by frog
Just a reminder – particularly for any of you caught up in the bus strike – this is about a raise of $1.80 to the hourly wage for drivers.
$1.80 over three years, mind.
$1.80 for drivers who are reportedly on $16.75 per hour right now if they’re at the top end of the scale.
$1.80 would take them to $18.55.
$1.80 is an extra $14.40 a day or $72 a week…in three years time.
Yes, there’s 900 drivers so that’s an extra $64,800 a week for NZ Bus and, yes, the economics of bus services are not simple.
But if you’re stuck in traffic or hitching a ride or taking a long walk, have a think about where to direct your frustrations.
And think about the question Morning Report asked the Tramways Union this morning:
…in these financial times…are your members being unrealistic.
Sure, there is a recession. But financial times are tougher for some employers than others. In tough times, more people choose to take the bus or train to work, because it is cheaper, even if it might take slightly longer. So there’s no excuse for employer militancy from public transport operator employers.
My two cents worth? Yeah, $1.80 is pretty bloody realistic.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, October 8th, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
the boss-bastards are emboldened by having ‘their’ party in power..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
9 
4 (+5)
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
12 
3 (+9)
a lot of unemployed peoples’ govt payments run out/expire soon..
remind me again..
what is it people with nothing at stake/to lose often do..?
(oh..!..that’s right..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
with a long history of screwing over/exploiting their workers..
nationalise the bastards..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
Infratil is not one of them. In a recession, people tend to use public transport more. Infratil’s profits should therefore increase, especially given the taxpayer subsidy to them.
But they are playing on the recession – to the detriment of their employees – even though Infratil is financially advantaged by the recession.
Like or Dislike:
15 
2 (+13)
Scumbag maybe, but they’re not a multinational. NZ Bus is a local Wellington-based scumbag corporation, I’ll have you know!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
They’re being right scumbags here (whatever their ownership, phil u & kahikatea).
Taking advantage of what is an overall poor economy to maximise their profits at their workers’ expense.
Shame on them!
Like or Dislike:
11 
2 (+9)
Idiot Savant is right of course, the subsidy shouldn’t be paid while services are not operating – although the patronage funding component wont be. The strike would operate naturally if the subsidy was pulled, and the services were commercial not contracted – as someone else could step in and compete. I’m ambivalent about the dispute, it is between the parties, but ratepayers and road tax payers shouldn’t be up for the bill when contracted services are not delivered.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
It is a lockout. Infratil are the militants here.
I agree that the subsidy should not be paid when the services are not operating though.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1 (+14)
Strike me down with a feather! Even the NZ Herald can’t bring itself to defend NZ Bus in this dispute (although they do manage to get in a bit of a dig at the unions as well).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Are there normally a few hundred buses and drivers laying idle waiting for a lockout?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
10 
0 (+10)
Yeah – I have NO IDEA why it’s legal for the company to do this! Anyone?
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
I would direct my anger at the monopoly on public transport, legislated and encouraged by the government. The only reason that no better bus companies can start up in Auckland with better routes, cheaper rates and happier drivers is because it is ‘Illegal’ and the incumbents are being subsidized by the government, giving them no incentive to become more efficient or more sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
It seems pretty foolish to try to manage the bus-stops and routes so that companies can run duplicate services at competing prices on roads like ours. I can’t actually imagine it working. When I do imagine it, I just see a very destructive competition from which one emerges with the monopoly anyway. Maybe I am wrong, but that’s what I see as the MOST likely result.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
BJ: You mean like the trucking sector, airline sector, rental car sector and other transport operations? The rest of the transport sector thrives with vigorous competition and consumers benefit, so why not urban public transport?
It can work, Manchester demonstrates how it does, it had a shake out, but now has a vigorously competitive bus system. However a better approach would be to charge bus companies to use stops, limit the numbers when capacity is an issue, put conditions on stop use such as provision of information for users at stops, and let things run. There is, of course, no monopoly given the existence of other modes anyway. It simply requires a bit of imagination to consider how it could be allowed to work, it might transform the sector. For example, I can see off peak bus fares dropping significantly as companies utilise otherwise idle equipment.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
I have ONE road going by outside my place. There’s room for ONE bus stop. There is ONE reasonable place to expect that bus to go. There is just enough ridership to justify the bus, or maybe not quite enough… and that describes most of the possible commuter routes. Not all, but enough. Plane takes off, it can go anywhere it can reach. Trucks aren’t tied to routes… they go where their contract takes them. Rental cars go where you drive ‘em when YOU want to go. I am pointing out a difficulty, not an impossibility and but it is damned difficult. With commuter trains it is an impossibility .
I reckon this to be an unlikely method of overcoming the problems here in NZ… but if someone were to propose a method I’d not oppose it automatically. I WOULD expect a fair amount of trouble. Given the numbers of people involved, it would be difficult. The electric overhead wires complicate things but THAT can be handled… its the scheduling issues that really puzzle me. Airline routes are the closest analog, and the sorts of agreements that allow them to hammer out route allocations and takeoff slots would be applicable… but the timing for buses is much tighter, especially on peak. As I said, damned difficult… and yes I can see the possibility that there would be a benefit. Just not sure what the price tag will look like.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
To my understanding, it actually isn’t legal. Workers would have to be breaching contracts for them to be legally locked out. The industrial action proposed was to stop giving the employer slack over parts of the contract they don’t like.
NZ Bus is trying to justify it by saying that drivers refusing to drive buses not up to standard and actually taking toilet breaks will impair operations to such a degree that they can’t run the service efficiently. As far as I can see, this is just a cynical attempt to influence drivers into accepting a slower pay raise.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
Government-paid road construction and maintenance is a subsidy. Unless truckers bear the full cost of constructing and maintaining every route they use, they’re being cross-subsidised by other motorists. Truckers are every bit as subsidised as public transport is, especially as they are the ones who damage the road fastest.
Really, trucking and rail shouldn’t even be competing given the size of our market- trucks ought to be moving things to places that rail can’t, given that rail is more efficient when routes are roughly equivalent.
The airline sector has required numerous injections of cash from the government in the past in order to stay competitive, too. Your argument seems to be on very tenuous ground.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
I’m jumping into this a bit late but it seems to me that buses can be made to compete without competing in the traditional sense.
In Palmerston North we have defined routes, I am assuming that this carries to elsewhere. If the relavant city counsel were to define these routes and allow only a single bus company on any single route then the bus companies could bid for the right to provide a service on these routes. Based on the amount bid and previous service record the routes could be assigned. In this way multiple bus companies could be competing. The only thing is that for each route they have an effective monopoly. Prices could be brought into the bid to counter this.
Just a thought.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
A set minimum wage and conditions for drivers, when letting contracts to bus companies, is the only answer I can think of. If competition was introduced this would make it even more likely bus companies would cut costs by holding down drivers pay and conditions.
From my professional work I know of two bus drivers who suffer from stress because of unrealistic demands on them. For example; being expected to exceed speed limits to keep to schedule regardless of traffic conditions and the frequency of selfish buggers parking on bus stops. One has resigned.
Bus drivers get bugger all airline pilots get very high pay yet both have the safety of passengers in their hands.
A problem. We want bus fares to be low so people will use buses but the driver’s pay is a major part of the cost of running a bus. Fuel is not but is used as a reason for putting fares up – guess it is easier to persuade the public this way.
E
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)