More jobs derailed as Government fails to address unemployment

Slashing jobs at state-owned KiwiRail while the Government heaps pressure on unemployed people to go back to work – disconnect much?

Today’s revelation that up to 220 KiwiRail workers could lose their jobs is shocking on many levels; the loss of paid work for so many families, erosion of rail safety, and the undermining of rail as funds continue to pour into roads.

The company aims to achieve financial sustainability by 2020 but is this really the way to go?

Meanwhile the Government is implementing welfare reforms which will put pressure on young people, sole parents and widows to get work.

Funnily enough those reforms stem from a review headed by Paula Rebstock – who is also deputy chair on KiwiRail’s board of directors.

The Government has overseen rising unemployment and its only response is to blame those who can’t find a job. Looks like quite a large number of KiwiRail workers soon to be applying for benefits are also signing up to be shamed for being unemployed. It’s a no-win for them and for the economy.

5 thoughts on “More jobs derailed as Government fails to address unemployment

  1. These 220 jobs are not insignificant in terms of track maintenance and I just shudder when I think of the potential for a repeat of our biosecurity breach and Pike River. This Government never learns that such short term thinking always ends in tears and huge costs to taxpayers.

    And you are quite right on the job front, Frog, for every job that is created the Government manages to cut two. We now have over 3,000 jobs from govt departments lost and heaven knows how many others in our SOE’s. I guess if the budget balances at the end of it all…

    http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/kiwirail-job-cuts-cause-unnecessary.html

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 (+3)

  2. This Govt. claims they support public transport & creating employment, BUT this sounds more like they are moving toward reselling kiwi-rail. It is obvious that they also support the ‘law of the jungle’ (survival of the fitest). I’m convinced that they would do away with benefits, if they thought they might get away with it. They could then redirect the money toward private enterprise & more tax cuts for their rich mates !

    Kia-ora

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  3. Or maybe the government has realized that continually injecting public money into the liability known as KiwiRail is “unsustainable” and it has to live within its means.

    Maybe the Green Party could set an example by only traveling, and shipping, by rail no matter what the schedule. Gareth might be a bit upset but tell him it’s for the good of the country. Its good to set a example when telling other people what to do. Eg Len Brown isn’t setting a good example and it’s impacting on his message.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  4. It never ceases to amaze me how cutting jobs is seen as an acceptable way by companies to achieve financial stability.

    If those selfsame companies were to run themselves properly in the first place this would not need to happen.

    Basically, they are downsizing as a result of management mistakes/inability to run a profitable and sustainable business. Why do the employees have to pay for management messing up?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  5. Basically, they are downsizing as a result of management mistakes/inability to run a profitable and sustainable business. Why do the employees have to pay for management messing up?

    A true classic.

    Following this logic, the man who, with his son, three employees, fives horses and carts, delivered blocks of dry ice from the freezing works to houses for family to use in their ‘coolers’ (before the invention of the refridgerator,) should, when the market started to shrink as wealthy people purchased the electricalgadgets that didn’t need iceblocks. The fact that there wasn’t the same demand, that there wasn’t the same revenue, that there wasn’t a future for the business, none of these matter in this strange person’s mind; THE BOSS should have sold everything he had, and then robbed and plundered, so that his employees shouldn’t be put out of work.

    WHAT THIS APPROACH, IF EMBEDDED IN LAW, would mean is that Every business would be a one-man/woman business (again), and those too idle to get themself revenue would . . . . . erm . . . . well, I suppose given the source of the law, they’s be supported by welfare paid fopr by those with the gumption to do what it takes to raise their standard of living.

    But WTH, back to being the village stringer of bows for me!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>