- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
The failure of those major contractors - or "tier-one" contractors - to pass on the benefits of the scheme has meant many subcontractors are refusing to sign up to the NBN, while the ones that do are often far less experienced.
The lower-quality work being delivered by some less experienced subcontractors, which often needs to be rectified, and the lack of interest from subcontractors have been blamed for the delays in the rollout of the $37.4 billion network.
One telecommunications subcontractor, who declined to be named because he had signed confidentiality clauses, said an NBN Co construction partner was charging the federal government about $106 a metre for drilling, but offering subcontractors about $38 a metre.
"High gross margins are being gouged out by the big companies and are the main contributing reason for the rollout issues for the NBN," the subcontractor said.
(My bolds)DRILLING contractors Helen and Ian Murdoch have no desire to sign up for work with the National Broadband Network.
The rates offered are not even enough to cover costs.
While the federal government is paying top dollar to roll out the scheme, the handful of major contractors it has engaged are pocketing vast sums and refusing to pass on the benefits to the mum-and-dad contractors on the ground.
The failure of those companies to fully compensate sub-contractors is a key reason why the NBN rollout is behind schedule, with major contractors revising down construction estimates as they struggle to find workers.
Ms Murdoch said the going market rate for drilling pits - the trenches in which the NBN fibre cable is installed - is 40 per cent higher than that being offered by major NBN contractors. "Some people are pretty desperate for work so they're doing it but there's not enough money in it to even cover your overheads," Ms Murdoch said. "People are going to go broke. People are going to owe employees and suppliers all over the place."
She likened problems with subcontracting in the NBN to previous cases of government mismanagement, which included the Building the Education Revolution, which was plagued by over-charging of management fees by the major companies empowered to implement the $16.2 billion scheme, and the pink batts scheme, which was suddenly cancelled, leaving insulation installers stuck with large quantities of batts they had stockpiled in the expectation of extra work.
"It's going to be a vicious cycle," Ms Murdoch said.
A single disgruntled subcontractor or a further sign of broader rollout problems,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...d-for-nbn-delays/story-e6frgaif-1226631161161
It's BER rip-off all over again.
(My bolds)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-cover-our-costs/story-e6frgaif-1226630368996
You blokes are funny. Seems the NBN can't win: They're either paying too much, or not enough! You all cry for the free market, but if the "free market" means subbies aren't making enough money then the free market is broken.
Subbie work is supply and demand. If the NBN contractors aren't paying enough, then they won't get anyone to do it and they'll have to pay more. But while there are companies doing it for the offered rates, that's what the rates will be.
It's not just Govt work. I had a client that used to pay me $x for a photo job. Last year, they cut the rate to 1/2 $x. I knocked them back, and lost work for 3 months. Then they rang me back and offered 3/4 $x. Now I'm working for them again. Such is subcontract work.
Could it be that there are a few contractors out there who are finding that NBN work isn't the normal "take a regular price and double it for a Govt contract" that they were hoping for?
Subbies get screwed by the main contractors. While the big builders that were in with the unions made millions. BER contracts were a joke and they ruined a lot of young subbies.
Yes. The subbies get screwed by the main contractors. The main contractors screw NBN Co. NBN Co screws the taxpayer.
The screwed subbies are doing inferior sub-standard work.
The trail leads back to Quigley and Kaiser...Quigley who has had no experience with large scale telecommunications roll-outs and Kaiser who is a failure at quality control.
So, pray tell,
which will be the outcome under the Coalition do you think?
"So, pray tell". Hey that's cute.
:dunno: Value for money perhaps?
So explain which of the three possibilities you think will happen to achieve that.
You worry too much. Your problem is that you put your faith in Conroy. I will back Turnbull against Conroy on achieving value for money on broadband roll-out...a business man versus a union hack.
You worry too much. Your problem is that you put your faith in Conroy. I will back Turnbull against Conroy on achieving value for money on broadband roll-out...a business man versus a union hack.
Uhhuh. Details, schmetails.
You remind me of that epitome of conservative politics and integrity.
"Now...now...now... Don't you worry about that"
Here are the "details schmetails" of who is pulling the strings of the union puppets like Shorten and Combet and the man you have faith in...
View attachment 51967
I'm a little confused.
Is it a Bad Thing that representative organisations of working-class Australians are donating to a political party?
More than a little I would say.
Union membership covers only 13% of private sector employees, so they are not representative of "working-class Australians". It is interesting that the money is being donated by the union bosses and not the members. It is a bad thing, and typically Labor, that these huge sums of workers' money are being shoveled into a lost cause without any consultation.
The main reason is so that the militant unions can demand favorable treatment from a union dominated government.
More than a little I would say.
Union membership covers only 13% of private sector employees, so they are not representative of "working-class Australians". It is interesting that the money is being donated by the union bosses and not the members. It is a bad thing, and typically Labor, that these huge sums of workers' money are being shoveled into a lost cause without any consultation.
The main reason is so that the militant unions can demand favorable treatment from a union dominated government.
No consultation, huh? So union members have no say on how their funds are spent? And they have no option to cancel their membership if they disagree with how it's spent? Do they have more or less say than the shareholders of a public company that donates to a political party?
Here's a couple more questions that spring to mind:
1) If unions donate to get favourable treatment for their workers, why do you think corporations donate? Just from the goodness in their hearts?
2) In your mind it's OK for a mining company to donate to a political party, but not OK for the representative organisation of the employees of that mining company (ie: the CFMEU) to donate to the "other" political party? Please explain.
And they have no option to cancel their membership if they disagree with how it's spent?
However, in the last month or so I think you are adopting a very partisan stance. Very unlike you and making me question the independence of some of the data you produce, which I personally can't verify.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?