RNLI in dispute

BruceK

BruceK

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 Feb 2015
Messages
8,378
Location
Conwy
Visit site
I know there is a lifeboat station nearby us that is in some sort of management dispute

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/anglesey-rnli-wars-sees-coxswain-11021872

and now I see it's not an isolated case with New Brighton Lifeboat station having most of it's experienced crew sacked. I imagine when you have a charity run by professionals but staffed at the sharp end by volunteers there is always going to be disputes, but as I will be rescued by the sharp end, my bias and sympathies will always lie with them.

Press release: http://www.pbo.co.uk/news/new-brighton-lifeboat-station-temporarily-off-service-38754

Crew's rebuttal: http://www.newtekjournalismukworld.com/your-voice/new-brighton-lifeboat-crew-sacking-press-release
 
Last edited:
It's really not their writing skills I am concerned about to be honest, and I am glad they at least are willing to persevere in spite of the best efforts of the (90% of the time) numpty they are trying to rescue to thwart them. Whatever their grievance in having such a large percentage sacked or resigned speaks for itself imo.
 
From what Ive been reading on the web over the last couple of weeks, the main stumbling block seems to be the new code of conduct, what the sharp end are not happy about Im not actually sure?
 
does not seem to be an unreasonable crew response to me, probabaly 6 of one and 1/2 dozen of the other to be honest and the LOM probably does have an agenda as Ive heard from many a station. There so much more you dont know about the institute thanks to their PR machine but its not a public company and they answer to themselves not to the giving public so its not our business. just dont be too eager to side with what they want
 
petem said:
An appallingingly written rebuttal by the crew. I'm afraid I gave up reading it half way through.
Click to expand...

Well I did read it all and whilst not the best grammar etc it wasn't that bad. At least there wasn't any spelling mistakes as far as I could see.
 
petem said:
An appallingingly written rebuttal by the crew. I'm afraid I gave up reading it half way through.
Click to expand...

I just read the whole rebuttal by the crew and found it reasonably written. We need to see further than grammar and spelling and understand the message being conveyed

Dennis
 
I often think when someone is writing their thoughts on something they feel very strongly about that it can get a bit rambling. A little too much haste in trying to put their side across, without re reading it a few times to format and condense it.
 
The message is simple from what I see. Poor management and value of the volunteers by paid management personnel. The actual grievance sounds trivial and more disgruntled than factual.
 
petem said:
Yep, whilst grammar and spelling is important, it was the lack of succinctness that did it for me. The RNLI aren't perfect but I certainly value the dedication and bravery of the guys at the sharp end (in fact just watching them on TV now).
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it's the volunteers who make the RNLI the fabulous organization it is and always has been. It's just unfortunate that on this occasion the few volunteers at this station have muddied the waters by not stating their position/grievances clearly enough.

And that's not a criticism of them, I'm sure they are a fine bunch of people, just unfortunate in how they've chosen to express themselves.
 
longjohnsilver said:
It's just unfortunate that on this occasion the few volunteers at this station have muddied the waters by not stating their position/grievances clearly enough.
Click to expand...

Thing is, shorn of emotion and expressed succinctly, it probably starts to look a little silly.

"They asked us to spend more time training and then treated us rudely" seems to be about the size of it as far as I can tell.

Pete
 
as ex crew, very recently, the deal is as it appears to me, is the crew (paid) left for various reasons, that happens every day in every job so isn't a real problem, Im sure we've all experienced new management or un wanted changes etc. The beef there after is that the training policy was enforced and recorded by management due to lack of experience. Documentation dates back to the days when Poole came into existence as a management centre and training / H&S became a documented issue in the 80's. The job of crews is VERY dangerous and some think of it as a laugh, it is not as Im sure you can image, i.e. letting out a line under 3 ton+ of pressure is no game if it goes wrong. For that reason training was centralised and thus documented. F'k up and theres a paper trail to who trained you wrong and how much etc. It seems that is what the beef is that some people don't like names on paper, personally I don't care Im an officer pelb and have grown up with it, if you get idea. Every station has an attitude of some kind, id say some with majority volunteers like to run it old school & other stations by the book. Some crew refused to sign (very unreasonably ) and got canned. Id expect nothing less from any organisation. Now Im going to refrain from Merseyside jokes and get back under my stone.
 
It seems to me that the LOM must be pretty insensitive to his crew.

I understand the main complaint is that the crews were being asked to increase their frequency of training and in consideration of the relative high level of shouts this lead me to a distinct feeling that Volunteers were being over worked and their opinions ignored.

Surely any LOM losing 300 man years of local operatons, experience and skill is going to find it a hard task to replace that with new "volunteers".

I suspect his replacement would be easier and a quicker solution to getting the station back in action!

Local opinion is the RNLI press machine has well and truly hidden the possible effect of the loss of cover especially by the Hovercraft team....

It will be interesting to see if the petition for debate in parliament gains traction?
 
Don't care why, but my leaning is towards those that do it rather than those that don't ie operational personnel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top