Unions and politicians are blaming each other for the train cancellation. News keep rapidly changing their articles, so it's hard to find out what's going on. Some examples:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/it-s-going-to-be-a-very-…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-21/nsw-train-shutdown-ex…
Who do you think is responsible?
It's OK, the politicians have got our backs!
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/12/coalition-pledges-a…
https://www.afr.com/politics/australia-needs-explosive-surge…
I'd prefer my taxes to go to ordinary Australian's than be sucked up and pocketed by wealthy politicians and their mates through all the rorts and pay raises they give themselves. And pay increases haven't contributed to inflation. Wages have been stagnant under Liberal.
NSW Gov has restricted public sector annual pay increase to 2.5% (was lower) regardless of inflation.
We should do the same for politicians.
Except in reverse. At 1%-to-3% inflation they break even, when above 4% their benefits are completely erased, and every 1% above reduces their own net salary. You know, make them work for their money….
Last 2yrs, politicians said "we're in this together".10000s's lost their job, income, likelihood meanwhile politicians give themselves a hefty paid rise. "It's a big club and we're not in it"
@singlemalt72: If you trust your government to governs you, here the answer https://adfconsumer.gov.au/age-of-entitlement/
2.5% materially is higher than those in the private sector…..
My wife is in the construction sector and consistently gets higher pay rises than me. Plus, a number of years of 2.0% or less has really seen me slip well behind CPI over the last 3 years.
@singlemalt72: 2.5% is also a maximum, not a guarantee and according to AFR, the private sector wage growth slightly exceeds Public sector.
https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/who-got-the-biggest-pay-r…
A monopoly can be shut down at any point. The government pays the union organisers to ensure that these token protests are quick and rare.
Just pay them more, simple.
I rather pay nurses and teachers than these bunch.
I'd pay the pollies last.
You can pay both
To be honest, it's not about how much you pay. It is about who you pay.
We need middle-managers (the hirers) to do a better job of hiring the right people. The task of keeping the right people is much easier: just give them a decent environment, responsibilities, and pay fairly.
But as long as we have these low-quality managers, they will continue to hire the wrong people, so it will be waste of time/money to try and keep some of those people with salary raises.
…as an analogy, it's like when law-makers try to stop a certain pattern of crime. But their solution is to increase the penalty (eg from a $1000 fine to a $3000 fine) or punishment (eg from 2 year jail sentence to 5 year sentence) for it. It doesn't work. It's a very old fallacy that get repeated. What does work is if you increase the enforcement of those laws, ie/ increase the odds that they will get caught. Then people are less likely to commit the crime.
It is about who you pay.
Yeah, no.
If you paid 1 million a year, you will get top notch train drivers.
If you paid $10,000 a year, you won't.
If you paid 1 million a year, you will get top notch train drivers.
No you won't. You'll get people who are brilliant at lying, playing politics, and having a facade. The best train drivers are more concerned about their passion than the money.
you paid $10,000 a year, you won't.
Also not true. For that amount you will get Zero Train drivers. Not even the bad ones or cheap ones. But on the occasional weekend you might have some volunteers and retirees.
You may have missed the gist of what I was saying. Money isn't the only motivator, and in some/many instances it's a pretty bad motivator. If you want good train drivers, you need to hire good train drivers. That is the most important point. The hiring. It's not about just throwing money at the problem, it's more nuanced than that. You need to balance the right working conditions, people, environment, and a fair pay. Otherwise, what you end up with is an inefficient business that's more concerned about the high turnover rates and bottom lines.
No you won't. You'll get people who are brilliant at lying, playing politics, and having a facade. The best train drivers are more concerned about their passion than the money.
Should we pay politicians 40k a year?
Why are CEOs paid so much?
@deme: Why not pay politicians at a set-dynamic rate, in terms of the Median Wage x1.5 ?
In case you've forgotten, majority of CEOs are the initial business founder. Some businesses grow to levels that were not anticipated, and those initial founders require the expertise of someone else. So CEOs are compensated well for those reasons. Sometimes it gets out of hand. Another point is that businesses and CEOs largely know the Tax System, and they can find ways to maximize their income compared to plebs like you and I. As you well know, there have been many instances of CEOs ruining the business and still getting paid a lot (for instance Nokia and Elop), so offering more money to get the Best CEO is also not a great tactic. Just look at AMD turning things around with Dr Su, whilst Intel had to sack theirs and recently appointed a new CEO who has an Engineering background.
In case you've forgotten, majority of CEOs are the initial business founder.
This is not the case for businesses 10 years old.
Another point is that businesses and CEOs largely know the Tax System,
That's accountants.
so offering more money to get the Best CEO is also not a great tactic
Why not pay politicians at a set-dynamic rate, in terms of the Median Wage x1.5 ?
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/earnings-and-work-h…
So 135k is your proposal?
Money isn't the only motivator, and in some/many instances it's a pretty bad motivator.
Why on earth would you work if not for money? Driving a train is not a Charity.
@deme: How do you miss reading the word "only", or the words "some"? People's lives are personal and important to them, and they take on choices not based on a single point, but many factors. Why do far more women choose Nursing instead of Transmission Line Electrician… I mean the pay is substantially higher.
Anyways, I don't think this discussion is going to be fruitful any longer, peace.
Or hire young people that like to take their jobs any day
An inaccurate, and wildly broad generalisation but perhaps not unexpected from you. Branching out from giving patronising advice on all things cars?
Found the boomer.
See, I can make sweeping statements about an entire generation too.
Get off your soapbox mate.
@[Deactivated]: I'm struggling to find 'young' people to work, so he/she/they/them/his etc. May be speaking from experience. We've got the media claiming that the up and coming generation won't be able to afford a house… IMO its up to the previous generation to set up the next generation, and giving them a tablet and a camera and hoping they become YouTube stars is certainly not helping.
@Soluble: I’m in the same boat. We have tried to employ young apprentices at work and not a single one of them has completed their TAFE training in the last 5 or 6 years. They don’t want to show up for work, and when they do, it’s always late. They get all pissy and moany when we ask them to get off their phones. We pay well above award wages in a skill that can set them up for life that doesn’t take a lot of brain power and yet, we still can’t get them to apply or keep them if they do.
We have had to give the jobs and apprenticeships to mature age students (30+) and they have been brilliant. They work hard, they study hard and go on to be some of the best employees we have. They don’t quit when we ask them to leave their phones in their lockers or take the last 2 days of TAFE off every block release to go to the beach.
We had one 19yo guy quit because we told him it was an OH&S issue for him to work around heavy machines and vehicles moving all around with his AirPods in. He said he used the AirPods because the other guys wouldn’t let him listen to JJJ on the workshop radio. JJJ was more important to him than his apprenticeship.
@pegaxs: Pretty different story to your original snarky reply - I’d love to pull apart the “why” but I think I’m wasting my time. So good for you. I’m glad it’s working out. As an under 30 who slogs myself at work every day for rubbish money because I’m passionate about what I do… I personally think you can shove it.
@pegaxs: What is this job you are describing?
It's very vague, and we can't know if the youth are in the right on this particular issue, since it depends immensely on the specific job.
@Kangal: He said it's an apprenticeship, and he works with cars is what I gather, so the job is probably a service tech at a dealership
@pegaxs: We have oldies that don't do jack everywhere too. People suck, and it's easy to identify drive in an interview. Sure they are rarer across all aged groups, but it just means that age is not the factor.
I bet you don't think Dominic Perrottet is a millennial.
I'm not necessarily young but no where near retirement age. I'm just jumping from job to job. Will be very happy to take a train driving job with paid training and 24/7 shifts is practically what I'm doing atm.
why? all they do is sit on their arse and on occasion drive the train or wave a flag….what a tough job indeed.
Sydney Morning Herald is owned by Nine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello is the chairman you would have to be stupid to trust that paper.
They've definitely changed since they got bought by Nine. I think they should change their "INDEPENDENT. ALWAYS." slogan.
They're still a hell of a lot better than the Murdoch owned outlets though
Naughty Scotty cancelling the trains to get more hits on his site !
And yet the next day they were on partial bands and the trains ran fine (except for the weather).
And the govt refused to show the advice that it would be dangerous (because there was no advice).
Stooge.
Where is the who cares option in the poll ???
Ah, the proud WFHer
Nope… happy to drive to work.. its reliable.
Costs way more than public transport. How much is the parking like?
@orangetrain: Costs more - Yep.. happy to pay it for the ride to and from work to actually be there when I need it.
Parking, plenty round here hasnt been an issue in 14yrs.
Parking, plenty round here hasnt been an issue in 14yrs.
It would be a big issue if there was no public transport
@pharkurnell: Quantumcat and orangetrain seem to think Australia is some public transport utopia
pharkurnell, is public transport even a viable option for your trip?
@Bren20: Nobody is saying Australia is a PT utopia, but the roads that you drive on would be significantly more clogged with cars if PT was not an option at all.
@johnno07: orangetrain definitely thinks pharkurnell should use public transport, without any consideration of phark's personal circumstances.
orangetrain probably lives within 800m of a reliable service between his home and his work, and has extrapolated his public transport experience and thinks that it is a great option for everyone. And you're just as bad. Some roads would be worse if there was no public transport, but I'd wager most would be about the same, as public transport is not a viable alternative for so may trips for people living in the outer suburbs.
orangetrain should get off his high horse and consider that public transport is not a viable option for the majority of people. People catch public transport because they're poor, or because it's convenient. I often use public transport, I use to use it more as I was poor, now I use it when convenient.
Some roads would be worse if there was no public transport, but I'd wager most would be about the same
If by "some roads" you mean all of the roads leading into the CBD that everyone uses, then sure. If everyone who lived outside of walking distance of the CBD had to drive into work it would be massively worse on those roads, which would make it massively worse for everyone.
And you're just as bad
Can we keep it civil, please?
And you're just as bad
Can we keep it civil, please?
fair point, please replace with "And your argument is just as bad"
roads leading into the CBD that everyone uses
Most people don't work in the CBD.
@Bren20: In Greater Melbourne in 2016 (according to the Census) nearly 18% (~326,000) of everyone commuting to work used PT.
If you took PT away, and given:
- 8% of those who couldn't commute via PT anymore used other modes (a bit of a guess, but this is how many people commute via modes other than PT or cars/taxis).
- Only 6% of commuters car-pool
it means if you took PT away in Melbourne you could have have ~282,000 extra cars on the road in Greater Melbourne - just for people going to work. Not to mention people travelling around for leisure.
This seems like a lot to me?
@johnno07: Sure, I'm in no way arguing against this.
The impacts of the additional 500,000 daily cars will not be uniformly distributed. The impacts would be negligible for someone making a radial trip in the middle it outer suburbs, which is also a trip that has poor existing public transport
The "who cares" don't click on the forum and read. Obviously, you cared enough to comment.
It's a slow news day.
buy a bicycle
Or a few. Have one for every occasion.
Union planned very limited ('non-strike') industrial action today. NSW Gov tried to stop even that & this was rejected by commission. So rather than let it go ahead Govt cancelled all trains
There was a readers' poll on the SMH website earlier today. Of the responders, 65% understood that the state government was responsible for the shutdown. The poll has been removed from the site apparently.
Smart people: NSW gov.
Dumb people: LaBoR!11!1!11!!!
Even dumber people: vAcCinE maNDaTEs!!1!1
The sooner they introduce driverless trains the better. The Metro trains continued to run without issue.
Agreed. The main result of the disruption will probably be an increase in support for automating more of the system, rather than any support for railway staff.
Oh well. The employees made redundant will then get on the dole system. Either way someone’s gotta pay the bill.
Not sure what they are fighting for this time but the last time it happened they were demanding something like 3x inflation, weren’t they? Can’t we just tell them to find another job if they aren’t happy with what’s on the table?
Great idea. Only took about 20 years for opal to work.
I was shocked to see how much Melbourne Tram drivers earned…
How much is it?
Need to factor in some horrible hours, horrible routes, horrible road users, horrible passengers….
with penalties etc round 100-120k.
@GG57: In 2021, the average salary for trainee tram drivers is $67,000 to $73,000 .. not bad for trainee.
@pharkurnell: Probably not enough for me to change tracks:
"What might a tram driver do?
• Conduct equipment checks at the start of a shift to ensure the tram is operating as required, including minor fault-finding activities
• Inspect, prepare and drive a tram
• Follow a set timetable to ensure reliability
• Observe traffic signs, understand their meaning and act accordingly in the tramway infrastructure
• Stay focused and alert for extended periods of time, and react quickly in the case of unexpected events
• Stop at designated locations to pick up or drop off passengers
• Monitor and control lighting, heating and ventilation for passenger comfort
• Provide customer service through public address announcements to keep passengers informed
• Respond to emergencies"
@HeadTheWall: Not sure why you provide a 'what-about' comment.
I listed what their major responsibilities are, and that I probably wouldn't want to do that for that $.
Drivers of trucks and buses are not part of this discussion.
@GG57: Your posts are trying to imply that it is some super difficult and stressful job, I am rebutting that and saying it is comparable to many other jobs
@pharkurnell: Unfortunately they can't pay them 30k like a lot of apprentices work em like dog and chuck em out after 4 yrs ( wages should be 60k by now ) for the fresh cheaper ones.
Around $80k p.a.
They pull a lot of overtime because the Sydney Trains has never made a profit and its cheaper to give overtime than employ new workers. Up to 30 hours per week extra on top of their normal hours. Would you give up your Saturday or Sunday to work?
@nickvdk: Well plenty of them have done this for years, have they ever had industrial action calling for more staff so they don't have to do overtime?
If they have been doing it for years without any major complaints then they must be ok with the money and hours. There are always other jobs where they can do 38 hours a week
@HeadTheWall: They have been complaining for lack of staff for decades. And the crazy hours and shifts and overtime they are asked to work.
@lonewolf: When have they initiated industrial action about this without also asking for a pay raise?
A sceptical person would think that they only tack on these supposed grievances when they are looking for more money
@HeadTheWall: it will usually all be part of the enterprise bargaining as thats when you try to discuss issues with the jobs and ask for extra staff and changes to how staff have to work. Otherwise they dont listen to you at all.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-16/sydney-train-driver-s….
I have a couple of friends who work in the rail industry, and they tell me one of the common complaints by all the drivers is lack of staff and hence lack of flexibility in shifts and always having to work overtime to cover all the train routes and times.
There is a high turnover rate of staff as some do leave for other jobs as they feel its not worth working there for the conditions. And pay varies depending on how much overtime and odd hour shifts you work. Even though i get paid less than the higher end of the overtime salaries as a train driver, I wouldnt want to do that job for lack of flexibility and the hours and times i would need to work.
@lonewolf: So they always just tack on other issues when they are looking for more money, it's good that you confirmed that it is always about money.
If this was this much of a problem then they would have held industrial action about just that issue, but again a sceptical person will think that they find it acceptable to work and collect all this overtime until they decide they want more money and then it becomes an issue
Inflation is going crazy, salaries need to go up or everyone is taking a pay cut. Even when the shortages are over, prices will stay high because they CAN be. They won't go back down.
Bunch of DOGE.
Gov stopped the trains, drivers are there and ready to work.
That's union thuggery at it's finest. Opportunists and nothing more.
Bikies
Damn scomo
I have a feeling the state government pre-empted their industrial action and it ended up being a giant d1ck swinging contest.
Lets be honest, the NSW gov didn't have a choice, the union was going to shut down the line anyway by taking staff off.
NSW gov just act like they have the upper hand (in reality they don't, that's the perks of unionism)
The union wouldn't have completely shut things down completely and have operated on weekend schedule and have given more notice in the past. I feel this came from somewhere in the government/management.
I wonder if it will work like how it does in other countries with striking workers refusing to take fares rather than just shutting down the line. I'm guessing the government can overrule that and decide to shut down the line anyway (or there might be some thing in the union law against that). Also wondering if the unions have enough sway to unilaterally open the line and just refuse to take fares
If the MPs i dont just mean liberal or labor and im not just talking state oR federal. Gave a 'reasonable' pay rise to workers like they do to themselves then i dont think people/unions would have to sink to such action to try get a few bucks/cents more an hour
simply rule as a bare min all public sector works get a raise that is inflation plus a negotiated addition ie inflation is 3 percent you get 3 percent plus you negotiate an addition 2 percent thus 5 percent increase