RTBU (Rail, Tram & Bus Union) Strike 29th Jan, What Say You?

[Deactivated] on 18/01/2018 - 10:32
Last edited 25/01/2018 - 16:34 by 2 other users

NSW RTBU (Rail Tram & Bus Union) is planning a strike on Monday 29th of Jan, the first day of school this year, and the first working day after the Australia Day long weekend.

Union tells Sydney commuters to stay at home during the strike.

The strike announced merely a week after they took sickie, blamed the timetable and the storm

"The trains will go to bed on Sunday night and won't come back out on Monday," union secretary said.

The union wants its workers to get a 6 per cent annual pay increase, but the Government is refusing to budge on its offer of a 2.5 per cent rise.

Update 1

Despite today's talks, the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU) NSW secretary Alex Claassens said that at this stage, the planned 24-hour strike would still go ahead on Monday, January 29.

Update 2

Possible pre-strike on Thursday 25th after failed 3% payrise negotiation

Confirmed pre-strike:
train services will be significantly reduced from Thursday 25 January and through the Australia Day long weekend.

Update 3

On Monday 29 January all stations will be closed and no trains will run across NSW.

Update 4

The planned industrial action impacting train services has been suspended by the Fair Work Commission.

Poll Options expired

  • 134
    They deserve 6% pay rise each year over the next 4 years, for what reason?
  • 586
    They already lucky with gov offer of 2.5% pay rise.
  • 21
    They should get 1% pay rise or pay freeze like some of us.
  • 78
    They better off live in a dream world with fairies and unicorns.
  • 42
    I don't care, I drive my $80k investment car.
Travel

Related Stores

Rail, Tram, and Bus Union
Rail, Tram, and Bus Union

Comments

        • ss207k on 19/01/2018 - 14:27

          @outlander: so let a mob of 1000 staff decide how to best fleece our tax rates?

          Management deciding their own rates - yes, not via a strike. Heard of management/governance structures?

          Note: am not debating if the management rate is appropriate - only on how it's done.

        • tryagain on 19/01/2018 - 17:48
          +2

          @outlander: It's management's job to manage and I think you will find that no one manager gets to decide on their own pay. The union is only a third party, they don't even work for the organisation so they don't get any say in the decision making.

        • outlander on 19/01/2018 - 18:41

          @tryagain:

          And managements doing a poor job of it. They should know that the most effective way to lead is by example.

          With the example they have been setting, its no wonder the unions are getting greedy

        • tryagain on 19/01/2018 - 22:32
          +1

          @outlander: The 9% seems a bit misleading as it includes role changes, not just straight pay rises. The end of the day people are getting majorly inconvenienced by the strike and they don't compare the requested increases against what 4 execs got, they compare it against the wider population, and hardly any are getting 6%. It seems a bit nieve for the unions to think they will win support for excessive pay rises from tax payers for 1000's of employees just because 4 have already

        • outlander on 21/01/2018 - 22:26
          -1

          @tryagain:

          6% is hardly excessive. If there was a deal here for 6% off I wouldn't look twice at it.
          The people at the front set the pace, and if they approve large increases for themselves, they open the door for everyone else to do the same.

          And really, at the end of the day its just one day out of 250 working days. Less than 0.5% of the year. No ones is getting majorly inconvenienced

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 06:59

          @outlander: Bargains and pay rate percentages are two totally different things.

          And really, at the end of the day its just one day out of 250 working days. Less than 0.5% of the year. No ones is getting majorly inconvenienced

          You are being disingenuous now, just look at the comments here to see that people will be being majorly inconvenienced on the day and the public perception is that they are being inconvenienced because the union is being greedy.

        • dealman on 22/01/2018 - 14:44
          +1

          @tryagain:

          6% is hardly excessive. If there was a deal here for 6% off I wouldn't look twice at it.

          Really, Show me many industries that get more than 6 % ?

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 15:00

          @dealman: think you might have meant that to be @outlander

        • dealman on 22/01/2018 - 15:06
          +1

          @tryagain:

          Yes outlander and his outlandish expectations

        • outlander on 22/01/2018 - 16:01

          @dealman:

          Show me an industry where the top end gets less than 6%

          Honestly, this is just another case where familiarity breeds contempt. Everyone here thinks that a train drivers job is just pushing a button, that anyone could do it and so it deserves as little as possible. But you raise the idea that maybe they are just following the lead of upper management, who grant themselves huge payrises whether they improve performance or not, and its like talking to a brick wall. Because they don't know what upper management does, and don't think they could do the job as easily as driving a train, so they grant them wild concessions.

          If you're going to reduce train driving to pushing a button, then management is all about telling a guy to push a button. Why is that worthy of a 9% payrise, on already wildly high wages approaching half a million a year, but pushing a button isn't?

        • dealman on 22/01/2018 - 17:30

          @outlander:

          Show me an industry where the top end gets less than 6%

          All that text and you couldn't show me an industry, so I guess I was right, Outlander and your outlandish expectations.

        • outlander on 22/01/2018 - 20:39

          @dealman:

          Should I put it in a form you can understand? A crayon drawing would be at about your level, I suppose

        • dealman on 22/01/2018 - 21:53

          @outlander:

          so I guess you can't find one, good try justifying your outlandish demands in your crayon fairyland then

        • outlander on 22/01/2018 - 23:11

          @dealman:

          Hahaha, yeah, you need it put in pretty crayons for you to understand it. You poor, wretched creature.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 15:46
          +1

          @outlander:
          Train driving is NOT a top tier profession. Comparison with "the top" is laughable.

          6% payrise isn't worth looking twice at - simple economics for you. If two people with identical circumstances were paid $80k and the other $84.8k, it isn't 6% difference in spending power. First you minus income tax, then you minus cost of mortgages, cost of living, and contingency savings. First person may have $10k disposable income and the other may have $13k. That's 30% more. $10k disposable from $80k gross is being very generous.

        • outlander on 23/01/2018 - 17:01

          @tshow:

          A very valid point, but I think it reinforces my argument more than it does the other side. If 5k per year can result in a 30% increase in disposable income, then the people at the top getting an extra 300K per year is beyond belief.

          You'll have to explain why comparing with the top is laughable. What makes their job so much more deserving of lavish pay increases than train drivers?

        • [Deactivated] on 23/01/2018 - 20:06

          @outlander:
          You said comparing to the top of any industry. A train driver and a chief surgeon are not social equals.

          If you are only referring to the same industry, I don't know. Since you asked, you don't know either. So I can only assume because they are doing a task that the train drivers cannot do.

        • outlander on 24/01/2018 - 01:52

          @tshow:

          I've read your other comments, and unlike dealman or tryagain above I think if I had the time I could explain my argument fully without you twisting it to fulfill some petty need to be right. Having tried typing out a reply several times though, I can see the fundamentals we hold are too different, and to have any meaningful discussion I would have to go through and define them one by one. I don't want to type all that, and if I did I don't imagine you would want to read it.

          For the record, I don't believe train drivers deserve the wage they're getting let alone more, but the basis of that is my subjective idea of how cheap life can be. I know you can buy Tshirts from kmart for $10, or get a reasonable second hand car for $2K. On the basis of those numbers, $100,000 dollars seems wildly high already. It seems like pure greed to ask for more, and inconveniencing others who are most likely in a much harder spot in the process? complete and utter selfishness.

          But, the reality is you can't live that way for ever. If a family is a thing you want, and house to raise them in, even 100K is not going to go far in Sydney.

          My concern is, if the wages for the upper end keep growing, while jobs at the low end remain the same or are cut altogether, bad things happen. Large amounts of money owned by a purely self interested people has a very damaging effect on the economy. Makes life worse for everybody.

          Considering that, I think train drivers getting a raise is the lesser evil

        • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2018 - 09:30
          +1

          @outlander:
          Good to know you identify that the drivers are overpaid.

          The failure to get your point across isn't the difficulty in explaining but rather an inexperience at verbalizing. You're pro egalitarinism and socialism

          You're arguing for distribution of wealth.

          I'm always pro philosophical consistency.

          If you argue wealth should be distributed more equally, what is the defining point where we say it is equal enough? You're arguing for equal outcomes, not equal oppurtunity.

          The problem with most pro socialism arguments is that equality is often mistaken for equity, and equal opportunity is mistaken for equal outcome.

          If we distributed wealth based on an ideal instead of merit, we are discouraging innovation and competition. Why would anyone want to improve the transport system when they get paid close to a train driver?

          We have discouraged industry to the point where we sell iron and we buy steel. We lost the ability to manufacture our own Holdens. We need foreign investors to develop our land and balance our budgets.

          Australia already has one of the most prolific working class in the world. Equal oppurtunity works here. We don't need equal outcomes.

        • outlander on 24/01/2018 - 16:26

          @tshow:

          Drivers might be overpaid, but the problem is that when you look through that lens, everybody is overpaid. Average people are a little overpaid. Train drivers are generously overpaid. But the top end, is grossly, and horrifically overpaid.

          Now, if you had the power you could cut everyone's wage right down to 'correct' the imbalance, and at the same time cut hours so jobs currently worked by one person were worked by two. Then you could channel the remaining money into R&D, and you would have improved everyone's lives.That would never work though. For one the top end would do everything in their power to stop you, including murder and worse. More importantly though, the money would never get to its intended destination. It would be squandered by corrupt and inept government processes long before it achieved its purpose.

          I'm not an advocate for egalitarianism, socialism or anything of the sort. I believe in merit.. and I think people at the top end who achieved their positions through merit alone are few and far between. More than merit though, I believe in something greater - the efficient use of resources (which includes physical resources like steel, but also intangible ones like human resources)

          edit: And yes, I am a JBP fan too. A big one.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/01/2018 - 17:37

          @outlander:
          Those ideals are great. I believe in them but I know it never works, just as you pointed out.

          I don't believe that people on "the top" all murder their way there. I am sure it happens but it's a minority. There's no proof of it but of course, that statements screams "confirmation bias" and goes nowhere.

          If we look at it from a macro perspective, everyone has gotten richer so why should we care if the rich are getting richer? If they are corrupt, jail them. Nobody is advocating for criminals nor for the rich. I think the issue gets confused when the poor believe the only way up is getting wealth redistributed down.

          Saying that distributing wealth is better doesn't mean wealth gets distributed. If the ideal strategy doesn't work, we should advocate for the next best thing. I don't know what is the next best thing in this country but continuing to attempt what has perpetually failed isn't the way forward.

        • outlander on 25/01/2018 - 16:35

          @tshow:

          Let me put the discussion on hold for a minute. I want to ask you something, and your answer will determine the direction the discussion takes from here on out.

          Why do you comment here?
          Why?

          Why invest the time writing?

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2018 - 16:59

          @outlander:
          I take it as an exercise in philosophical consistency. For example, if I say I like minimum wages, and I like free markets bringing down the cost of living, I would be in contradiction. At the moment, I like the idea of both even though fundamentally, they collide. Perhaps an alternate perspective can provide a reason they can coexist, or make me decide which is more important (or better in particular scenarios).

          You see, many people have good ideas, they find it hard to verbalize. If I can extract those ideas, even if I am in disagreement or it is a better one than mine, I can now understand a new perspective.

          There are, however, a lot of rabbit holes that lead nowhere. These are the discussions that keep shifting or become tedious because people ask for numbers inappropriately. An example would be asking for some quotes or numbers on why minimum wages and free markets cannot coexist, or simply asking for quotes without any specific mention on what is to be quoted or fact checked.

          You, for example, can make arguments to rebut mine. It doesn't include degrading me personally to improve your relative position. Yes, you make clear you are in disagreement with some of my points, and I yours. That's fair game and I feel no animosity.

          I hope that satisfies your question.

        • outlander on 25/01/2018 - 17:14

          @tshow:

          I hope that satisfies your question.

          I'm going to need to a few moments to process that. I was honestly expecting something more like 'to protect others who don't have the ability to think at such a high level' which is the answer I got last time I asked that question.

        • [Deactivated] on 25/01/2018 - 17:31

          The answer you got previously is a dangerous mix of narcicsism and fascism.

        • outlander on 27/01/2018 - 18:47

          @tshow:

          Yes, I thought so too. I've seen that pattern before though, so I wasn't exactly surprised, but having the context under which he believed he operated made it easier to understand his arguments, and at the same time why he didn't want to recognize the counter points.

          I can respect your reason for commenting. The problem I see is not with the points you're making, but the framework within which they sit. Despite the proverb, you can build buildings fairly high even on unstable surfaces. Its only once they get to a certain height that the instabilities in the foundation become a problem. Before that point, they seem perfectly stable, and tearing them down to fix the foundation is not something any reasonable person really wants to do.

          Take you're minimum wage argument. I used to think it was good, because it meant regular people could still live a life.

          Then I flipped and saw that it was bad, because the wage was brought in during a time when Australia was more closed off and that money circulated around the economy more. It doesn't matter so much if you pay your workers alot but they spend all that money at home, but if they're earning big money from a overpayed job here and then spending it all on chinese made goods where wages are a tenth for the same work, its not hard to see how it would create an imbalance, and how that imbalance would over time

          And I flipped back and forth between the two until I realized the problem was not that it was 'good' or 'bad'. The problem was using a framework that only allowed for two possibilities, using my subjective notions of whats 'good' or 'bad'. Instead its a multivariable equation with many outcomes depending on which variables you choose to weight. I was never really good at math but I think that makes sense.

          So, you can remove the minimum wage, but it will result in people dying. How much of a rise of standard of living justifies the deaths of the poorest sector of the community worth? Tough question. Really depends what you're trying to achieve.

          At this stage, I cant say that society would conclusively be better of without it, but I believe it would, over the long term. But it can't removed in isolation.

          Ps Yes I'm aware that the 'people will die' argument is rather extreme, but I think its an important factor. I don't know of any places with reasonably high minimum wage laws where life has a high value

        • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2018 - 09:19

          @outlander:
          From my understanding, you're allowing flexibility in your principles but you're unsure how to define those exclusions. Many times, I find that I do the same and I've come to realise you cannot build principals around exceptions.

          Short example - we say it is unlawful to steal. We understand that some people steal to survive (see Aladdin) but victims of theft may also suffer the same fate so we make exceptions on individual basis. The rule is still concise because exceptions do not make principle.

          Back to topic at hand - why should (or shouldn't) the union strikers be paid more?

          I don't believe they are underpaid and you believe they are overpaid yet you propose entertaining the union demands because it preserves the status quo. I think giving in to demands without adequate compensation (ie something in return from the union) to be a societal detriment. It sets a precedence for holding a taxpayer funded service ransom.

          This leaves us with the subjective issue of "overworked". The union has defined this by implying the state forces "compulsory" overtime onto workers. Workers already have the right to decline overtime work. If they are indeed forced to, ie. immediate threat of termination or physical violence, then this is unlawful. That which is unlawful should be addressed in court. The union isn't so anyone can only assume that the implication mentioned is an unfounded accusation.

          We aren't comparing train drivers to anyone else, but if we were, I think the issue of consent is a key concept here. The "YES" campaign was about consent and most of Australia was on board the issue of consent even if the gay marriage intent was not agreeable. If two people of consenting age can enter a legally binding agreement, it should be no one else's businesses what happens behind closed doors. The train drivers consentingly entered into an employment agreement, and no one should be comparing it with other industries or professions. It is none of their business.

          The issue is not about the train driver's pay, it is the demand for a pay rise, the method they have employed, the conduct of their union, and ultimately the lack of justification for all of the above.

        • outlander on 28/01/2018 - 12:38

          @tshow:

          I agree with what you've said. You can't build rules around exceptions. No rule covers everything. Our challenge as rational people is to find the rule that covers more area with less exceptions than the rule used before it.

          I agree in a stable system, people shouldn't be demanding more without offering some reason in return. In a stable system, everyone's compensation matches their level of value delivered to the system.

          Here's a question that might illustrate my pov better. What is there for drivers to offer in exchange for higher pay?

        • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2018 - 16:49

          @outlander:
          I've made a few suggestions (that went by unnoticed) elsewhere in this thread.

          An example would be commitment to training more train drivers. On call drivers can be placed in local TAFE rather than wait for a phone call.

          That's just one of the examples, I can think of many more with details (ie. Liability/responsibility reductions/increase and wage adjustment to match), however, that's for the union to propose.

        • outlander on 28/01/2018 - 20:30

          @tshow:

          Okay. I read through [all of them in this thread infact] your comments, and your suggestions are sound, given a stable system that seeks to improve life for everyone.

          But focusing on this one suggestion. Lets say you were a driver, looking to improve your wage/conditions, and you made this suggestion to your immediate superior. What do you think the response would be?

        • [Deactivated] on 28/01/2018 - 23:00

          @outlander:
          I cannot begin to fathom the response. I know the politics of industries with unions are extremely corrupt. A readily apparent example is the control of supply (ie setting unrealistic prerequisites).

          The union itself is the problem, everything else is just a symptom.

      • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 17:50
        +4

        What about their right to have some time with their families or rest ?

        Why should they be forced to work overtime for years on end, just because train capacity has increased and management has failed to prepare extra staff ?

        • ronnknee on 20/01/2018 - 18:08
          +2

          We are not their employers. They should sort it out with the employers directly. Don't inconvenience everyone else as a means of extortion.

          How difficult is it to understand that?

        • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:12
          +6

          @ronnknee:

          Their employers have done basically ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for years.

          They are real people, they dont have any choice. Its unfair to force people to work that amount of overtime for that period of time. Its unsafe, its that simple.

        • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:15
          +1

          @ronnknee:

          R: Don't inconvenience everyone else as a means of extortion.

          99: Lets see what you would do if you were forced to work their timetable and had no time with your family or rest because your employer didnt give a shit about you.

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 12:07
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents: AFAIK the strike is about pay rates, not conditions so this point is pretty moot.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 12:11

          @tryagain:

          TA: AFAIK the strike is about pay rates, not conditions so this point is pretty moot.

          99: I will explain. THe strike is about PAY and CONDITIONS. Currently drivers are working about an extra day of overtime EVERYWEEK.

          THe reason for ALL this overtime is there arent ENOUGH DRIVERS. One of the primary ways to get more people into ANY job is too offer MORE PAY.

          WIth more drivers then there will be less need for overtime as the new drivers will cover the new needs.

          Maybe you should take the time to read a few articles, its hardly difficult to find them.

          http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-16/sydney-train-driver-sp…

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 13:03
          +3

          @ninetyNineCents: From that article, you link too, it says 160 more divers will come online soon and will deal with the shortage, that's without a pay rise so I don't think we need to pay more to attract new drivers. The issue with the lack of drivers seems to be being addressed, The second half of your linked article talks about how it is really about the money, not the conditions so that actually contradicts your main point, not confirms it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 13:07
          -1

          @tryagain:

          T: From that article, you link too, it says 160 more divers will come online soon and will deal with the shortage,

          99: Yes that is correct those drivers are joining the system, but its obviously not enough. The article never says these new drivers will be enough, it just says they are becoming part of the team.

          The system has 3000 drivers and with recent timetable changes, there are 20% or so more services which means they need at the very least 20% maybe more more drivers. In other words they probably need at the very minimum 400 - 500 more drivers.

          ~

          T: The second half of your linked article talks about how it is really about the money, not the conditions so that actually contradicts your main point, not confirms it.

          99: Hardly a surprising considering its the minister talking.

          The Minister said he was sure if he agreed to the union's demands for the pay rise, it would stop talking about overtime.

          "It's a cynical attempt in the dark arts of union activism," Mr Constance said

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 13:46
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Yes that is correct those drivers are joining the system, but its obviously not enough. The article never says these new drivers will be enough, it just says they are becoming part of the team.

          Unn the bit about temporary issue seems to cover it

          The head of Sydney Trains Howard Collins admitted last week drivers are doing much more overtime because of the new timetable, which added 1,500 extra weekly services.
          But he said it would be a temporary issue, because he had an extra 160 drivers in training that would soon be on the job

          .

          Hardly a surprising considering its the minister talking.

          So you buy the Unions words hook line and sinker but distrust everything the minister says? Sorry but my experience of those high up in Unions paint them too be far worse than most politicians.

          Can you link me to where you got the 20% increase in services from, can't see a reference to it anywhere?

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 13:59
          -1

          @tryagain:

          TA: So you buy the Unions words hook line and sinker but distrust everything the minister says?

          99: Do you really think the same minister who probably told the trains CEO to create a new timetable with more services and didnt care they didnt have enough drivers would admit they got it wrong ?

          Who is dumb enough to take a system that requires everyone to do at the least an extra day a week overtime ?

          How long do you think that would work ?

          ~~

          TA: Can you link me to where you got the 20% increase in services from, can't see a reference to it anywhere?

          99:

          https://transportnsw.info/news/2017/new-timetables--more-ser…

          From 26 November, more than 8,600 new weekly train, bus and ferry services will start across Sydney and surrounds.

          http://www.sydneytrains.info/about/facts

          Over 1 million customer journeys per weekday
          Over 340 million customer journeys annually
          178 stations (includes 4 Airport Line stations)
          2,191 cars (includes 574 NSW TrainLink fleet)
          Approximately 3,200 timetabled trips per weekday

          3200 x 6 = 19000 trips a week, i dont know if the figure is a weekday or whether it includes weekends in the average.

          If you read the first link a few thousand of those extra services were for buses so lets guess about half are train services, leaving 4000 extra trains services.

          4000 new trains with a new total of 20000. Thats 20%.

          I know this is very rough and but i think you will find there was a big jump in services, it wasnt a minor change.

        • tryagain on 22/01/2018 - 14:37
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the minister is definitely competent, or that he didn't stuff up by bringing it online to early without the required staff, I do find the argument that it's not just about the money hard to believe though.

          From here it looks like there are an extra 1500 rail services so that is roughly an increase of 7.5%, so the 160/5.3% driver increase isn't that far off, especially if they made the new timetable more efficient which they have by the sound of it.

        • dealman on 22/01/2018 - 15:07
          +1

          Take permanent rest, stay at home quit.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 16:57

          @tryagain:

          TA: I do find the argument that it's not just about the money hard to believe though.

          99: Its not, im not sure where you got that, but if you read other new sources you will find out more.

          ~~~

          TA: From here(abc.net.au) it looks like there are an extra 1500 rail services so that is roughly an increase of 7.5%, so the 160/5.3% driver increase isn't that far off, especially if they made the new timetable more efficient which they have by the sound of it.

          99: Lets just pretend your figures are correct, that increase in new drivers doesnt cover the increased rail services. Even before the timetable changes they still didnt have enough drivers.

          You cant run a system that has only 1% spare drivers. If a few get sick everything falls apart, which is what happened the other week, less than 0.5% were sick and they didnt have enough drivers to drive the trains the system had allocated.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 17:16

          @dealman:

          Good to see you give a damn about others, maybe one day everyone else will do the same for you.

        • supersabroso on 22/01/2018 - 21:25
          +2

          Nobody can be forced to work overtime within Sydney Trains. Overtime is fully voluntary because they love the huge bonus to their take home pay. That's what turns an average job into an extraordinary job. Imagine being able to afford a new BMW every two years because of overtime, although I'm sure most employees will spend their money better than that…

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 21:43

          @tryagain:

          What the article doesnt say is currently there are 3000 drivers, adding 160 more is about 5%. The problem is in Nov 2017, they added over 10% more services, thats why all drivers needed to do an ADDITIONAL day a week or 20% overtime to keep everything working.

          Adding 5% drivers doesnt cover 10%+ more services, and thats in addition to a situation where tehre werent enough drivers in the first place, heance the overtime.

          You should really read articles more critically and ask the question why they failed to mention the key numbers that would show more services were added than drivers.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 21:49
          -1

          @supersabroso:

          S: Overtime is fully voluntary because they love the huge bonus to their take home pay.

          99: SO what if they like money, you do too, thats why you goto work.

          ~~~

          S: That's what turns an average job into an extraordinary job.

          99: So join up then.

          ~~

          S: Imagine being able to afford a new BMW every two years because of overtime, although I'm sure most employees will spend their money better than that

          99: Currently they are averaging about 20% overtime, which gives them about $20k per year.

          You claimed that two years of overtime would buy a BMW, thats impossible because tax eats up half their wages and there are no new BMW for $40k pre tax, and after tax they would only have $20k AFTER 2 years of overtime.

          Thats two fails, but then again with your nonsense its hardly surprising you cant do basic maths.

          But why let bullshit get in the way of an idiot who cant do basic maths.

        • supersabroso on 22/01/2018 - 22:09
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents: Mate, people are saying that the drivers are being "forced to do overtime", which is not true. FYI I have joined up, in an even better department and I'm loving every second of it (even though I'm exposed to far worse overtime working conditions than train drivers because I actually have to walk around in to 43 degree heat for 12.5hrs on loose hard rocks during ungodly hours rain or shine). Also, haha you're a funny one, yes the full price tag is $44,819.23 (drive away) for the latest, brand new Series 1 BMW at any BMW dealership. However, I think you'll find that last year's models will fly off the shelves at prices below $40k. Even if you did want the latest, which OzBargainer pays full price? Maybe an OzNewbie?

          The Australian government only takes 37% away as tax if you earn over $87k/year, for the trainee driver's, they only get taxed at 32.5% for the first $17k of their overtime. Average overtime pay would be about $35k/year (before tax) for a 2nd year+ train driver, this is an overtime take home pay of around $46k/2 years after tax, giving you pocket money to buy iPhone X's for you, the wife and a spoilt chubba bubba to play with.

          You appear to be hilariously uneducated in all these topics (train drivers, Sydney Trains, overtime, cost of a new BMW, ATO income tax brackets) making big false claims, talking about something you have no idea about, 20% overtime = 20% extra pay??? Are you for real???? Let me educate you and save you some future embarrassment my fellow OzBargainer, 20% overtime = average 40% extra pay if not more. Talk about bang for buck.

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 09:33

          @supersabroso:

          SH: Mate, people are saying that the drivers are being "forced to do overtime", which is not true.

          99: Prove it. I have already shown multiple articles (goggling for them is easy enuff) that tell the opposite.

          ~~

          SH: Also, haha you're a funny one, yes the full price tag is $44,819.23 (drive away) for the latest, brand new Series 1 BMW at any BMW dealership

          99: Ok lets remember that figure 45K.

          ~~

          SH: The Australian government only takes 37% away as tax if you earn over $87k/year, for the trainee driver's, they only get taxed at 32.5% for the first $17k of their overtime. Average overtime pay would be about $35k/year (before tax) for a 2nd year+ train driver, this is an overtime take home pay of around $46k/2 years after tax, giving you pocket money to buy iPhone X's for you, the wife and a spoilt chubba bubba to play with.

          99:

          Where is your proof fir this figure:

          this is an overtime take home pay of around $46k/2 years after tax, giving you pocket money to buy iPhone X's for you, the wife and a spoilt chubba bubba to play with.

          ~~~

          SH: Let me educate you and save you some future embarrassment my fellow OzBargainer, 20% overtime = average 40% extra pay if not more.

          99: My calculation were that 20% of their wages was overtime. Again you need to learn how to read and follow what i said. I was not counting hours, i was always breaking my figures in $.

        • supersabroso on 23/01/2018 - 11:04
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: Then you're wrong, proof? I work there.

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 11:23

          @supersabroso:

          Anybody can say that they work there, there are plenty of public documents and web pages, use them to prove your point.

        • tryagain on 23/01/2018 - 12:05

          @ninetyNineCents:
          Well I asked before where you got your 20% increase of services from and you calculations were pretty flawed from what is available, with what is available I calculated 7.5% so now the question is where did you get your 10%+, admittedly its a lot closer than reality than your 20% but you are still being pretty loose with the truth. As others have pointed out, overtime is voluntary so they don't aren't being forced to work any overtime if they don't want too, it's their choice. If the system falls over because there aren't enough drivers that is management's problem, not the drivers themselves, it there jobs just to drive the trains, not be responsible for the network. I am capable and do read articles critically, you seem to only be able to read them in accordance with your preconceived ideas. Just admit it, its all about the money (and union officials trying to justify their position and make a name for themselves)

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 12:32

          @tryagain:

          TA: Well I asked before where you got your 20% increase of services from and you calculations were pretty flawed from what is available, with what is available I calculated 7.5% so now the question is where did you get your 10%+, admittedly its a lot closer than reality than your 20% but you are still being pretty loose with the truth.

          99: You only showed ONE specific increase not ALL.

          My calculations may be messy but the values do approximately approach 20%.

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 21:43

          @ninetyNineCents: well, when I'm not happy with my job, I go look for something else. If I don't have the skills to demand what I want, I try to acquire that skill.

          No body forced the rail staff to work in the industry, and no one can force them to stay in that industry if it turns out to be not in their best interest.

          The need for unions and strikes highlight the inability to demand more or receive more income in another position elsewhere.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:24

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: No body forced the rail staff to work in the industry, and no one can force them to stay in that industry if it turns out to be not in their best interest.

          99: Australia is a free country and everybody has the right to ask for a better deal or help from their employer or their politicians.

          If you dont like that go live in any other shithole around the world, the worser ones are the ones with less unions. For all their evils and negatives, unions have helped make Australia one of the best countries on earth to live and work. Its not perfect but thats part of the Australian experience that makes and shapes this country and continues to improve it.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:31

          @ninetyNineCents: haha, yes free to negotiate, not hold people hostage while doing it. Also at least you agree the Trump that there are shithole places around the world :)

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:40

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: haha, yes free to negotiate, not hold people hostage while doing it.

          99: Except you are wrong. If drivers were doing something illegal, then the police would be arresting them today and yesterday and tomorrow.

          Everyone in Australia is free to leave their job. Employers have options to attract people including conditions and pay, if they dont like some employees they can fire them. Employees have the right to ask for changes(more money etc) or leave. Thats how the system works…

          You have zero idea how the world works.

    • kolorijo on 18/01/2018 - 14:32
      +2

      I am not going to waste my annual leave day because Union told me to stay at home… I'll drive to work!

      • onetwothreefour on 18/01/2018 - 14:47

        I only have one car and my wife needs it for the school run and swimming lessons. The roads are going to be a nightmare too depending on how far you have to drive.

        • kolorijo on 18/01/2018 - 16:10
          +2

          Chuck a sickie?

      • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2018 - 15:18
        +1

        @kolorijo: I'll wear my green undies on that day:)

        • kolorijo on 18/01/2018 - 16:10
          +1

          Word brother word 😎

    • cameldownunder on 19/01/2018 - 10:50
      +1

      If they go through with it, I'll take my megaphone with me on the Tuesday trip to work, and will let any Train employee know what I think of them.

  • pantsparty on 18/01/2018 - 10:50
    +7

    How much do they get paid now? Unless they are being paid poorly 6% a year does sound ambitious

    • onetwothreefour on 18/01/2018 - 11:09

      Trainee drivers start at 70k

      • ausdday on 18/01/2018 - 12:54
        +57

        How about Busee and Tramee?

        • onetwothreefour on 18/01/2018 - 13:01

          No idea, you can probably Google it, that's what I did for the train driver salary.

        • ausdday on 18/01/2018 - 13:04
          +25

          @onetwothree:
          Can't be bother. That will just make my day gloomy. I have a bachelor degree and they probably still earn more than I do. And my job does not allow me to go out for a strike.

        • onetwothreefour on 18/01/2018 - 13:44

          @ausdday: you'll get there, I was on a lot less 5 years ago but now on more and I don't have a degree. However I also can't go on strike :-(

        • CLoSeR on 19/01/2018 - 15:15

          How is a bus driver comparable to train driver?

        • onetwothreefour on 19/01/2018 - 16:40

          @CLoSeR: he was just making a joke because I said trainee, so he said busee and tramee, I missed the joke too and had a serious response to his question.

        • onetwothreefour on 19/01/2018 - 16:41

          Ha! This went right over my head until I started to see how many people upvoted this comment!

      • pantsparty on 18/01/2018 - 12:59
        +12

        Wow that is actually pretty good. You can do a 3 year uni degree and earn much less than this when you start full time work

        • ruddiger7 on 18/01/2018 - 15:58
          +17

          On my third year out after a Business and IT degree and only on 75k. These guys are whingers.

        • abb on 19/01/2018 - 09:03
          +9

          @ruddiger7: Supply and Demand my man. IT & Business graduates pop out of universities by the hundreds every year. Train drivers? Not so many.

        • BartholemewH on 19/01/2018 - 13:23
          +12

          @abb:
          So long as the drivers realise train driving will be automated and every 6% rise adds impetus to get automation going a bit sooner?

        • abb on 19/01/2018 - 13:27

          @BartholemewH: I build automated systems.

          Full automation of everything is my utopic dream.

        • zambuck on 20/01/2018 - 06:19
          +6

          The Enterprise Agreement for train drivers is publicly available. (http://locoexpress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/NSW-Tra…) Starting salary seems to be $48,455 but from what I can see elsewhere once you're a fully qualified train driver with a couple years experience you get about $76,032. The scale goes higher, but much higher pays appear to be for driver trainers and the like.

          I haven't driven a train, but I imagine it's like a lot of jobs, where there's a mix of boring, interesting and annoying periods. It's also shift-work, which suits some more than others, and they do get extra allowances to cover that.

          With a degree you've got a good chance of earning above the average, but in many professions your worst day at work might involve you doing something so bad that you lose your job and your employer loses some money. A train driver's worst day at work could involve two trains colliding, each loaded with 600 passengers, resulting in the loss of many lives.

          With an average of one death per week on the Sydney train network due to people being on the tracks, a bad day (not the worst day) for a train driver involves being unable to avoid killing a person due to physics. I've been on one of those trains, and seen the state of the driver after they had to deal with the remnants. I wouldn't want that job.

        • ThadtheChad on 22/01/2018 - 00:28

          @zambuck: Hit nail on the head there Zambuck.

          It is definitely one of the harder jobs. There is a degree of skill involved as well as fair bit of training. However, the differentiating factor is the monotony of the job as well as the ramifications of "something going wrong".

          At the IT folk who are a bit indignant about the the parity of wages, there are two key things to consider:
          1. If you're a generalist, think about up-skilling and build you career on specialisation.
          2. Supply and demand. As Abb mentioned, folks with generalist IT skills are a dime a dozen, folks qualified to operate a train are substantially lower. Also factor in the monotony and the "bad day hazard pay".

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 21:49

          @zambuck: and that's the great thing about a free country, no one "assigns" you to a job you don't want to do. It's all bilaterally agreed, hence both parties need to fulfill their end of the bargain.

      • supersabroso on 22/01/2018 - 21:32

        As established on the next page, trainee train driver's total pays range between $103k/year all the way to $130k/year as a principal driver when they max out their overtime and choose to lose most of their weekends.

        Otherwise, the absolute minimum pay for a Monday - Friday daytime only driver (very, very rare) ranges from a trainee driver's salary of $69,934.80 - a principal driver's salary of $86,860.80.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2018 - 11:15
      +9

      https://au.indeed.com/cmp/Sydney-Trains/salaries

      https://iworkfor.nsw.gov.au/job/qualified-train-driver-94818

      I'd say the cleaner probably deserves the 6% rise.

    • Baghern on 18/01/2018 - 13:13

      pretty high actually, experienced drivers get 100k+

      70k fo a trainee from what I've read.

      But that excludes overtime.

      Its not as dodgy as it use to be, - from someone I knew who was a former security guy on the train, buts its still pretty dodgy when you compare it to the public sector.

      ie Drivers, everyone use to work one station away from their nearest station so they could get away from home allowance

    • abb on 18/01/2018 - 15:57

      Unless they are being paid poorly

      A relevant question here is "what are train drivers in other cities paid?". I have heard that Melb & Bris get more cash (but 30s of googling didn't answer it for me).

    • zeomega on 18/01/2018 - 23:46

      Some of the driver are earning $160k and up by banking on overtime.

      • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 17:51

        Some isnt the same as ALL.

        Its like those lotto commercials, some people win, not everyone wins.

        • zeomega on 21/01/2018 - 22:18

          Not sure of how many is all, but if 4 of the train drivers i was talking to boasting about how much they were earning a few years back anything to go by, it certainly felt like a number of them.

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 08:19

          @zeomega:

          Well maybe you should check the actual gov websites that many people have shared here. You can also check the ato website for the average wages for occupations - train drivers isnt listed as $120k+.

        • zeomega on 22/01/2018 - 19:14

          @ninetyNineCents:

          How much are you earning as a driver?

        • ninetyNineCents on 22/01/2018 - 19:34

          @zeomega:

          i m not a driver of any sort

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 22:03

          I find it fairly disingenuous for you use such extreme example as a comparison

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:22

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: Write complete sentences that are directed at someone. Obviously you dont like one of the recent comments but which one and why ?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join