Talk:2002–2003 United Kingdom firefighter dispute

Firefighting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Organized Labour Low‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for November 14.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why Y?

At the time of this strike, there were lots of yellow flags, keyrings and so on featuring a red Y in support of the firemen. Was this an official symbol of the strike or what? 92.8.206.148 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly more than one position on this issue. NPOV techniques are needed to resolve the dispute by creating an article that reports the opinions of both sides.

There are plenty of takes on this issue; none of them are definitive which is why I left a gap rather than deliberately and wantonly obfuscate the situation. Most of the mainstream media is full of sh*t which is deliberately designed to obfuscate the issue; why shouldn't we and Wikipedia just perpetuate some more of the same? It doesn't matter of the facts are correct or not, just so long as the shibboleth of NPOV is obeyed. Just another casualty of the ineluctability of NPOV. user:sjc

There's one thing everyone can agree on: that there are differences of opinion. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be a strike about to happen, as either:

the firefighters would have seen the rightness of the government's case, and backed down, or
the government would have seen the rightness of the firefighters' case, and backed down.

Please state your version of the facts, and other people will state theirs. The Anome

There are no facts at the moment. There are only posturings, opinions and media bullshit. It is all surmise and largely unfocussed surmise at that.user:sjc

A central plank of their claim is that they put their lives at risk, and yet it is only the 23rd most dangerous occupation.

Cite please? Thanks for the cite.

Their claim that their wage isn't fair is also damaged by the fact that there are 40 applicants per available position as a firefigher, indicating by the laws of supply and demand that the pay is more than sufficient.

Cite please?

The Anome

Their claim that their wage isn't fair is also damaged by the fact that there are 40 applicants per available position as a firefigher, indicating by the laws of supply and demand that the pay is more than sufficient.

Also, I don't think they give the slightest damn about supply and demand. It's not relevant; that's not what labour issues are about. -- Sam

I'm sure they don't give a slightest damn about it. Many of those of us who have to pay their wages, and other public servants who would lose out if the firefighters won the fight, do give a rather non-slight damn. - Khendon 11:22 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Just to return to this:

A central plank of their claim is that they put their lives at risk, and yet it is only the 23rd most dangerous occupation according to a study in the Lancet based on official statistics.

I'm not sure how useful this is without knowing what sort of jobs were included in the survey, what was above firefighting and what was below. I mean, this stat is probably significant if things like teacher, tree surgeon and doctor are more dangerous professions than firefighting, but probably isn't that significant if the more dangerous jobs are things like lion tamer and stunt driver. Could we give examples of a couple of jobs that are more dangerous than firefighting, perhaps? --Camembert

See the external link I'm going to add to the article in a minute. The most dangerous by far was fishing, the second was merchant seafaring. Selected others above firefighting include refuse collectors, builders, lorry drivers, and farm workers. - Khendon 14:40 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

When you say "dangerous" is this danger of death, major injury, minor injury -- how do you compare? The Anome

Deaths per work hour, I think. - Khendon 15:07 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Lancet link didn't work for me Rmhermen 15:21 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

At the moment, this article needs restructuring and a little balancing. It's going pretty well, though, and will, I assume, be updated over the next few days. -- Sam

Why remove the scoreline? I agree, it's sick and revolting to regard the strike as a contest to see who blinks first as the bodies pile up. But that's what it actually is. So why shouldn't we see the score?

Because it's inherently subjective -- Khendon 15:07 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Absolutely. The scoreline could just as easily have read

Tony Blair 1 - Evan Davies 0

Better not to have it.

This is a neglected page, needs to be updated

gulf war 2

im sure i heared at the time that the main reason this stuff ended was because of gulf war 2 (taking soldiors away from thier main job when theres a war on isn't good pr) can anyone confirm or deny this? Plugwash 20:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page is currently in a horrible mix of past, present and future tenses. Even some sentences are jumbled between the three, it all needs to be in the past. Thryduulf 20:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't have time to check whether these events occurred as predicted, but I did change the verb tenses to agree. Will check history later. Her Pegship 23:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References and clean up required

This article need both of the above, eg source for claim that doctors would carry out amputations due to a lack of cutting gear. Escaper7 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Public Support and Deaths

I removed both of the above sections due to lack of sources and very severe POV. Also, the deaths section had nothing to do with the strike, one incident actually said it was not to do with the strike and the last paragraph was simply how many people died in fires, with no context. RaseaC (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]