Author Topic: UK Fire-fighter strikes  (Read 139 times)

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
UK Fire-fighter strikes
« on: December 02, 2002, 11:47:29 AM »
I expect some of you already know about the fire-fighter strikes. For those that don't know, basically the fire-fighters in the UK have been going on strike for better pay. They want a 40% increase in pay to bring the average wage up to £30,000. The UK government (currently) has no intention of paying a 40% rise (even if they could afford it) so the Fire Brigade Union is striking in hope the government will change its mind.

Now I found these statistics which I find quite interesting. One of the claims of the FBU is that fire-fighting is dangerous. It's certainly true that the average person would not voluntarily run into a burning building but fire-fighters have special training to do it. Also they don't just run in blind, they make a risk assessment to see if it's safe to enter. If it's not they just spray water in from the outside. But I worked out than since 1990 there have been 30 fire-fighters in the UK who have lost their lives while on call (this was based on searching the BBC news site and official FBU stats).

Anyway, some researchers at Oxford have worked out some statistics based upon how many people die doing various other jobs. They claim that fire-fighters have a value of "74 deaths per million worker years" which basically equates to on average 4 deaths per year. This seems about right to me as it was probably a longer survey than just back to 1990 as I did. However they also worked comparitive values for other professions and here are the results.

Fishermen: 1480
Railway workers: 318
Scaffold erectors: 302
Roofers: 253
Truck drivers: 149
Sewage workers: 138
Farm workers: 118
Dustmen (Garbage collectors): 87
Fire-fighters: 74

So using this scale to base how dangerous a job is, is a fireman's job really that dangerous? If it is maybe we should be paying fishermen £600,000 a year?

BTW, the above info was quoted in the Daily Telegraph today. I briefly looked for confirmation or the official research results but I haven't found them yet. I'll post a link if I find it.
 

Joachim

Re:UK Fire-fighter strikes
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2002, 12:46:41 PM »
But can we accurately gauge how dangerous a job is, by how many people a year die doing it? Those numbers speak volumes for the training our firemen get compared to the training our fishermen get (generally none i presume) yet very little for the dangers they're subjected too imo.

 

Nostromoo

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Posts: 77
  • Karma: 0
  • Ermintrude is my mum
Re:UK Fire-fighter strikes
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2002, 01:04:42 PM »
But can we accurately gauge how dangerous a job is, by how many people a year die doing it? Those numbers speak volumes for the training our firemen get compared to the training our fishermen get (generally none i presume) yet very little for the dangers they're subjected too imo.
,,
True. But if training is given for a job, and as a result few people die doing it, then doesn't that training by definition make it less dangerous?

I realise the stats above aren't a definitive gauge of danger but I just think it's interesting to see what sort of fatalaty rates different professions have. Obviously firefightng is not as dangerous as generally unskilled workers working at sea or on tall buildings in the same way as it is more dangerous than say teaching or nursing. But I think it is interesting to compare against jobs which would perhaps not normally be considered dangerous like working in sewers or collecting refuse. I suppose in the end though you have to be a fireman to really know how dangerous it really is.
 

Joachim

Re:UK Fire-fighter strikes
« Reply #3 on: December 02, 2002, 03:50:08 PM »

True. But if training is given for a job, and as a result few people die doing it, then doesn't that training by definition make it less dangerous?

Good question, i think this is one of the pay dispute stumbling blocks, the Firemen say that the average man could'nt do their  job effectively/safely without proper training, so are they being paid adequately for the high level of training needed to be a fireman, the government say yes and the FBU says no.  

Quote
I realise the stats above aren't a definitive gauge of danger but I just think it's interesting to see what sort of fatalaty rates different professions have. Obviously firefightng is not as dangerous as generally unskilled workers working at sea or on tall buildings in the same way as it is more dangerous than say teaching or nursing. But I think it is interesting to compare against jobs which would perhaps not normally be considered dangerous like working in sewers or collecting refuse. I suppose in the end though you have to be a fireman to really know how dangerous it really is.

I agree completely, especially with the last sentence, the only people who know how dangerous the job is are the firefighters, but they're biased, so theres no indpendent/unbiased way of knowing the dangers involved, although the Army could have some idea i suppose.