When firefighters deal with emergencies government ministers jostle with each other to find a TV camera where they can praise courageous, upstanding men and women.

When we take industrial action, as we will again this weekend - from 6-10pm on December 13 and 14 - they have a sudden and drastic change of mind. We are transformed into selfish and wicked trade unionists.

I was reminded of the Tories' reaction to the first industrial action by nurses back in 1988.

Up to that point nurses had been angels, constantly praised for their fortitude and loyalty.

But nursing also involved living with poverty pay levels and they decided to take collective industrial action to secure a wage they could live on.

Prime minister Margaret Thatcher was beside herself, condemning strikers who "prolonged waiting lists and deserted patients."

The Tory view is that if you are happy to be exploited and bullied, then you are a decent person.

If you attempt to rectify it and stand up for yourself, you are a hooligan.

It's interesting that a Gallup poll on the day of the nurses' strike showed the public sympathised with the action and supported their demands for higher pay.

Not that it should come as a surprise to discover that Tories only want working people when they are useful.

When the fires are doused and the floods have ebbed, we cease to be of interest to them.

If you want proof look no further than the current firefighters' dispute. While our FBU members are fit and healthy, they are acceptable to government ministers. Liked, even.

But once they fail to meet the rigorous standards the service - rightly - demands they are tossed aside.

Under government plans, to receive a full pension firefighters will need to keep fighting fires until they are 60.

We would like to think our members' fitness will stay high, but the government's own figures show that only one-third are likely to be able to achieve the necessary levels after age 55.

So what happens to those who need to leave at 55?

Tories are great ones for choice, so our members will have one. They can either be sacked or settle for a reduced pension of £9,000 rather than the £19,000 they had been promised on retirement.

This £9,000 figure, incidentally, is for a firefighter of 55 who has paid £4,000 a year into the fund from a salary well under £30,000.

That's no small amount, but our members will have paid it because they had been promised £19,000 pensions on retirement.

Now the government is reneging on that commitment unless our members reach 60 in super-fit condition.

To add insult to injury the government has also announced it is increasing the level of our contributions again - for the third year on the run.

Firefighters are already paying one of the highest levels of pension contribution for workers anywhere in the country.

Under the latest proposals firefighters taking home £1,650 a month will pay £340 into the scheme. More and more are telling us the scheme is becoming unaffordable and that there are increasing numbers considering leaving the pensions scheme because of the costs and uncertainty around it.

What sort of society uses people to put their lives on the line for others and then punishes them for growing older?

How will these rejected firefighters manage on a third of average earnings?

Within a few weeks the government view transforms our members from brave heroes to irresponsible union militants.

This is a terrible insult for men and women who have literally risked their lives to save others over a period of decades and a callous way to treat them for the crime of ageing.

And I'm convinced that the public feels the same way. But not the government.

When this debate started under the last government we were assured there would be other jobs in the service for firefighters who did not reach the necessary standards. They would be redeployed into posts away from operational firefighting.

But recent research has confirmed that those jobs simply don't exist. Our employers do not even suggest they will be able to redeploy large numbers of older firefighters who cannot retire but are not fit enough for operational duties.

Instead, such firefighters face the risk of dismissal from the service under "capability" rules.

So what faith can we have for the future?

I don't believe we can stand by and watch as our conditions and your emergency services are eroded and weakened.

We have pride in our job, but we also have respect for ourselves and our colleagues.

That is why we are taking our fifth and sixth periods of strike action this coming weekend, and why last week over 86 per cent of our members voted to authorise other forms of industrial action.

I know Morning Star readers will support us as we fight against measures that will weaken the service, lower the amount of protection that is offered to the public and condemn emergency service workers to an old age of insecurity or poverty.

I urge you to visit our picket lines and offer your encouraging support, to raise this dispute with your MPs and council representatives, to challenge those who are duped by government propaganda about "generous" pensions and to sign the petitions we have organised both on paper and online at fbu.org.uk.

FBU members work to protect you every day. Help to protect us as we fight to defend our service and our pensions.

Matt Wrack is general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union