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

    • nonbeliever93 on 20/01/2018 - 00:00
      +2

      Can I point to the giant train timetable (profanity) that happened because the government didn't heed the RTBU warning against the new timetable? The strike is specifically about fixing the issues that led to the city coming to a halt.

  • Lando on 18/01/2018 - 14:34
    +10

    Tesla plz give us trains with autopilot!

    • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:03
      -4

      You do realise tesla cars are extremely expensive and badly built.

      Have you ever tried to get help from paypal when you have a problem ?

  • max2million on 18/01/2018 - 14:46
    +10

    Striking to get an outrageous pay rise, to be paid out of taxes from people who lose income and will pay less tax because they can't get to work! Makes perfect sense.

    • Cartman2530 on 19/01/2018 - 18:51

      ^This.
      Thats where i get annoyed as we are all paying for this increase out of our taxes, money that could be better spent elsewhere like the terrible sydney roads. I bet the ticket price will go up as well.

      Bring on driverless trains!

  • Haha Hihi Hoho on 18/01/2018 - 15:44
    +2

    it will be great day for uber/taxify/ anyother car sharing driver

    • Blottski on 18/01/2018 - 16:03
      +1

      Uber is going to clean up i'd imagine…

      • Salmando on 20/01/2018 - 00:45

        Surcharge for increased demand of course

  • duckk on 18/01/2018 - 17:10
    +3

    no such 24% ,the agreement is for 3 years only, they never get over 3% increase but the union bargain for 6% to get 3%

  • freakatronic on 18/01/2018 - 17:21

    If they're not providing 6% greater value than they did last year (which I can guarantee they're not), they're wrong to ask for 6% more pay. I wish them nothing but failure.

    • Michael15286 on 19/01/2018 - 02:17
      +1

      So long as they provide the same value work, it's right to ask for a certain percent pay rise to keep in line with inflation.

      • freakatronic on 19/01/2018 - 11:58
        +1

        If inflation were 6% we'd be in trouble.

        • Michael15286 on 19/01/2018 - 13:57

          Hahaha thats true! However I was more suggesting that they only need to provide around 3% greater value for a 6% payraise, after including inflation in the equation.

      • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 22:35
        +1

        yep, hence the 2.5% increase

    • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:04
      +1

      Yeh what utter arseholes for complaining about being forced to work overtime, all the time.

      How dare they want to rest or go home to their families.

      • freakatronic on 20/01/2018 - 18:56

        None of what you wrote is related. They're holding the city to ransom for a payrise they haven't earned. Are they driving their trains 6% better? If the answer is no, then then they don't deserve a raise.

        • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 19:12

          F: None of what you wrote is related. They're holding the city to ransom for a payrise they haven't earned

          99: it very much is related. The reason they cant attract more drivers is because the pay is too low. If they had more drivers then the current lot wouldnt need to do the excessive and continual overtime they are forced to do.

          F: Are they driving their trains 6% better? If the answer is no, then then they don't deserve a raise.

          99: You really are blind and cant see the big picture, you also dont understand how capitalism works.

          When there is a limited supply of a product or services the prices go up. In our case the limit is drivers, the state wants more but doesnt want to pay for them.

          Feel free to ask for more questions about how this all works.

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 22:36

          @ninetyNineCents: a union and capitalism? really?

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:21

          @yannyrjl:

          You obviously have no idea how capitalism works. Just look at your pother comments about privatisation of public monopolies.

          Look at the US hospital system and tell me that is cheaper than our system ? The Aus pays a lot for our hospitals from our taxes, but the individual cost of procedures and medicines is MUCH less than what happens in the US. Ultimately the gov has our backs more than any private company. If you really think a private company who runs ALL the trains is going to turn around and charge less when they can charge more you are braindamaged.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:38

          @ninetyNineCents: I find you fairly quick at judging other people's understanding. The example you provide is a poor example when the health lobbies in the US is more powerful than the tobacco and alcohol industry combined.

          Have a think about why lobby interest groups exists? It's because via a single target (in this case the government) they can fulfill their interest. Rather than true capitalism of fulfilling the needs of consumers.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:45

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: The example you provide is a poor example when the health lobbies in the US is more powerful than the tobacco and alcohol industry combined.

          99: We were simply discussing examples of the cost of a good or service from a private company. Dont change the subject.

          Gas and electricity are recent examples around Australia where govs sold their business to private companies and the prices went up.

          Again i ask you why do you think a private company with a monopoly would lower its prices when it can raise them ?

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:47

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: Have a think about why lobby interest groups exists? It's because via a single target (in this case the government) they can fulfill their interest. Rather than true capitalism of fulfilling the needs of consumers.

          99: That may all be true, but that doesnt change the fact private comapnies exist to make money.

          Banks for example close shop in small towns etc when they dont make enough in that local area and arent interested inhaving a shop avaiulable for the convenience of people.

          Yet again you dont understand companies dont care about YOU or me, they only care about money, and if they can make some they will do that service or sell those goods. If they cant they will quit.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:47

          @ninetyNineCents: You are the one who brought up the US health situation? How is it that I'm changing the topic?

          The whole point of capitalism is removal of monopolies, by providing more options to the consumer.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:50

          @ninetyNineCents: so what should companies do?

          Keep branches open at a loss? The great thing about capitalism is it's based on mutual agreement. I don't care about companies and nor do they care about me. What I care about is the goods and service they provide and they care about the money I provide. It's demonstrated daily by the "double thank you" you get when you purchase from a merchant.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:52

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: Keep branches open at a loss? The great thing about capitalism is it's based on mutual agreement.

          99: Thats utter bullshit, banks close their branches all the time based on their own decision makers. They dont "ask" the local community for permission.

          There are many many examples of petitions and so on from peopl ein small towns asking the last branch in town not to close, but they do anyway.

          Your claim about mutual agreement is absolute crap.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:55

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: You are the one who brought up the US health situation? How is it that I'm changing the topic?

          99: You and others claim privatisation brings better and lower cost for the public, when it clearly does not when a company is a monopoly.

          Y: The whole point of capitalism is removal of monopolies, by providing more options to the consumer.

          99: No its not thats how it operates, thats clearly different from the goals of individuals companies participating in the system.

          WIth the train system in sydney how exaxctly are you going to foster competition ? By definition its always going to be a monopoly.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:55

          @ninetyNineCents: when I say mutual agreement it doesn't mean branches have to consult the local community. It means you can choose to bank with them or not.

          If there is sufficient business, then someone else can come in and replace the exiting party. I starting to see capitalism mean very different thing to you

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:58

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: when I say mutual agreement it doesn't mean branches have to consult the local community.

          99: Mutual agreement means two parties agreeing to something. Use words properly

          Y: It means you can choose to bank with them or not.

          99: Thats not an agreement thats a freedom of choice, quite a different thing.

          y: I starting to see capitalism mean very different thing to you

          99: No the problem is you are using words incorrectly with meanings different from a dictionary.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 15:00

          @ninetyNineCents: I can see we can find no common ground between us, thus far you have insulted by ability to read, my intelligence on little basis. I wish you well and hope you success

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 15:03

          @yannyrjl:

          Well use words properly. You didnt even have the honour to admit your use was completely different from accepted usage. There is no way a bank leaving town is a mutual agreement. A mutual agreement is between two parties, there are no two parties when a bank leaves town, theres the bank and eferyone else. The others never agreed to the bank leaving, there is no mutual agreement.

          Look up a dictionary.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 15:11

          @ninetyNineCents: on that point, I do agree mutual agreement isn't the right one. The choice of the bank is based on consensual transaction. No business, Banks included are obligated to make their service to every individual. Either way, I wish you well, and hope you aren't always so quick to jump to judge the fundamentals of an individual as you did to me.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/01/2018 - 10:29

          @yannyrjl:

          Well its hard to have discussion when one side uses words incorrectly, when meaning is everythiing. I can only reply to the responses i receive.

  • AlanHB on 18/01/2018 - 17:21
    +3

    To those who think 2.5% is a lot - it's actually less than inflation, so in terms of real world money, everything will become more expensive while their wages stagnate. So it's in effect, a pay cut each year.

    How long do you think their wages should stagnate for? Obviously at some point they won't be able to buy food etc - before then?

    • drcat228 on 18/01/2018 - 17:41
      +6

      How does this compare to other industries though?

      • AlanHB on 18/01/2018 - 17:57
        +2

        Does it matter?

        In other industries you can negotiate your wage/payrise each year - these guys only have one chance every couple of years - you're watching it it action.

        • May4th on 18/01/2018 - 18:16
          +7

          you mean they get a 2.5% without negotiating which is above national average for all industries?

          i think they have every right to fight for better conditions and safe hours but let's not kid ourselves that they are poorly paid

        • AlanHB on 18/01/2018 - 22:24

          @xbai: They are negotiating - what they've been offered is a paycut.

        • spook290 on 19/01/2018 - 10:01
          +1

          @AlanHB: Isn't inflation around 1.9%?
          I work for a fin services company, the union here is campaigning for a 3% raise, they've been offered 2% as it is above current inflation

        • AlanHB on 19/01/2018 - 12:07

          @spook290: In October '17, the Central Bank forecast inflation this year to be 3.25% (down from an initial forecast of 3.75%, but sure, the estimates vary from month to month.

        • keffola on 19/01/2018 - 13:28
          +2

          @AlanHB: Spook is right regarding the inflation rate.

          Not sure where you got the inflation forecast of 3.25% from (I'm suspecting you confused it with the GDP figure instead)

          https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/10/reser…

          "Its projections for GDP growth for the next three years are largely unchanged. Growth is still forecast to be 2.5% in 2017, 3.25% in 2018, and 3.25% in 2019 (down slightly on the August forecast of 3.5%).

          But it has significantly lowered its inflation forecasts for the next few years.

          Three months ago, it was forecasting underlying inflation would rise to 2% by the end of 2018, but it now expects that won’t happen until the middle of 2019.

          It had also previously forecast underlying inflation would rise to 2.5% by June 2019, but it now expects inflation will only be 2% by the end of 2019."

        • AlanHB on 20/01/2018 - 09:29
          +1

          @keffola: I could find the source again, but let's say you're correct.

          Why do you care if they get a payrise or not? Do you take similar views when someone in your workplace gets a raise?

          I understand that you might be annoyed by the access to trains if they strike, that's just a use of power in bargaining.

          Being Ozbargain, I'm actually pretty surprised that there's so many people against bargaining for a higher wage.

        • keffola on 22/01/2018 - 09:15

          @AlanHB: Hi Alan, I was only correcting your figures regarding the inflation rate. Even if you do find your source, if your source was quoting 3.25% as the inflation rate, your source is wrong. Your premise that the governments offer of 2.5% is unfair based on the current rate of inflation is incorrect. (May be unfair for other reasons, I don't know.)

          I don't think I actually offered an opinion on the actual payrise or not so unsure why you are getting defensive. I suspect the reason people are caring about this pay rise compared to say a colleague getting one in the workplace is due to the fact the train driver role is a public position, ie. paid for by the tax payer, hence people have an interest in where their taxes are going to.

          Combined with the fact wages have remained stagnant for most other professions it is no surprise that people view 6% as excessive.

          Now there may be other reasons the union is asking for 6% but so far the union has been very bad at communicating the reasons across to the public and this strike is not exactly getting the public on their side either.

        • AlanHB on 22/01/2018 - 11:19

          @keffola: Yes, I concede that my information was incorrect.

          But I do stand by this point:

          Being Ozbargain, I'm actually pretty surprised that there's so many people against bargaining for a higher wage.

          The argument being put forward generally in the comments is "they shouldn't get a 6% payrise because that's more than I got". To fix this situation, I'd recommend that you seek a higher payrise - not complain until everyone gets 2%.

        • keffola on 22/01/2018 - 11:29

          @AlanHB:

          Once again, I suspect the reason for people's animosity is that the union has not sold their message well.

          Asking for 6% combined with a strike on the first day of the school term (terrible timing) is imo was not a smart strategy in winning public support.

          The government is hardly blameless however.

      • drcat228 on 18/01/2018 - 18:30

        Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for - read it a while ago but count find it

        • AlanHB on 18/01/2018 - 22:28

          It's kinda like when there are two workers doing the same job, but one gets paid more.

          The lower paid worker asks the boss "how come he gets paid more?".

          The boss answers "because he asked".

          You could say "hey I haven't gotten a raise, how come they get a raise?", Or you could just…ask for a raise without comparing yourself to people in separate industries.

    • diddy50 on 18/01/2018 - 20:19

      My employer is providing 2.3% increase through a union bargained eba.

      I think it's fair.

    • keffola on 19/01/2018 - 13:35
      +1

      2.5% is in the middle of the average 2-3% inflation range that the RBA aims for, but given the current rate of inflation is actually close to record lows (below 2%), I wouldn't argue that its "a lot less than inflation."

    • Cartman2530 on 19/01/2018 - 18:54

      My wages are stagnating, have been for years.

      Why should i pay more out of my taxes to someone that earns a good deal more than me in the first place?

      • AlanHB on 20/01/2018 - 09:33

        Why should you pay a higher percentage of your taxes towards their payrise?

        Ignoring the fact that your taxes won't actually increase, and therefore the real world impact on you being nothing, you could argue that part of your taxes are put towards the public transport that you use and many rely upon. This is part of that.

        • Cartman2530 on 20/01/2018 - 10:35

          My taxes won't increase? Every public service fee is increasing and i'm getting taxed either directly or indirectly these days…

          I don't use PT so if i had a choice i would like that money to go towards public roads which are in terrible shape. Not to someone that is going to perform the same job for 6% more each year for 4 years, that i assume doesn't have any performance metrics to justify the pay rise.

          Why can't their pay rise be capped at inflation? I would agree with that. Better than many people get at the moment.

          There is going to be a real world impact on a lot of people on the 29th, and if the 6% comes through i bet everyone will be stung with a ticket price increase.

      • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:05

        Because they are underpaid.

  • TChalla on 18/01/2018 - 17:57
    +2

    Just automate the network like many Asian countries.

  • snajper on 18/01/2018 - 17:58
    +11

    Avg salary for train driver is $114k… all i am saying… i am leaving IT to become train driver

    • eagleanthony on 18/01/2018 - 18:36
      +1

      Care to share were you get your numbers from?

      Train drivers pay is between 80K-108K

      Look @ Pg79 of this document ( http://locoexpress.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Sydney-… )

      • [Deactivated] on 18/01/2018 - 18:50
        +9

        To be honest I think train drivers being paid more than $80k is already a lot…

      • supersabroso on 18/01/2018 - 21:40
        +1

        Do you mean pg. 111? The range from a trainee driver's salary is $69,934.80 - a principal driver's salary of $86,860.80.

        If they opt to work the hard hours and lose half their weekends, I've heard that they can do overtime and potentially earn a maximum range between $104k - $130k. Realistically, train drivers earn somewhere in between the base salary and the max overtime cap.

        I think that a 2.5% pay rise is definitely good enough given what I've heard about the overtime made available to them. I've also heard that the union always asks for 6% but actually expect something less. It's just their way of haggling. I wish they wouldn't hold the city at ransom to do so, it makes us look bad.

        The union is also committed to an overtime ban which means a lot of drivers and track workers will have to cut critical things like installing key track upgrades/running trains by not doing that extra 25% overtime.

        • whooah1979 on 18/01/2018 - 21:51

          I wish they wouldn't hold the city at ransom to do so.

          that's what they do when they don't get their way. the rtbu stop-work last year even though it was illegal.
          http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-bus-drivers-not-at-work-des…

        • nobarginsarehere on 19/01/2018 - 05:38
          +3

          I want the people that have hundreds of lives in their hands to be paid a good amount

          Enough so they don't feel like crashing the (profanity) into another train!

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 22:40
          -1

          @nobarginsarehere: great thing about trains is they run on tracks, and really can be easily automated like it's been proven in many cities

        • nobarginsarehere on 28/01/2018 - 03:01

          @yannyrjl: What happened if the operator decided to just ignore red lights and crash into the back of another train you dumb (profanity)?!

    • OzzyOzbourne on 18/01/2018 - 18:47

      More than the professional engineers who design the trains, who are probably only looking at a 2% rise.

      • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:05
        +1

        Yeh and those professional engineers dont work 80 hour weeks.

        • yannyrjl on 24/01/2018 - 22:40

          how do you know how many hours they work? Also do they get overtime payment?

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:16

          @yannyrjl:

          Because multiple news items have appear in multiple papers. PRetty easy to find if you just look. They give typical examples of different drivers. Even the gov isn denying that drivers work these hours, they just ignore the issue.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:42

          @ninetyNineCents: this is where our thinking really differ, having a union basically makes a group of people each with different circumstances and skills sets and applies the same treatment to them.

          Do all train staff want to strike? Do all of them feel the over-time is unacceptable? Do they have the option of not following the union line and show-up to work?

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:43

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: this is where our thinking really differ, having a union basically makes a group of people each with different circumstances and skills sets and applies the same treatment to them.

          Do all train staff want to strike?

          99: yes 3/4 of all train drivers voted to strike.

          Obviously you havent even tried to read a few articles in the media that mention these types of numbers.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:45

          @ninetyNineCents: you are proving me point, despite saying "yes", the fact is 1/4 of the drivers did not? What options do they have?

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:51

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: the fact is 1/4 of the drivers did not

          99: Thats how life is, they can make arrangements with their boss. Obviously the state didnt want to run 1/4 of all services. Almost half the country didnt vote liberal last time but they have to take the federal gov. Elections are always just a few percentage points difference.

          Not everyone buys Fosters beer, Fosters the company has to live with that and be happy with the sales they get.

          This is really pathetic i have to explain that too you.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:54

          @ninetyNineCents: You are conflating the ideas of democracy with contractual arrangements

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:56

          @yannyrjl:

          You obviously dont understand that democracy and our rights under law are above any contractual arrangement.

          THe law is king not a contract, and the law says that empl;oyees can negotiate with their employers.

        • yannyrjl on 25/01/2018 - 14:58

          @ninetyNineCents: I'm not saying they are doing is illegal, it's perfectly legal but doesn't mean it's absolutely right thing to do.

          Perfect example is carbon emission where opinions vary largely.

        • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 15:01

          @yannyrjl:

          Y: I'm not saying they are doing is illegal, it's perfectly legal but doesn't mean it's absolutely right thing to do.

          99: you are forgetting the priorities in this country… very important priorities that our ancestors did not have during the old days.

          Y: Perfect example is carbon emission where opinions vary largely.

          99: THis is so overloaded it could mean anything. Write complete sentences as i have no idea what youyr point is on this.

    • supersabroso on 18/01/2018 - 21:45

      Yes, we need more people who came from the private industry. The current lot don't understand how good they have it.

      • ninetyNineCents on 25/01/2018 - 14:18

        You do realise that private industry CHARGES more, and pays their ceos and middle and upper management EVEN more and charges the public more.

        DO i really need to give you dozens of examples ? Have you not seen what happened when the gov gave captive monopoliessuch as gas and electricity to private companies ? Do you really think a private company will charge you less because they are your friend ?

        Have you not seen what happens in America with their "non gov hospitals", they charge many many times more for practically every procedure compared to our system. They charge it because in the end sick people dont have an option, and they charge what they suck out of you.

        • supersabroso on 25/01/2018 - 18:14

          Buddy, I think you need to relax and read things properly before you blow a valve. I said more people from private need to come over. Like me, ie. Private industry employees who appreciate the public job and will fight to keep it instead of striking.

          I didn't say privatise, we want to keep it low cost for the tax payers, the Melbourne privatisation failure is example enough. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for managers to buy holiday mansions or get Christmas bonuses when the system doesn't make money.

          We have it really good here because we get paid overtime with every penalty loading and right we're possibly entitled to. However, private companies like to give time in lieu or minimal penalty rates. The lunch culture is to eat through it at your desk, however here it's actually not even allowed, no food at our work desks. It's something the public employees have taken for granted. That's why people like me who came from private appreciate the job we've been given and you won't find me supporting any industrial/strike action when a very fair 2.5%, now 3% offer is on the table.

        • ninetyNineCents on 29/01/2018 - 10:32

          @supersabroso:

          S: . That's why people like me who came from private appreciate the job we've been given and you won't find me supporting any industrial/strike action when a very fair 2.5%, now 3% offer is on the table.

          99: The problem is you are only looking at that figure and not the full picture. The value of any job isnt simply a number. For example police, nurses, fireys today are underpaid. Lets just pretend they ask for 5% or even 10%. Comparing that against 3% is still too low. You need to look at the other factors and not simply at numbers.

  • Maxxjet on 18/01/2018 - 18:23
    +3

    Can’t a court rule this illegal? My company literally must get people to work so taxi or Uber , or pay hotel for workers to stay in cbd If they wish to. Bloody costs overrun . But for one time I don’t blame the government. It is bloody greedy and shame on the union. When everyone is getting 2-3 % pay rise and inflation is 1.8% , what is the merit they want 6%? Service level great ? !

    • eagleanthony on 18/01/2018 - 18:37

      it'll attract better talent in long run when the old dogs die… or retire

      • Maxxjet on 18/01/2018 - 18:57
        +1

        I’m glad the driverless train is coming on the norwest line .

        • Mrbean007 on 18/01/2018 - 19:29
          +1

          If that's the case will fairs come down or will they just increase to cover the cost of the new trains?

    • liquid metal on 18/01/2018 - 18:52
      +16

      Train drivers have much higher wages in Melbourne and Brisbane. They also have lower costs of living there.
      If you'd understand how pay negotiations work you'd know that 6% is their first offer (no offence). However, the government decided to not negotiate and not to talk to them at all. They basically flipped them off.

      We have already very strict rules regarding industrial action in Australia. They're only allowed to strike during agreement negotiation periods. In other countries they can strike at any time. Try similar things in France. They burn down your shit if the big bosses flip them off. Not saying they should do that here (please no) but that's a quite a bit rougher than only being inconvenienced.

      Besides, have you got access to 4 weeks annual leave? Sick leave? All kinds of other leave? Unfair dismissal laws? Strict health and safety laws? Guess why you have that? Partly due to strikes and unions that fought for your dad and mum when they were young and you probably not even born (I wasn't either). We should all fight for better pay and better conditions
      Part of it is to support others in the fight. Then they'll support you. Think about it.

      I wouldn't mind 5 weeks leave and 20 sick days a year. Would you?

      • Maxxjet on 18/01/2018 - 18:59
        +1

        It’s about fairness - 2.5% is already higher than the inflation and higher than quite a few peoples pay rise this year. If the government says no pay rise or below inflation I will support their strike but 6% ? I know it’s a strategy they could settle for less but still !

        • liquid metal on 18/01/2018 - 19:26
          +8

          Again, they're paid less than drivers interstate. They get paid below market rate even though Sydney has a higher cost of living. Of course they'll settle for less but the government flipped them off hence the strike.

          If people don't get the pay rise they think they deserve, go look what's out there on the market. Most of the time a change of job leads to better pay. It's known that it's the fastest way to progress in terms of pay.

          And re fairness. That point doesn't make sense. If one group gets treated unfairly, the other one should be as well? Like we should all receive no or very little pay rises in the future? There'll always be a group of people for whom times are tough.

        • Maxxjet on 18/01/2018 - 19:53
          +2

          so I guess there is a reason they don’t move tinterstate to get higher pay ? This is a free market if you know where you can get paid more and you don’t make move , then it is your personal reason not the employers.

          And I would not call an above inflation pay rise as unfair - at the end of the day , as a publicly funded entity , their pay comes from tax payer money , if the government doesn’t have sufficient funds to cover the pay rise through normal revenue increase at commensurate rate to the economy growth rate where private sector gets pay rise or profit increase at 2-3 % , what would they do? Increase your travel costs - so the end game is, most of the workers need to pay more for train transportation , which is disproportionate to their own pay rise and economic growth. So a very small portion of the population gets above average pay rise at the expense of the majority and it is not because their skill set is hard to sought but the man made monopoly which put them there and they take advantage of it .

        • liquid metal on 18/01/2018 - 20:16
          +6

          @AllWins:

          Many of them do. They wouldn't do it if the conditions were better here. Open positions interstate are filled right away, cause of the good conditions.

          Also, the government has the funds, easily. NSW produces a massive surplus every year. FFS we're thinking about replacing only a few years old stadiums.

          I think I know what the problem is. You're pissed off cause you ain't getting a proper pay rise. Others shouldn't either. It's understandable but it fuels the raise to the bottom.

          You should be more outraged that the mgmt has received a 9% pay rise. Why aren't you?

        • whooah1979 on 18/01/2018 - 20:38
          +2

          @liquid metal:

          You should be more outraged that the mgmt has received a 9% pay rise. Why aren't you?

          sydney commuters would if management stopped working to get a pay rise and cause thousands of passengers to miss or arrive late for work.

        • liquid metal on 18/01/2018 - 21:12
          +2

          @whooah1979:

          So it doesn't matter how high their pay rise is cause their work doesn't affect anyone else? That doesn't make any sense. The mgmt gives itself 9%, the staff asks for 6 (but is for sure happy with 4) and now the staff is asking for too much cause half the population get little to no pay rises. That logic is (profanity) up.

        • whooah1979 on 18/01/2018 - 21:39
          +1

          @liquid metal:

          management get paid according to their contracts. if they performance they get paid more and if the don't then they get less.

        • Maxxjet on 18/01/2018 - 22:42

          [@liquid metal](/comment/5544526/

          So they just cannot get jobs in vic or qld quickly enough so they have no choice but stay in nsw so decide to go strike ?

          I guess you are missing the point - massive surplus is not , and cannot be a reason to pay excessive rise ,otherwise if there is a deficit would they accept a pay cut? it is the economic growth rate dicataes the pay rise rate.

          And it has nothing to do with my pay rise , individual case is not the issue here it is the majority population.

          Also no one says management getting 9 % is not problematic but it is irrelevant in this discussion . And of course it warrants a look into this however, the massive impact brought up by the strike is affecting average commuters which is problematic.

          Again, I guess really this is a supply & demand issue , if the train driver is a highly sought after labour ( as we heard about Australian pilots in great demand ) a strike to get pay would be the last option they use.

        • Repi on 18/01/2018 - 23:47
          +2

          @whooah1979: Most Sydney commuters wouldn't notice if management stopped working for 24 hours

        • liquid metal on 19/01/2018 - 05:05
          +4

          @AllWins:

          No, you argued that they don't have the money. They do have.

          And why are you ignoring that they earn much more interstate with lower cost of living? I wrote that like 3 times and you decide to just throw it out cause of reason. Of course they all can't move interstate but when there are jobs available they're likely filled by someone from NSW. If they have the chance and the means to move, they do.

          Why do NSW train driver earn less than their counterpart in QLD and NSW? Answer that question.

          And the whole point of a strike is to habe impact. You people in this country have really no clue how bad a strike can be. Just be glad they only strike for 1 day. In other countries they'd strike for as long as it is necessary.

          Re supply and demamd. You haven't got all the info it looks like. The government (profanity) up with taking in new train drivers. Overtime is almost mandatory and they're just fed up with it.

          The mgmt (profanity) up quite badly but gave themselves a 9% pay rise. How do you think does that make the workers feel?

        • abb on 19/01/2018 - 09:16

          @Repi: > Most Sydney commuters wouldn't notice if management stopped working for 24 hours

          No-one would notice if they stopped working for 24 days… And it would probably save enough money to pay the drivers whatever they want ;)

        • Tyrx on 19/01/2018 - 09:47

          Why do NSW train driver earn less than their counterpart in QLD and NSW? Answer that question.

          Militant unions in QLD and NSW drove the pay in those states up so much that the input costs for workers are now damaging service viability and quality. The NSW drivers are not being underpaid - the QLD and NSW are being overpaid. The payscales of the workers in those states do not match their productivity and financial output.

          Re supply and demamd. You haven't got all the info it looks like. The government (profanity) up with taking in new train drivers. Overtime is almost mandatory and they're just fed up with it.

          That doesn't make sense. If they hated the overtime, they would be asking for more drivers. Arguing for excessive pay rises will lead to freezes/significantly slowed down employment intakes, and that will simply worsen their situation. That might be the point of it though… Even more delicious overtime pay for them?

        • ninetyNineCents on 20/01/2018 - 18:06

          @whooah1979:

          Wahooah: management get paid according to their contracts. if they performance they get paid more and if the don't then they get less.

          99: Well sydney train drivers are driving record numbers of services. Didnt the new timetable increase services by over 20% ?

        • ninetyNineCents on 23/01/2018 - 14:12

          @Repi:

          @whooah1979: Most Sydney commuters wouldn't notice if management stopped working for 24 hours

          99: Yes they have, sydney commuters are noticing the screwed up train timetab le and complete lack of preparation with regards to insufficient train drivers.

      • [Deactivated] on 19/01/2018 - 00:15
        +3

        I've thought about it. Let's work backwards:

        Support the unions fight so they'll support me. Hmm. Maybe they can support me by getting back to job they've agreed to do in a mutually consensual employment contract they've signed.

        You're trying to make the argument that unions have done good in the past so current actions have to be good. It doesn't.

        You're trying to argue other countries have it worse with strikes so we should be so thanking the mugs who refuse to do their job in this country. Same argument - other countries have poorer work conditions. Maybe be thankful for working here?

        There are better work conditions elsewhere. Okay. Go for it.

        Striking because the government failed to negotiate? A negotiation requires both parties to have something to offer. The union wants higher pay yet offers nothing. That's extortion.

        5 weeks off? I think these union workers should take 52 off.

        • liquid metal on 19/01/2018 - 05:12
          +4

          Looks like some people are really badly brain washed by the decade long anti union sentiment in this country. If unions would suddenly disappear, say good bye to annual leave, sick leave, WHS….

          Interstate offers better conditions. Why does NSW offer less pay even though Sydney has a higher cost of living?

          What has management done to deserve a 9% pay rise? How do you think this makes the workers feel?

          They strike because the government refuses to talk and doesn't take them seriously. They strike cause they're fed up with basically mandatory overtime. They want fairer conditions and the same pay as interstate.

          Anyway, you lot don't get it. Let the race to the bottom begin.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join