ACTION management get their goanna out

The article in The Canberra Crimes is very far from the truth. $50,000 for an entry level trainee driver is nowhere correct and $75,000 is not common at all for any other driver, part or full time. As I’ve said elsewhere, if someone does achieve this wage it’s through a serious amount of hours put in and certainly deserves it.
I have a problem with people who wouldn’t look at a job twice but think it’s their right to say how much someone who would do it should be earning. It’s not that easy a job and not that many people these days are interested. From what I’ve heard, the latest recruitment drives have had pretty poor showings. They’d have no one if they were paying $12-$15 per hour, and rightly so.

Apologies for crap formatting.

No, Clown Killer just expects people to work for $12-$15 per hour in a job that he wouldn’t do himself for $30
I can very vaguely remember earning 30-bucks an hour in the early 90s – it wasn’t driving a bus though.
You’re absolutely right. I wouldn’t drive a bus for $30 an hour. But the comparison is meaningless. The pay you get in any job is a reflection on how hard it is to do, how hard it is to find people with the skills required (or to train them), and the costs of delivering the products associated with the job.

Now it seems that the real figures (inconveniently for the union made public in the Canberra Crimes) suggest that an entry level trainee with 18 days tuition behind the wheel can earn around $50,000 a year driving a bus in Canberra (around the same as an entry level doctor, registered nurse or fire-fighter according to The Crimes). Once you’ve got the wherewithal to drive the articulated buses your pay goes up again and it would appear that $75,000 a year isn’t too uncommon for ACTION bus drivers ‘worth a squirt of piss’.

rhino said :

BigDave said :

No, Clown Killer just expects people to work for $12-$15 per hour in a job that he wouldn’t do himself for $30.

What’s wrong with that in principle? I don’t want to personally work at mcdonalds for $8 per hour, but my younger cousin does. I wouldn’t even work there for $24 per hour, three times his pay.

and to think at maccas your probably on your feet all day rushing around, working with dangerous equipment, taking crap from the public, cleaning up the mess and having a duty of care serving food to the public.

BigDave said :

No, Clown Killer just expects people to work for $12-$15 per hour in a job that he wouldn’t do himself for $30.

What’s wrong with that in principle? I don’t want to personally work at mcdonalds for $8 per hour, but my younger cousin does. I wouldn’t even work there for $24 per hour, three times his pay.

No, Clown Killer just expects people to work for $12-$15 per hour in a job that he wouldn’t do himself for $30.

Oh, my mistake, you live for the day you can sign an AWA that guts your entitlements

AWAs were a bloody fantastic in the right circumstances – not so good in some and pretty grim in others.

And for the record: no I don’t live for the day when I can screw my people for tougher work-place conditions.

Ian said :

It would be an amazing coincidence if all the ticket machines died next week, preventing them being used. Would not surprise me if the drivers tried this. I wonder what the provisions in the legislation are for sabotaging the employer’s property during industrial action?

There is probably nothing in the Fair Work Act, but there are industrial torts at common law – basically conspiracy to cause economic damage. The legal principles are pretty employer friendly given that the cause of action originates from the early days of unionised labour.

So ACTION could potentially sue in tort if they can prove that one or more of their employees probably sabotaged the machines deliberately, and it is not otherwise protected industrial action.

bd84 said :

I would think that if the industrial action was protected (i.e. gone through the proper processes) than ACTION would unable to retaliate in any way. I would also think that if the drivers show up and perform their normal routes, then ACTION would be obliged to pay the drivers for the full amount. I don’t think there’s any agreement out there that allows an employer do dock an employees pay if they don’t collect the correct amount of money. But I could be wrong..

If the drivers really wanted to be sneaky and get around management’s demands to collect money, the ticket machines break easily, all it would take is a lot of damaged tickets getting stuck in the readers..

This is from the Fairwork Australia site:

Protected industrial action

An employer is prohibited from making payment to an employee for the total duration that the employee is engaged in protected industrial action.

However, if the industrial action is an overtime ban, employers can only withhold payment when the employer requires or requests an employee to work overtime, and the refusal is in contravention of the employee’s obligations under a contract of employment, agreement or other industrial instrument.

Employees (and employee organisations) must not ask for or accept such payment. However, where the industrial action is taken in the form of a partial work ban, proportional payment rules apply. The employer may give the employees a partial work ban notice that contains details of the proportion of the reduction in payment. Alternatively, the employer may give a notice that no payment will be made to employees during the partial work ban. The notice must further provide that the employer will not accept any work from the employee until they resume normal duties.

So if the drivers don’t collect fares, their employer is entitled to reduce their pay proportionately. Presumably the thing about 67% is the notice referred to in the quote from FWA above.

It would be an amazing coincidence if all the ticket machines died next week, preventing them being used. Would not surprise me if the drivers tried this. I wonder what the provisions in the legislation are for sabotaging the employer’s property during industrial action?

Clown Killer said :

Sounds completely reasonable. This sort of childish bullsh!t on the part of the union shouldn’t go un-punished.

I find it interesting that the bus drivers have such a grandiose sense of entitlement that they feel that they can make the community pick up the cost of their industrial action.

See if you agree when your bosss (Zed?) trys to cut your pay by 25%. Oh, my mistake, you live for the day you can sign an AWA that guts your entitlements.