Anyone else stranded by the ACTION bus drivers' meeting?

CanberraGirl19 said :

It’s not like this was a last minute thing that they didn’t warn anyone about, there was plenty of time to arrange alternative transport if you absolutely had to be somewhere. How selfish of them to arrange to have a meeting about something that will affect their jobs for the next couple of years during the middle of the day (when it would affect the fewest people possible). Hopefully they will check with the precious, delicate little flowers at ANU before they pull a stunt like this next time.

Did you even bother to read the original post?

The OP said busses didn’t run between 9 and 10 in addition to the official 10-12 stoppage. This was not advised.

It was bad enough that they organised it during the peak time for people travelling to exams, much less that buses knocked off earlier than advised.
And the drivers kick up this fuss over negotiations often, over negotiations lasting months for a deal lasting a year or two. It didn’t have to be this week.

As for your vitriolic reference to “precious, delicate little flowers at ANU”, your bitterness is noted and understandable. After all, someone who graduates from Uni will statistically earn more over their life than someone who doesn’t and contribute more to society according to the OECD. Nice to see CanberraGirl19 not only can’t read but suffers tall poppy syndrome too.

creative_canberran said :

KB1971 said :

Point taken.

On your last point, that is the point of industrial action. It inconvenience/embarrass your employer forcing their hand to negotiate your way.In a way though, they did consider the general public by having their meeting in the low traffic period of the day for most people.

Man there would have been an uproar if it had been scheduled between 3 & 5 pm on a weekday …………… 🙂

That’s true. Difference though is holding people up in general is unlikely to cause any major problem. A bit late to work or a meeting missed that can be rescheduled.
Holding someone up from getting to an exam is very serious. Most exams are compulsory, not attending means an automatic course fail (NCN). The ANU does not accept public transport issues as reasonable grounds to set aside a fail for exam non attendance. So this could have caused people to fail courses.

It’s not like this was a last minute thing that they didn’t warn anyone about, there was plenty of time to arrange alternative transport if you absolutely had to be somewhere. How selfish of them to arrange to have a meeting about something that will affect their jobs for the next couple of years during the middle of the day (when it would affect the fewest people possible). Hopefully they will check with the precious, delicate little flowers at ANU before they pull a stunt like this next time.

KB1971 said :

Point taken.

On your last point, that is the point of industrial action. It inconvenience/embarrass your employer forcing their hand to negotiate your way.In a way though, they did consider the general public by having their meeting in the low traffic period of the day for most people.

Man there would have been an uproar if it had been scheduled between 3 & 5 pm on a weekday …………… 🙂

That’s true. Difference though is holding people up in general is unlikely to cause any major problem. A bit late to work or a meeting missed that can be rescheduled.
Holding someone up from getting to an exam is very serious. Most exams are compulsory, not attending means an automatic course fail (NCN). The ANU does not accept public transport issues as reasonable grounds to set aside a fail for exam non attendance. So this could have caused people to fail courses.

“Anyone else caught out by this morning’s disruption?”

No.. but I’m still waiting for my light rail train to EPIC.

creative_canberran said :

KB1971 said :

Who answer to the transport minister, not the public 😉

Doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility.

KB1971 said :

My whole point originally was that Creative Canberrans OP about ACTION divers alienating the general public because they are subservient is demeaning and incorrect. While he did not directly say it, the insinuation certainly was there.

(noun) – a person holding a government office or job by election or appointment; person in public service.

Nothing subservient about the job nor implied in my post. “Public Servant” is distinct from the word “servant” alone in dictionaries and usage.

It’s worth noting that for a good portion of the twentieth century, ambulance drivers were just that… drivers. They only evolved into paramedics more recently. In both guises, public servants providing an essential service to the public.

ACTION drivers should of course feel free to take industrial action to achieve their objectives, but they must balance that with the needs of the community they serve. Exams finish in a week and break begins… they couldn’t wait?

Point taken.

On your last point, that is the point of industrial action. It inconvenience/embarrass your employer forcing their hand to negotiate your way.In a way though, they did consider the general public by having their meeting in the low traffic period of the day for most people.

Man there would have been an uproar if it had been scheduled between 3 & 5 pm on a weekday …………… 🙂

KB1971 said :

Who answer to the transport minister, not the public 😉

Doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility.

KB1971 said :

My whole point originally was that Creative Canberrans OP about ACTION divers alienating the general public because they are subservient is demeaning and incorrect. While he did not directly say it, the insinuation certainly was there.

(noun) – a person holding a government office or job by election or appointment; person in public service.

Nothing subservient about the job nor implied in my post. “Public Servant” is distinct from the word “servant” alone in dictionaries and usage.

It’s worth noting that for a good portion of the twentieth century, ambulance drivers were just that… drivers. They only evolved into paramedics more recently. In both guises, public servants providing an essential service to the public.

ACTION drivers should of course feel free to take industrial action to achieve their objectives, but they must balance that with the needs of the community they serve. Exams finish in a week and break begins… they couldn’t wait?

Very Busy said :

KB1971 said :

I might add, nowhere in this document does it refer to “servant”:

KB1971 said :

(a) service to the public;

I think you’re struggling here KB

Servant – 1.One who serves, or does services, voluntarily or on compulsion; a person who is employed by another for menial offices, or for other labor, and is subject to his command; a person who labors or exerts himself for the benefit of another, his master or employer; a subordinate helper.

So, when you employ someone to say, repair your car, he then becomes your servant? He has no rights?

By your logic then anybody who voluntarily does paid work for someone else is a servant? In these days of equal oppourtunity that certainly doesnt fly. Labelling someone a servant can be demeaning & that is why you do not see it in any of the legislation.

My whole point originally was that Creative Canberrans OP about ACTION divers alienating the general public because they are subservient is demeaning and incorrect. While he did not directly say it, the insinuation certainly was there.

I have worked on both sides of the fence and when I was in private enterprise in had the same veiw as Creative Canberran, I now see both sides since working for the ACT & now Australian Governments. Yep, its a different world but that is how its run.

KB1971 said :

I might add, nowhere in this document does it refer to “servant”:

KB1971 said :

(a) service to the public;

I think you’re struggling here KB

Servant – 1.One who serves, or does services, voluntarily or on compulsion; a person who is employed by another for menial offices, or for other labor, and is subject to his command; a person who labors or exerts himself for the benefit of another, his master or employer; a subordinate helper.

I have found the document you quoted & I think what it is trying to do is indicate to any prospective employee that they are employed by the government & that ACTION is a department of the ACT Public Sector if there was any confusion of that fact.

KB1971 said :

creative_canberran said :

KB1971 said :

creative_canberran said :

Hey, I drive, doesn’t effect me.

Bus drivers are public servants, they do themselves no favours by alienating the public.

Correction, they are government employees, they are employed to perform a task set out in government policy.

They’re public servants.

Conditions of employment:
“Successful applicants will be employed as ACT Public Servants and work under the conditions of the Public Sector Management Act and the ACTION Certified Agreement, which is available from http://www.action.act.gov.au“

Section B of the ACTION Collective Agreement states: “A person will be engaged under the Public Service Management Act…”

You will note that ACTION drivers are “employed as ACT Public Servants”.

Who answer to the transport minister, not the public 😉

I might add, nowhere in this document does it refer to “servant”:

http://www.sharedservices.act.gov.au/docs/agreements/ACTION_Collective_Agreement_2007.pdf

Nor in the PSM:

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-37/current/pdf/1994-37.pdf

Values and principles
Government agencies shall have an objective of implementing the
following values and principles:
(a) service to the public;
(b) responsiveness to—
(i) the requirements of the government; and
(ii) the needs of the public;
(c) accountability to the government for the ways in which
functions are performed;
(d) fairness and integrity;
(e) efficiency and effectiveness.

A government employee is employes to perform duties for the Government.Part of the duties of a government employee is to give a service to the public, not to be a servant to the public, this is based on government policy. The government is required to have public transport (due to the needs of the community) and ACTION are the administrators of that requirement.

If in their blurb to get employees into ACTION say they are “public servants” then that is a faux par on behalf of the person who wrote that blurb. I suggest they need some legislation training.

BTW, your link is generic & with the quick search I did I could not find the words you quoted. Regardless of that the two official documents I have linked take precedence over any non gazetted piece of literature.