Train Discussion Megathread - Etiquette / Strikes / Gripes

[Hacky McAxe]

They don’t “reveal” them, it just leaks out. You’ve got admin staff, payroll staff, trusted colleagues, it just takes one conversation and before long everyone knows.
I’ve never told anyone what level of pay I’m on, but everyone knows. I was told by a mate a couple of weeks ago how many ot shifts I did last year.

There was a funny psychological study I was reading a while back that found that the best way to be truly happy is if you are earning more than your colleagues. There was a famous professor in one of the US colleges (think it was Yale, maybe Stamford) that joined and said "You don't have to tell me what anyone else earns but I want to earn 10% more than the highest paid person in my department"

 

[CaptainJackson]

They don’t “reveal” them, it just leaks out. You’ve got admin staff, payroll staff, trusted colleagues, it just takes one conversation and before long everyone knows.
I’ve never told anyone what level of pay I’m on, but everyone knows. I was told by a mate a couple of weeks ago how many ot shifts I did last year.

I'd personally be pissed and make an official complaint to HR. though it does change from company to company

 

[CroydonDog]

I'd personally be pissed and make an official complaint to HR. though it does change from company to company

Complaint to HR?

In an ideal world yes, but they are working for the company, not you.

 

[Dawgfather]

It's against privacy laws to reveal employees wages

I know what you're trying to say but it's not entirely true to say that.

In some instances, it's actually a requirement under law for certain staff to have their salaries disclosed. As an example - you can go to most companies annual reports and find the salaries of everyone from the directors to the CEO and his direct reports.

 

[Bad Billy]

I'd personally be pissed and make an official complaint to HR. though it does change from company to company

Difficult, if HR are the ones leaking.

 

[Dawgfather]

I've read a few bits and pieces about this Sydney trains saga, although I don't profess to be an expert.

In general:

- A guaranteed 2.75% pay rise + free travel + $1,000 is an insanely generous proposal considering most peoples 'real' wages have gone backwards because they haven't had a pay rise in years while consumer prices have risen.
- Train drivers perform an important role in the functioning of Sydney, but at the end of the day they are unskilled and should be taking the governments offer asap.
- If train drivers want the ability to earn more lucrative rates of pay, then they need to consider privatising the train system in NSW. Otherwise, if you are paid by taxpayers, you are simply not entitled to ask for yearly increases that are beyond what the public/taxpayers can support.
- If the government negotiates an even bigger increase for train drivers, then every other union rep worth their salary is going to be in the minister's office demanding more for their members.
- The union have done an absolute 5hithouse job of selling their story to the travelling public. Is this a salary issue or is this an overtime / workplace health and safety issue? There's clearly two arguments being made but the unions are mixing the two up.
- The NSW public would be far more supportive if the union made it clear the issues are about overtime (and therefore train driver and public taxpayer safety).

I have a few contacts working as train drivers who assure me that they are in fact supportive of the excessive overtime (it allows them to earn $100,000+) in an essentially unskilled job, all the while enjoying the ability to live in Sydney (as opposed to mining employees who have to fly in fly out to very remote locations and in some cases earn far less).

My suggestion is that both the Transport Minister and Union bosses sit down and act like adults instead of bickering like kids.
- The unions should stop resorting to premature strikes (I'm supportive of a strike but only once all options are exhausted)
- The Transport Minister should actually come to the negotiation table and suggest how he's going to deal with the clear safety issues which come about from drivers working too many hours.

 

[Alan79]

I think ignorance, privilege and an "entitled" attitude comes into it as well.

For example, a lot of mine workers seem to be those against dole payments for the unemployed and union interference (surely a lot of mining companies have their propaganda distributed among their employees). In all fairness, they're over glorified labourers. Not trying to have a cheap shot at them, but the fact their work place is so remote and requires long working hours and long times spent away from families and friends, plays a massive part in these guys earning enormous amounts (compared to your average wage), they're on par with Doctors and other highly skilled professions.

But yet they see it as they chose to live remotely and they did something about it and so others should too. Well life doesn't work that way, they've clearly made a trade off to earn money by not seeing their family, that's their choice and their individual freedom. It in no way, shape or form means that other people should be forced to make the same decision.

And then coming onto the ignorance part, our welfare that we distribute among the neediest of Australians get's pumped DIRECTLY BACK INTO OUR ECONOMY, it keeps our economy going. Those people on a pittance of dole cheques cannot save that money, it's needed for absolute essentials. But yet those in professions like mining have no understanding of the economy and see these dole cheques as a burden on the economy when in fact it isn't, i.e. it pumps money straight back into the economy.

As soon as some (mainly the uneducated who are ignorant in economic principles) start earning large amounts of cash they have a "holier than thou" attitude and become "me, me, me". Then they drift onto rants about how unions make their workplace so much more difficult (again mining industry propaganda), while completely ignoring the safe working conditions that unions fight for, e.g. black lungs, who mining companies couldn't really give two stuffs about unless they were forced to by regulations

Mining industry workers should be one of the last groups to throw mud at unions. Historically speaking mines especially in remote locations used to habitually keep their workers in a poverty cycle by balancing wages with the cost of living so precisely that they could almost guarantee that every dollar their workers earned was recovered in the rents, food and clothes from the homes and stores the mine owned. It pretty much guaranteed that mine workers would only ever be able to tread water until their kids were old enough to start treading water while working in the mines too. Unions changed that and now they're one of the better paid industries and they operate with safety protocols to boot.

Even some small business owners are pretty ignorant of the most basic ideas about how the economy is kept afloat to an extent by welfare recipients. I spoke to a fish and chip shop owner at a pub who started complaining that welfare recipients were ruining the economy. I suggested that he put up a sign in his shop suggesting that dole bludgers go home and make a sandwich if he felt that way. He laughed at me and said he'd go broke if he did that. To which I replied that it's ok to take their money, but look down on them at the same time. I said to him that employed people were more likely to be buying lunch or dinner at better restaurants than were buying fish and chips and asked him if he'd like me to explain how the economy works. He fucked off pretty quickly at that point giving me the evil eye as he left. He was much happier to talk about football than to have his prejudices pointed out to him. But it's one aspect of human nature to want to make yourself feel better by looking down on others. Granted, some people are lazy pricks who would just prefer not to work, but for many it's not a choice to be out of work. And it's true that many don't grasp the idea that more unemployment will create a situation where any business that relies on cash injections for products that are even small luxuries like fish and chips shops will suffer if we abolish or reduce welfare payments.

 

[Dawgfather]

Again train drivers are being FORCED to do overtime and not take leave.

lol, no they aren't. The overtime rates allow unskilled train drivers to earn silly amounts of money, well in excess of $100k a year.

 

[CaptainJackson]

The union have done an absolute 5hithouse job of selling their story to the travelling public. Is this a salary issue or is this an overtime / workplace health and safety issue? There's clearly two arguments being made but the unions are mixing the two up.

Bullshit, who controls the media? Right wing sources. The unions aren't going to get their grievances properly messaged to the public

If train drivers want the ability to earn more lucrative rates of pay, then they need to consider privatising the train system in NSW. Otherwise, if you are paid by taxpayers, you are simply not entitled to ask for yearly increases that are beyond what the public/taxpayers can support.

Nope, nope, nope. The inefficiencies here are clearly on the minister's head

If the government negotiates an even bigger increase for train drivers, then every other union rep worth their salary is going to be in the minister's office demanding more for their members.

Slippery slope argument

The unions should stop resorting to premature strikes (I'm supportive of a strike but only once all options are exhausted)

You obviously haven't being paying attention and obviously don't know the ethos of union reps, all options were exhausted.

lol, no they aren't. The overtime rates allow unskilled train drivers to earn silly amounts of money, well in excess of $100k a year.

13 out of 14 days they are being ordered to work.

Last Thursday the whole system fell apart and operated on weekend timetables, PURELY because of a ban on overtime.

If some people want to work excessive overtime and earn over $100k a year, through excessive overtime, that's their choice

While if others want a fair work/life balance and want to forgo in between $20k to $30k in overtime payments, that's their choice too, they shouldn't be forced to under an obligation to turn up to work or the whole system falls apart.

You seem to miss that these workers are putting in their overtime to make sure the system doesn't fall apart and to help the timetable run. Meanwhile, their bosses are asking far too much of their employees and have created an absolutely shambolic timetable system

 

[Ecca]

lol, no they aren't. The overtime rates allow unskilled train drivers to earn silly amounts of money, well in excess of $100k a year.

Misinformed much?

 

[CaptainJackson]

Mining industry workers should be one of the last groups to throw mud at unions. Historically speaking mines especially in remote locations used to habitually keep their workers in a poverty cycle by balancing wages with the cost of living so precisely that they could almost guarantee that every dollar their workers earned was recovered in the rents, food and clothes from the homes and stores the mine owned. It pretty much guaranteed that mine workers would only ever be able to tread water until their kids were old enough to start treading water while working in the mines too. Unions changed that and now they're one of the better paid industries and they operate with safety protocols to boot.

Well aware of it mate. Although my stories are personal anecdotes, it seems the majority of mine workers I've met bitch and moan about unions.

And then I have another beef in that Australia should be seeing a fare share of the profit that mining generates, after all they are Australia's resources

Even some small business owners are pretty ignorant of the most basic ideas about how the economy is kept afloat to an extent by welfare recipients. I spoke to a fish and chip shop owner at a pub who started complaining that welfare recipients were ruining the economy. I suggested that he put up a sign in his shop suggesting that dole bludgers go home and make a sandwich if he felt that way. He laughed at me and said he'd go broke if he did that. To which I replied that it's ok to take their money, but look down on them at the same time. I said to him that employed people were more likely to be buying lunch or dinner at better restaurants than were buying fish and chips and asked him if he'd like me to explain how the economy works. He fucked off pretty quickly at that point giving me the evil eye as he left. He was much happier to talk about football than to have his prejudices pointed out to him. But it's one aspect of human nature to want to make yourself feel better by looking down on others. Granted, some people are lazy pricks who would just prefer not to work, but for many it's not a choice to be out of work. And it's true that many don't grasp the idea that more unemployment will create a situation where any business that relies on cash injections for products that are even small luxuries like fish and chips shops will suffer if we abolish or reduce welfare payments.

A society is measured by how it looks after it's poor. There's been countless studies that show the better off the poor in any society is, the actual richer that society is, both from an economic and moral perspective.

And as you said, there's always going to be the minority of bludgers who slip through the cracks, but key thing is they are the minority.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Complaint to HR?

In an ideal world yes, but they are working for the company, not you.

Difficult, if HR are the ones leaking.

Sorry guys, I'm blessed with a very good HR

 

[Dawgfather]

Misinformed much?

I'm always curious to learn more. Is it not true that drivers can earn over $100k once overtime is included?

I had that told to me a number of times, once from a driver himself, other times through media and other times it was told to me from friends who had been passed the info.

Would you agree that the current issues boil down to 2 themes?

1. The current offer from the government relating to the four year EBA negotiation.
2. The potential safety and driver issues relating to the train system which heavily relies on drivers accepting overtime shifts.

If we agree it's these two issues, then the debate is more likely to be productive.

 

[Dawgfather]

Bullshit, who controls the media? Right wing sources. The unions aren't going to get their grievances properly messaged to the public



Nope, nope, nope. The inefficiencies here are clearly on the minister's head



Slippery slope argument



You obviously haven't being paying attention and obviously don't know the ethos of union reps, all options were exhausted.




13 out of 14 days they are being ordered to work.

Last Thursday the whole system fell apart and operated on weekend timetables, PURELY because of a ban on overtime.

If some people want to work excessive overtime and earn over $100k a year, through excessive overtime, that's their choice

While if others want a fair work/life balance and want to forgo in between $20k to $30k in overtime payments, that's their choice too, they shouldn't be forced to under an obligation to turn up to work or the whole system falls apart.

You seem to miss that these workers are putting in their overtime to make sure the system doesn't fall apart and to help the timetable run. Meanwhile, their bosses are asking far too much of their employees and have created an absolutely shambolic timetable system

Calling something a slippery slope argument does not negate the fact that it's a valid argument. Any reasonable person would not want the unions having power to bring public infrastructure to a halt, especially when there is a good offer on the table from the government.

I'd be more on the train drivers side if they wanted more money AND were stating a case for how they are going to be more productive AND provide more services to the community.

Also - can someone explain - are drivers legally bound to do overtime as soon as they're asked? Surely it's just an offer to work overtime and there are no repercussions if they choose not to?

 

[Bad Billy]

Sorry guys, I'm blessed with a very good HR

Our girls are pretty good too.
Problem is, I tend to get on with them, I’m not faceless, so things I get up to, tend to be gossiped about.
I don’t care anyway. I feel I’m adequately remunerated for what I do, if others get cut, they should apply for my job.

 

[Alan79]

Misinformed much?

I've read that despite the weekend schedule after the strike was vetoed by the fair work commission that many drivers were still at work but forced to sit round in lunchrooms by management. This is just something that filtered through my facebook feed so I don't know if it's truth or not. Perhaps you can enlighten us.

If that was the case it goes to show that some of CaptainJacksons arguments are well supported. If this was the case management was manipulating public opinion against the drivers and this side of things was ignored by the media. One of the tools Unions used to have in their favor was the media, but during Howards time in government the media rules were changed to allow mass ownership of media outlets by rich right wing supporters and since that time the media has largely been one sided in their representation of arguments like this. I recall reading an article where Kerry Packer did his best to manipulate public opinion to get Abbott into power. I even recall a front page article in the lead up to his election win that had a photo of abbott with the heading along the lines of 'Australia needs Tony". Pretty blatant example of how their political affiliations stand. Many people are duped by things like this. If something like this is used to generate poorer perception about the Bulldogs I see an uproar on here, but people these days largely ignore politics, so the large media outlets can do thigs like this without recrimination.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Calling something a slippery slope argument does not negate the fact that it's a valid argument. Any reasonable person would not want the unions having power to bring public infrastructure to a halt, especially when there is a good offer on the table from the government.

Nope I called your inference that if the rails union won this against the transport minister, you claimed that other unions would also act and it would become a widespread problem.

That's what I called a slippery slope argument, read your posts.

I'd be more on the train drivers side if they wanted more money AND were stating a case for how they are going to be more productive AND provide more services to the community.

LOL, are you serious? So you want every profession to justify to the public why they should receive more money and that they'd show more productivity? What meds are you on? LOL

 

[Dawgfather]

Nope I called your inference that if the rails union won this against the transport minister, you claimed that other unions would also act and it would become a widespread problem.

That's what I called a slippery slope argument, read your posts.



LOL, are you serious? So you want every profession to justify to the public why they should receive more money and that they'd show more productivity? What meds are you on? LOL

Are you saying that the State's finances have absolutely no part to play in the calculation of whether pay rises should be awarded and if they are, how large they should be?

Even you aren't silly enough to go down that path.

 

[CaptainJackson]

If that was the case it goes to show that some of CaptainJacksons arguments are well supported. If this was the case management was manipulating public opinion against the drivers and this side of things was ignored by the media. One of the tools Unions used to have in their favor was the media, but during Howards time in government the media rules were changed to allow mass ownership of media outlets by rich right wing supporters and since that time the media has largely been one sided in their representation of arguments like this. I recall reading an article where Kerry Packer did his best to manipulate public opinion to get Abbott into power. I even recall a front page article in the lead up to his election win that had a photo of abbott with the heading along the lines of 'Australia needs Tony". Pretty blatant example of how their political affiliations stand. Many people are duped by things like this. If something like this is used to generate poorer perception about the Bulldogs I see an uproar on here, but people these days largely ignore politics, so the large media outlets can do thigs like this without recrimination.

Rupert Murdoch owns News Ltd and Sky news, Kerry Packer used to own Channel 9, Kerry Stokes owns channel 7, and the ABC has been severely muzzled by the current LNP government.

These are all right wing ideologues, except the ABC, which has had it's balanced reporting cracked down on.

The front page Newspaper you're talking about is News Ltd, who also had a front page of the Labor Government in Nazi uniforms on it's front pages (back in the days of Rudd and Gillard).

News Ltd has 70% of the market share, now this doesn't mean they own 70% of print media in Australia, but rather that of the market share, News Ltd publications are the most popular and 70% of the market goes to them.

News Ltd is a straight out and out LNP mouth piece, there's no ifs, no buts, no maybes.

If you think unions are going to get a fair go outside of ABC or SBS, you're living in fairy land

 

[CaptainJackson]

Are you saying that the State's finances have absolutely no part to play in the calculation of whether pay rises should be awarded and if they are, how large they should be?

Even you aren't silly enough to go down that path.

Where have you gathered I said that? I didn't even allude to it, but basically, it's NOT YOUR BUSINESS. This is in between the transport minister and the unions. If railworkers are expecting too large an increase, then it is up to the State government to make this known to the workers.

Where are you when pollies line their own pockets? Where are you when corporations get a massive tax cut? Where are you when Gina Reinhardt has her mining company MASSIVELY subsidized by taxpayers?