AMID rising unrest over pay among public-sector workers, Lancashire's firefighters today cranked up the pressure on the government by joining thousands of others in London demonstrating for a £8,500-a-year increase.

It is perhaps a measure of the Lancashire fire crews' discontent that 200 officers were giving up their time off to take part in the protest -- and that another rally is scheduled for Monday on their home ground.

The essence of the firefighters' claim is that they have fallen far behind other skilled professions in the past six years -- reflecting the cry of council workers staging strike ballots that they have dropped behind other public-sector workers like nurses, teachers and police in the past decade.

But whereas town hall employees belonging to the big trade unions want a rise of six per cent to rectify this, the firefighters are seeking an increase of almost 40 per cent. This would give a qualified fireman with four years' experience £30,000 a year.

Are they worth that much?

There is no doubt that firefighters do a good job. It is also a dangerous one, involving unsocial hours, considerable stress and, as we have seen in East Lancashire, even attacks on crews.

There is no doubt, too, that they are valued and admired by the public -- but, as is emphasised by their campaign slogan, "Don't praise us -- pay us," they say the rewards in their pay packet do not reflect this esteem.

But despite all this, can they expect public or government sympathy for their claim when it so mismatches with that of council employees and the pay of the Lancashire taxpayers -- averaging just £18,366 a year -- who would have to fund it?

Those are sober yardsticks which will, surely, temper the public's view of the firemen's admirable role and its belief that they are indeed worth more. But are they worth so much more? And if they are, where would that put other public employees doing an equally vital job?