Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal

[noco]

What you're proposing sounds a lot like Communist VN and Communist China to me noco.

Buyer beware; Let the entrepreneurs do their things without red tapes and regulations and the results will be cheaper goods, more flexibility... OR, or cancer, early deaths, illness, poisoning... or cheaper goods.

Take a trip to VN or China and see what an unregulated market does to consumers.

I really cannot see the relevance to Communism..I think you are getting a bit carried away with yourself......

BTW...I have been to China in 1987.

Of course you have to regulations and we do have plenty here in Australia and under Labor there was plenty of RED TAPE.:topic

 

[luutzu]

I really cannot see the relevance to Communism..I think you are getting a bit carried away with yourself......

BTW...I have been to China in 1987.

Of course you have to regulations and we do have plenty here in Australia and under Labor there was plenty of RED TAPE.:topic

Didn't you say that? Communism (and Labour etc.) regulate business and people (to death, presumably)?

It is called free enterprise Tisme.......If you want all those rules, protection and regulations you seek then vote Labor, Green, Democratic Socialism, Communism or what ever you like to call it.

There aren't much enforcement of food safety, worker safety, health, environmental and other red tapes there.

Ask how the consumers are doing.

 

[noco]

Didn't you say that? Communism (and Labour etc.) regulate business and people (to death, presumably)?



There aren't much enforcement of food safety, worker safety, health, environmental and other red tapes there.

Ask how the consumers are doing.

Of course we have to have business regulations in moderation but the Labor Party go to extremities and that is why the Liberal Government abolished some 20,000 of Labor's RED TAPE regulations on business to cut down on unnecessary costs.

There is a difference luutzu.

 

[luutzu]

Of course we have to have business regulations in moderation but the Labor Party go to extremities and that is why the Liberal Government abolished some 20,000 of Labor's RED TAPE regulations on business to cut down on unnecessary costs.

There is a difference luutzu.

All costs could be considered unnecessary.

Take union representation... why the unnecessary costs to have some group represents your interests when you could just walk into the boss' office and chit chat a bit for your rights, fair wages, safer condition, maybe insurance...

Saw some case in the US where some employee who isn't in a union are forced by the union to pay a fee to them because she "indirectly" benefit from their work - what with them demanding that all employee in her field be paid this and that, have this and that conditions. She didn't want it, but if it's there she takes it but won't pay for it.

Interesting to see if those conditions are still around if the unions aren't fighting for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all unions are good and honest... just you need an extra pair of eyes and ears looking after your interests somewhat. God knows the politicians aren't much into it now. And the bosses... well there's the Seven Eleven cases right?

 

[macca]

<<Don't depend on consumer protection, safety rules and no government protection....We go into business to make a profit and it is pretty obvious you know very little about the way a business operates


Hang that out the front of your business and see how you go.

The Creed of the Ripoff Artist. >>>>

Not sure what this post has to do with this thread, me or Noco ?????

Like Noco I also managed and owned various small businesses. It took hard work and honest dealings and we became a big fish in the small pond of our industry in our area. We were very well respected with a good rapport with both our customers and suppliers.

To this day 15 years later, we still have people say that "we loved going to your place, it was never the same after you sold it"

To be able to compete with the likes of KMart and Big W it was necessary for us to be more knowledgeable about our products but we also had to be able to compete on price. If it was back in the days of fixed RRP we may have never gotten established as we used discounting to build our customer base.

My point with the truck owners is just that point, we got going by working harder for less money until we built a reputation and become established, surely everyone is entitled to that opportunity ?

 

[SirRumpole]

<<Don't depend on consumer protection, safety rules and no government protection....We go into business to make a profit and it is pretty obvious you know very little about the way a business operates


Hang that out the front of your business and see how you go.

The Creed of the Ripoff Artist. >>>>

Not sure what this post has to do with this thread, me or Noco ?????

I was referring to noco and his "buyer beware" philosophy. If I saw a sign like that outside a business I would move on, but I suspect noco wouldn't have the guts to actually tell his customers what he thought of them.

Glad you seem to have more ethics when it comes to running a business.

 

[SirRumpole]

My point with the truck owners is just that point, we got going by working harder for less money until we built a reputation and become established, surely everyone is entitled to that opportunity ?

Up to a point as long as they conform to reasonable safety legislation which includes a limit to the amount of continuous time they can spend at the wheel so they don't become a danger to others.

At some point people have to realise that the trucking sector is over serviced and if they can't make a living and keep their families properly then they should be in another business.

 

[noco]

I was referring to noco and his "buyer beware" philosophy. If I saw a sign like that outside a business I would move on, but I suspect noco wouldn't have the guts to actually tell his customers what he thought of them.

Glad you seem to have more ethics when it comes to running a business.

Oh come on now Rumpy, you are clutching at straws to make that stupid statement.......I, or any other small business would not dream of hanging out your fantasy sign on the door.

That "BUYER BEWARE" is not my philosophy but a saying that has been around since Adam was a boy...My philosophy has always been to seek 3 prices when involving yourself in something major......House painting, plumbing, electrical, lawyers, real estate agents, vehicle repairs and maintenance, buying a new bed, refrigerator, washing machine TV.......Do I need to give you more examples or are you starting to finally get my drift?

You are looking for a house to live in...do you buy the first house you look at and pay the asking price?

As Macca says, you go into business to make a profit and if you want to work 12 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week, you can without the bloody unions breathing down your neck.:topic

The same applies to owner truck drivers.

 

[noco]

A good truckie rally in Canberra today...didn't see any union leaders there trying bash the truckies....I think they were wise to stay away.....The truckies might have roughed them up instead.

They certainly told Shorten what he can do with his tribunal.....What a joke he turned out to be.

 

[Tisme]

Mr WhenIwazzaboy wants freedom to do whatever he likes, so long as it's regulated to whatever he deems acceptable to him.

The landscape of business in Oz has changed markedly over the last 25 where medium business has become a project manager and the workforce is subcontract. The benefit to this is reduction of overheads with the sole trader sub contractors the new hand to mouth poor, unable to carry the cost of appropriate oncosts.

Invariably the inability to run a business profitably results in frustration with the system, the unfairness shoutout, the fault of organised workers as the route cause (apparently better wages and conditions gives an unfair advantage of competition, the big brother red tape, the sick of carrying you b4stards anger.

If miserable grown men can't leave their boy years behind them and want to play Tonka Trucks instead, they should at least learn (to the best of their intellectual ability) some basics of business and the traditional role of husband and father to provide and better theirs and their family's lives.

And what is with the "freedom" of free enterprisers gathering together as a union to protest against legislation?

Poor buggers actually think the LNP gives a toss about them without the election cycle in play.

 

[noco]

What a great deal for the Labor Party..Gillard gives $220,000 of tax payers money to the TWU which in turn is fed back to the Labor Party.
And Shorten backs the whole dirty deal.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r/news-story/4c3966bad21a8130c3d6bf3c63548de4

The Transport Workers Union was paid $220,000 out of taxpayer funds to raise awareness of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in a deal overseen by the former workplace relations minister Bill Shorten after the union successfully lobbied federal Labor to set up the body.

The payment to the TWU to devise an “education and communication strategy” came in 2013, a year after Julia Gillard set up the tribunal, which now faces abolition by the Turnbull government.

Malcolm Turnbull is today expected to introduce into parliament legislation scrapping the tribunal after addressing a rally of truck owner-drivers in Canberra yesterday, where he branded the tribunal a “rotten deal” between the former Labor government and the TWU under the “pretext of safety”.

The Fair Work Ombudsman, a government agency, was given a $5.4 million budget to establish the tribunal’s “education and compliance” activities. It made the $222,224 payment to the TWU and paid a similar sum to an employer group, the Australian Road Transport Industry Organisation.

 

[Tisme]

Malcolm Turnbull is today expected to introduce into parliament legislation scrapping the tribunal after addressing a rally of truck owner-drivers in Canberra yesterday, where he branded the tribunal a “rotten deal” between the former Labor government and the TWU under the “pretext of safety”.

I am assuming that there is some inference that "pretext" is to be confused with "pretense" ?

Next truck that wipes out a whole family, I'm also assuming it will have nothing to do with sleep deprivation, dodgy logs and poor maintenance of the truck and its driver, but actually Bill Shorten's fault because he's the Labor leader? No way would it be the sacred cow LNP's bad and popularist management.

Actually I hope what's left of that family sues the pants of whatever BS consultant the LNP uses to justify its reckless care of our road users.

 

[SirRumpole]

Here is something for noco to read, although I doubt he will or he'll say it's just another Fabian conspiracy.

Verdict

Albanese was correct. There is persuasive evidence of a connection between truck driver pay and safety. – Michael Quinlan

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-better-pay-rates-for-truck-drivers-improve-safety-57639

 

[Tisme]

Here is something for noco to read, although I doubt he will or he'll say it's just another Fabian conspiracy.



https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-better-pay-rates-for-truck-drivers-improve-safety-57639

It's just common sense that putting drivers under the constant duress of poverty and bills is not good for safety.

It's not like truck driving has the opportunity to be an innovative activity, like say a Dick Smith.

 

[noco]

I am assuming that there is some inference that "pretext" is to be confused with "pretense" ?

Next truck that wipes out a whole family, I'm also assuming it will have nothing to do with sleep deprivation, dodgy logs and poor maintenance of the truck and its driver, but actually Bill Shorten's fault because he's the Labor leader? No way would it be the sacred cow LNP's bad and popularist management.

Actually I hope what's left of that family sues the pants of whatever BS consultant the LNP uses to justify its reckless care of our road users.

You say "the next truck that wipes out a whole family"?????...........why are you so sure that an accident of that magnitude would be the truck drivers fault when perhaps it could be the driver of the family car who has gone to sleep at the wheel and strayed onto the wrong side of the road into the path of an oncoming semitrailer....I think you are too quick to blame the truck driver.

 

[noco]

Here is something for noco to read, although I doubt he will or he'll say it's just another Fabian conspiracy.



https://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-better-pay-rates-for-truck-drivers-improve-safety-57639

Rumpy, contrary to your assertion, I did read your link from A to Z.

Firstly, we have Albanese making a statement backed up by another Labor boy Brendan O'connor who is the brother of union leader Michael O'Connor...A great biased combination for a start.

Then you rely upon FACT CHECK which is part of the Labor Party controlled ABC which in many cases exaggerates much of their reporting...A lot of emphasis was placed on some American reports.

Then you have Price Waterhouse who seem to have mixed feeling about it all.

But the most important people who are being ignored by the Labor Party and the unions are the Mum and Dad owner truck drivers who have borrowed to buy their rigs, who have to pay registration, insurance and maintenance.....They are in that business to earn a living and receive a reasonable return for their investments.

Perhaps FACT CHECK should look a little further into the hidden agenda of the Labor Party and the unions....The hidden agenda of course is to boost the coffers of the TWU who in turn provide desperate funds for the Labor Party just like the $220,000 taxpayers money Gillard gave to the TWU which eventually would have found it's way back to the Labor Party.

This safety factor the unions and Labor keep using is nothing more than a cloud cover.....The money that was supposed to used for safety over the last 3 years has never eventuated.

 

[SirRumpole]

But the most important people who are being ignored by the Labor Party and the unions are the Mum and Dad owner truck drivers who have borrowed to buy their rigs, who have to pay registration, insurance and maintenance.....They are in that business to earn a living and receive a reasonable return for their investments.

This Fact Check was done by The Conversation which is not part of the ABC.

If I was a Mum and Dad trucking business I would be grateful for a minimum payment for my services so I would not have to bust my ass on the roads and would be able to see my family more often. That would help me get a reasonable return on my business more than a no holds barred lowest bid gets the job arrangement.

The reason we have a minimum wage is to stop people being exploited, but I suppose you would like to see that go too ?

 

[ghotib]

FWIW, I half heard a radio discussion some days ago which included a rural senator - I think Bill Heffernan but I'm not certain - and some truckies whose business was primarily stock transport from the Riverina and northern Victoria. The truckies were very much opposed to the tribunal, but their problem wasn't rates. It was the way they believed they were obliged to charge. eg:

1. One farmer doesn't have a full load and offers a neighbour the excess space. Both had to be charged for the full load.

2. A one-way load has to be charged for the two-way trip, even if the truckie has a backload.

It didn't make much sense to me and I might well have misheard as well as half heard it. But it left me with the impression that the needs of truckies who subcontract to the big companies are quite different from those of true independents.

The independents are dealing with businesses on the same scale and on roughly equal terms.

The subbies are really casual employees who are required to carry the risks and costs that would more reasonably (and cheaply) be carried by their employers. They're not alone in that, but the costs to them must be among the highest in the increasingly casualised workforce. It's a cruel fantasy to call them businesses and expect them to negotiate with, say, Colesworths.

 

[noco]

This Fact Check was done by The Conversation which is not part of the ABC.

If I was a Mum and Dad trucking business I would be grateful for a minimum payment for my services so I would not have to bust my ass on the roads and would be able to see my family more often. That would help me get a reasonable return on my business more than a no holds barred lowest bid gets the job arrangement.

The reason we have a minimum wage is to stop people being exploited, but I suppose you would like to see that go too ?

These blokes don't want a minimum payment FFS......They have a large investment and seek a good return on that investment.

The Mum and Dad truckies want to earn a good return for their efforts.....To be able to own a nice house, to educate their kids, to provide for their retirement with a good super.

How are they supposed to do that on a minimum rate......Some people have no idea how to run a business including the majority of the Labor Party who are ex union hacks.

Your argument does not hold water and the truckies would think the same way.

 

[SirRumpole]

FWIW, I half heard a radio discussion some days ago which included a rural senator - I think Bill Heffernan but I'm not certain - and some truckies whose business was primarily stock transport from the Riverina and northern Victoria. The truckies were very much opposed to the tribunal, but their problem wasn't rates. It was the way they believed they were obliged to charge. eg:

1. One farmer doesn't have a full load and offers a neighbour the excess space. Both had to be charged for the full load.

2. A one-way load has to be charged for the two-way trip, even if the truckie has a backload.

It didn't make much sense to me and I might well have misheard as well as half heard it. But it left me with the impression that the needs of truckies who subcontract to the big companies are quite different from those of true independents.

The independents are dealing with businesses on the same scale and on roughly equal terms.

The subbies are really casual employees who are required to carry the risks and costs that would more reasonably (and cheaply) be carried by their employers. They're not alone in that, but the costs to them must be among the highest in the increasingly casualised workforce. It's a cruel fantasy to call them businesses and expect them to negotiate with, say, Colesworths.

It's a complex industry and I wouldn't want government to micro manage the businesses of owner drivers but I would expect governments to ensure (somehow) that they were safe to drive on the roads and that would mean that they made enough money so they didn't have to spend long hours on the roads, drive at high speeds, take drugs or not maintain their vehicles.

It's all very well for the government to extoll the virtues of mum and dad businesses, but if at the same time the government is facilitating their exploitation it all rings rather hollow.