm certainly not classing this as being a 'private' service in any meaningful sense of the word; it would be like trying to claim that the BBC isn't part of the state body. There's no real difference between the government mandating that everyone use the service of a particular 'private' company, and the government providing the service directly - a state enforced monopoly is a state enforced monopoly.

I don't understand what's not private about it. The government isn't mandating that everyone use a particular private fire service or, indeed, any service. You subscribe to whichever service you want. If you choose not to subscribe then you have to pay whomever shows up (it's in no one's interest to let fires burn unchecked). Also, I suspect private companies would tend to have reciprocity agreements with their competitors (you cover my clients while I'm busy and vice versa).

As a practical matter, I suspect a fire service subscription is a prerequisite for obtaining a mortgage; but it's the lender requiring it--not the government.

[queball]

Airports etc have private fire services here too. I don't see why we should get strung up over whether it's private or not. What's important is that the firefighters work and get paid in a decent way. The government should be able to do this, or councils, but something like Tact is saying brings in the market. If you want to think of it in terms of private property, imagine everyone in an area agrees to an easement on their home that makes them liable for firefighter's costs, at some reasonable rate specified in the hypothetical contract. There's degrees of freedom.

It is horrible that people have to strike to do what they love. But I don't see why this couldn't have all been solved by agreeing to obligatory cost of living increases or even a private arbitration in their contract.

[queball]

How do talks "break down" anyway? Surely whatever happens, both sides have committed to something. When there's a strike, it's just that they have committed not to let the firefighters work under reasonable conditions. I don't like the thought that the gov is "calling their bluff" after we've already had shitloads of bother over this.

[Sevrok]

The fire fighters were origionally promised a pay rise by their employers, the employers went to the government and asked for the money for the pay rise and the government said no! the fire fighters then went on strike because they had been promised a pay rise they never got, and as such have every right to be on strike! my personal opinion is pay the government less, that way you would only get those who care about politics and the country becoming politicians and as such you wouldnt get pratts like tony blair running our country!

[Stew]

Wasn't the fire service private before grat fire of london in 1666? I thought they only hosed down houses that had a certain plaque on the wall. Or was that something to do with insurance?!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

If you choose not to subscribe then you have to pay whomever shows up.

Who enforces this? I presume the Courts, etc?

Seems a bit like compulsory motor insurance I suppose.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who enforces this? I presume the Courts, etc?

Poor choice of words on my part. They send you a bill. Whether you can be forced to pay it or not is another question and I don't know the answer. I can't see that many people would object to paying for having a fire put out, especially as their insurance would almost certainly cover it; but I suppose someone would. Deadbeat customers who can't or won't pay are a problem for any business and, in the end, the costs just get passed on to the paying customers--nothing new there.

Seems a bit like compulsory motor insurance I suppose.

I wouldn't make payment compulsory myself. I would expect the number of property owners who couldn't/wouldn't pay would be so small as to be insignificant.

[joobles]

Fire strikes suck- people die because other people want more money (I know thats not the whole story but it comes down to it)

In some other countries (I believe France) essential workers are not allowed to srtike cause it endangers people's lives.

ANd yes, they should be paid more, but so should we all, and taxes should be lowered etc but then there would be no money to pay them and on and on...

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by joobles

In some other countries essential workers are not allowed to srtike cause it endangers people's lives.
.

soviet russia

[Cayl]

When Tacitus first said Private Fire Companies, I thought he meant more along the lines of Government contractors. The Government has a contract which is up for grabs by various private companies every now and again. The company that wins the contract takes over the service area for the agreed period and gets paid the agreed amount. Since there's competition for the contracts, prices are in theory kept in check.

That seems to make a lot more sense than a hideously complex house by house method.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Cayl

When Tacitus first said Private Fire Companies, I thought he meant more along the lines of Government contractors. The Government has a contract which is up for grabs by various private companies every now and again. The company that wins the contract takes over the service area for the agreed period and gets paid the agreed amount. Since there's competition for the contracts, prices are in theory kept in check.

In practice, that would scarcely be much better than no competition. Area-wide contracts would be a large barrier to entering the market (effectively keeping out smaller companies).

That seems to make a lot more sense than a hideously complex house by house method.

There's nothing so hideously complex as an untried idea.

[Cayl]

Perhaps its untried in modern times because its a bad idea

Yes, area wide contracts would be a barrier to small companies starting up. However do you -really- want a small startup company in charge of the safety and well-being of your life and possessions? Given some of my experiences, I'd be happier with the government status quo.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Cayl

Perhaps its untried in modern times because its a bad idea

Perhaps. We may never know.

Yes, area wide contracts would be a barrier to small companies starting up. However do you -really- want a small startup company in charge of the safety and well-being of your life and possessions? Given some of my experiences, I'd be happier with the government status quo.

Most innovations come from small companies but a competitive market generally gives you choices between big and small companies. However, if you're satisfied with your government monopoly service--strikes and all--then you're welcome to it.

Personally, I doubt anything is so good that it can't be improved and I don't choose to be satisfied with the status quo--but that's just me.

[Sandsnake]

Don't your firefighters work for less than a mcdonald's employee or something?

I still don't understand the reticence to pay them more. You have two choices: pay them more, ie a salary worth putting your ass on the line for, or you have no fire service. Currently, you have option 2. What's so ****ing difficult to understand?

You get what you pay for. One of the key reasons the US education system is so crap in so many places, but we have, one of if not, the best medical system in the world.

People think they're paying them plenty and are then surpised when they don't want to work for that little money...go do the job yourself if it's so fking easy..I mean, who passes up piss easy cash, right?

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by joobles

Fire strikes suck- people die because other people want more money (I know thats not the whole story but it comes down to it)

If they're so important (people die if they're not doing their job, property destroyed etc etc) then it's fairly cut and dry. The more important you are, the more you should be paid.

In some other countries (I believe France and USA) essential workers are not allowed to srtike cause it endangers people's lives.

Only people in the US not allowed to Strike are military and intelligence personnel. Doctors, Teachers, Fire/Police are all allowed to strike, and have. It's not looked on kindly by the general public but that's something else entirely.

ANd yes, they should be paid more, but so should we all, and taxes should be lowered etc but then there would be no money to pay them and on and on...

Where's the logic in that? If we excused not doing something by pointing out the other things we should do but haven't, then we'd never get ANYTHING done. I mean, christ, we should end world hunger, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't send aid to Iraq because there might be less to go around or something equally as stupid..

[Cayl]

Fire service is just solidly part of the government's central mandate and purpose for existance. That is to say, a government's central duty is to protect the safety, well-being, and interests of its citizens. Thats why there's a military, thats why there's police, and thats why there's firemen.

While a novel and amusing though experiment to break it away from government entirely, no established nation is going to take the idea seriously. Firemen aren't part of a "bloated out of control" government, they're part of the hardened necessary core.

And what everyone else is saying is true. People who get shot at, dive into burning buildings, and otherwise put their lives on the line for the good of society deserve our total respect and tax dollars.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by joobles

ANd yes, they should be paid more, but so should we all, and taxes should be lowered etc but then there would be no money to pay them and on and on...

This logic could be used to argue against any pay rise for anyone ever.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Couldn't we just redistribute wealth so that there was more money available? Hmm how could we do that? If only there were some people or organisations that had a lot of money and might be able to spare a bit more then we could impose some sort of levy and give that money to the poor and low paid workers, who knows, it might work.

That sounds like communist talk to me!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

Don't your firefighters work for less than a mcdonald's employee or something?

I dont know the exact figure but its around £25,000 ($40,000) where there is excess supply and often time to sleep on the job at night.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Stew

excess supply

This is meaningless on its own, and has been demonstrated to be such in the thread.

Originally Posted by Stew

and often time to sleep on the job at night.

As is this.

[joobles]

Logic? Whoever said it was logical. The money does not exist unless it is taken from elsewhere. Simple. We do not live in a logical world. Some people are overpaid and some underpaid.

Should firefiighters be paid more than doctors because thier job has more risk, or should more qualified people be paid more (remembering that there is a finite amount of money-that being the point to my earlier post)? Situations like this have no easy answer and everyone will have a different opinion about it. That it what I was trying to say. Agreeing that they should have more money is one thing. Deciding where it should come from another.

Remember stealth taxes are going up all the time. Where is that money going- I haven't seen an improvement in any of my services. Has anyone?

Oh and sorry to the USA I wasnt sure about that one or not. I was misinformed by someone and I will remove it from my original post.

[MrL_JaKiri]

'Money' is what the government defines it to be, nothing more.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

how do you know stealth taxes are going up? i mean, its not like you can see them or anything...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by joobles

Logic? Whoever said it was logical. The money does not exist unless it is taken from elsewhere. Simple. We do not live in a logical world. Some people are overpaid and some underpaid.

The money could be saved by cutting military expenditure, not being involved in Iraq, etc. As Nod said, the problem is not a lack of funds. The government can gain money from elsewhere when they need it.

[Stew]

Whoever said raise everyones pay.
This just creates inflation and everyones REAL pay is unaffected.