The Government rejected the RTBU’s very reasonable (imho) 14.5% pay rise over 4 years. Disappointingly arbitration and legal action will continue. I suspect the case to permanently halt PIA will fail (again).
I believe the government offered 13.5% over 4 years which is higher than given to police and health workers ( I could be incorrect about being higher). I was a member of the RTBU for almost 50 years and many times the arbitration court made a decision that left us worse off than the government's proposals. I also know a number of train drivers who have received as high as $180,000 with klm and distance allowances. The union demands for increased overtime can only be achieved with staff cuts and long delays which already happens due to union directives outside of any industrial action. Union membership is declining because of the removal of compulsory membership in order to retain a job. Non members benefit from any agreements as much as members do and without paying union dues. I think it's laughable that they want a qualified driver at the front of the Metro trains even though they won't be driving especially as the union approved the driverless trains initially. I am all for unions but the RTBU are totally out of line with their current demands which are costing we taxpayers millions of dollars during their protracted disputes which commenced in 2019 with the arrival of the Dsets. I am impressed with your presentation and I think you would be a great negotiator for the union if and when you are old enough.
Strikes are Painful. It's not RTBU that doing it BUT ETU last time check. from Queensland, There is a point, I think we are this Point that Both Parties need to sit in a Room at fair and not be allowed out until a Deal/order is done
Thanks for this video. The Metro emergency procedures are as you described. If a train has to stop, emergency services and staff get on at nearest station, and the "rescue" train moves up to same location in adjacent tunnel, or nose to nose. There are multiple redundancy levels of power and computer systems, and an hour or so of battery backup on each set. The staff members on each train or station are usually very happy to have a chat and are really good with the public. Cheers
As a former inspector at the Fair Work Ombudsman, I get the unions can and should have industrial action. I mean i was a former delegate with the CPSU at FWO. I believe in unions. My issue mainly is with what you said. The unions continual blame game its the government fault for everything when realistically its also their fault but they are trying to keep the public on their side but this has begun to wait quite a bit. What I also find a bit hypocritical, that they want investment in public transport but continually somewhat hamper this. Furthermore, whilst I get they want the clauses the government wants to remove or amend, technically FWC can remove these under forced arbitration. Why? Well because these clauses fall outside the Fair Work Act and whilst included in the current or previous eba's they don't have to be included in the new agreement. I think the 8% is also too high and I think the rbtu needs to adjust their views on this. It's negotiations and compromises but it's seems the rbtu and combined unions don't want to compromise and expect the government to. This in my opinion is absolutely wrong and they need to adjust and read the temp of the public as the tide is turning against the unions big time
I am in total agreement that RTBU and other unions have overstayed their welcome a while ago but they don’t seem to realise it. Government controls the media and controls the narrative. It’s an uphill battle for them at this point and things may not go the way they wanted initially. “Take what you have right now or risk losing everything”. That’s what union is facing and I am not sure if they can get away with whatever mess created this time.
This is a very good and well balanced video! I agree with most of your points. I do think there is still a case for conductors on trains rather than DOO from a emergency standpoint, so that the responsibility and workload isn’t solely on the driver. Better to have an extra pair of hands you know? But your point how (proper) CCTV can eliminate injury is definitely valid and makes sense why DOO would be better! Apologies if I got any info wrong or if it’s outdated, just going off of memory from what I heard about DOO lol
I was discussing the change from safe working guard to a roaming customer service guard. There would have still been 2 people on the train (which I support for intercity/regional services). Suburban could probably do with DOO.
Thanks for the video. Personally I believe however the '35 hour work-week' as well as '10 ADO's accrual' is to be more aligned with Transport For NSW staff members. Current employees within Transport are already contracted for 35 hour work weeks whilst Sydney Train's employees are contracted for 38 hour work weeks. Transport employees also receive additional leave entitlements during christmas. Whilst on paper these are the contracted working hours there are plenty of employees within both the operating agency Sydney Trains and within Transport that would always be completing more hours than required in order to complete their work. The 32% payrise was also pitched at the beginning of the negotiations (which started after the agreement expired) around 9 months ago. This was solely to start getting the dollar figure conversation started with Sydney Trains management. Agreed 32% was never achievable but also the unions knew that as well however it was recommended as a conversation starter before finessing the final numbers. The latest offer from the CRU was 11%+ super over 3 years with no removal of the 35A clause however was also rejected by the government. The risk assessment process clause 35A was also brought in after the debacle where the prior LNP government ordered the NIF trains which were not fit for purpose for our networks platforms, tunnels and bridges and did not consult any subject matter experts within their relative engineering framework namely all design disciplines within Sydney Trains. As a result, tunnel widening and other engineering recommendations were implemented to alleviate Transports hastened procurement contracts. Without this clause, all projects past/present/future will essentially skip consultation to 'push through' decisions by excluding union (or nominated subject matter expert) consultation. The current view of Transport for NSW is that the union (and by association - Sydney Trains employees) hold up Transport projects (past and present) including Transport Access Programs, More Trains More Service Programs, NIF etc. Additionally from experience it is always Sydney Trains as the operator and maintainer that has to come back and fix various issues that Transport and their associative contractors have failed to address after projects are completed. Full disclosure, I am an employee within Sydney Trains Engineering & Maintenance. Prior to this I worked in private sector for various engineering companies. I also agree that both sides have played games and as a result the general public has been offered as collateral. It is all just a big waste of taxpayer money and ultimately the general public are the ones who suffer in the end.
The D set loading gauge was spun up by labor media- it was always going to be an issue locally made or not as the trains needed to be wide to fit platforms on other lines. They were always going to widen the BMT loading gauge, just as they did for the V sets in the 70s.
This is a fantastic Reply MrKiuYin! Though I do take issue with your characterisation of the NIF's introduction. The NIF was introduced at the Medium Electric KE size in order to standardise the rail network. The Main North, Illawarra and Blue Mountains lines have been progressively upgraded from Narrow- Electric Envelop KE over a period of decades. The issue facing the government was, do you buy/build a train that suits the network from Springwood to Lithgow and therefore has a larger platform gap (remembering the intended DOO operations of the original design) OR do you bite the bullet and standardise the WHOLE network, which was on the cards over the next 10+ years anyway. As an engineer, standardisation is always preferred and that was the recommendation from internal asset management SMEs. As an employee of Sydney Trains my issue with clause 35A is that it has no limits. It just says, unions need to be involved in risk assessments. So if a union were perhaps particularly militant and happy to cause disruption, that union could say "where is your risk assessment?" on nearly any change within the organisation. Want to rearrange office layout? Where's the risk assessment? You now need to consult with the union. Want to rebrand and change the corporate colours? Would that change the colours of the trains? Does that impact their visibility? Where's the risk assessment to prove that it would or wouldn't? You now need to consult with the union. Want to change ticket prices? This would change the amount of people boarding. Have you done a risk assessment on that? You now need to consult the union. However these are, frankly, minor issues that realistically do not need organised labour consultation. Introduction of a new fleet, major infrastructure changes, absolutely there should be workforce consultation, doing that may in-fact come up with better outcomes for all involved as local knowledge or experience in a role will highlight a problem that can be easily rectified in the design phase. As for the 35 hour week, transport employees traded ADOs for flex-hours. Not sure how you implement flex hours on wages staff that have to be at work from a particular time to ensure the train gets to it's location. The 35 hour week was in essence a one off 8% payrise of its own hidden within the details as you are reducing the worked hours by 8% (I know this doesn't add up to 8%, it's actually higher but let's keep the maths simple). That would also make the hourly rate of workers increase which would raise the cost to the business of overtime. What that would have resulted in, particularly for engineering and maintenance, would not have been more take home pay, but stricter conditions and approvals around overtime and likely a reduction in overtime allowed to be worked. This would have made our jobs harder as we'd now be trying to fit the same amount of work into our 35 hour week (I don't think I've worked a roster in 10 years that I have struggled to make up my hours) and more shift swaps for weekend work rather than overtime. As for the CRU offer of 11%, the RTBU clarified on their website that the 11% was misreported in the media. Their actual counter offer was for 20% over 3 years with 9% year 1, and 5.5% year 2 and year 3. However neither the union or the government were allowed by the conditions placed on them by the FWC to clarify the issue. You are 100% right in saying that neither side is blameless in the playing of games. The government has definitely dragged its feet and played games and the unions have raised the threshold on safety concern for cancelling or overriding protected industrial action from "safety critical" which is a well defined threshold in written standards with clear understanding of all parties as to what is and what isn't within that category, to "emergency critical" which is a made up term by the unions. This means that, and I've made these decisions, we have had to leave in track issues that could have potentially caused harm. When I've sought clarification on the union's reason this doesn't meet the threshold I've been ignored and unanswered. Or you have electrical SMEs stating that you cannot make repairs safely with overhead wires isolated because their electrical assets don't meet the criteria of "emergency critical", despite the fact that the track definitely does. This puts member in harms way through leaving electrical systems energised and puts people like myself in a difficult position where I need to either cut transport services off to large portions of Sydney due to safety concerns (something I have done during this industrial action) or run trains at extremely slow speeds over track that really, should have been repaired as it met the "safety critical" threshold but didn't meet a made up, unwritten and frankly changing and arbitrary checklist of "emergency critical". All this, off the back of the "safety" claims around the NIF have left a very sour taste in my mouth, and I believe that TheTrainGuy4 is right in what he's saying regarding the unions misrepresenting safety concerns to save jobs. On one hand we have unions saying that the government isn't listening to their employees and internal SMEs around safety, on the other hand you have unions not listening to their members (WHO ARE PAYING THEM) on matters of safety. That's why I left the union. But overall, your comment if fantastic, great nuance and clarification and apart from the points above, I agree wholeheartedly.
@thebats5270 thanks for your response. My phrasing of NIF being 'Not Fit for Purpose' could have been better phrased as a non conforming rollingstock outline to be operated on the current track basecodes corresponding to the blue mountains and associative lines as governed by ESC215 (or rebadged transport standard TS 3500 if you will). Agreed standardisation is always best practice however: 1. Based on my experience dealing with asset people within the organisation these project requirements at the time are often lost through space and time and not considered/ignored. 2. The network as a WHOLE is beyond standardisation throughout. Majority of the general public would probably rather see more privatisation and more of the rail network converted to metro. It is just too unfortunate conversions will always cost too much and are not really a great use of funding. Personally I believe the ones who would suffer the most are the suburbs without access to heavy rail / metro lines. Also agreed that clause 35A has no limitations and should rather be amended to suit instead of removed entirely.
@@MrKiuYin Absolutely agree on 35A, your dealings with transport projects (it's like their projects are sausages and they are just trying to see how fast they can turn the crank and don't care how much sausage meat actually gets in the skin). I also agree that we should be looking to connect more suburbs with rail (heavy or metro) than just papering over the current ones. For me, Bankstown line is probably the except to this rule as you don't need another rail corridor in Sydney's South that runs east/west and the original idea of metro was an orbital loop. But I think that idea has now gone by the wayside.
Under the safety argument, wouldn’t all D set doors opening at all stations present a greater slip and fall risk than simply having the doors released for passenger button operation?
Yes, RTBU wanted it removed because having passenger operated doors would have made the driver only operation model for the NIF completely safe - you can't get stuck running for a closing door if it isn't open.
The offer put forward by the state government is a good one and should be accepted by union members. I have been a union member most of my life, so I am not ant-union. Sadly the manufacturing industries I have worked in have withered and effectively died (plastics, white goods, metal Industry). NSW rail obviously is not in a position to pay for unrealistic increases in wages. Ultimately jobs are lost, industries restructured, and workers are forced to adapt to changing times and technology.When I joined the workforce union membership was over 50%, today it's around 13%. I realise union leaders need to obtain a good outcome for their members, otherwise their jobs are in jeopardy. I personally believe rail workers are well remunerated. If you don't like it you could always try your luck elsewhere.
To be fair, I actually feel more comfortable if there's a member of staff on a train (including metro). This isn't in case the _metro_ encounters issues; this is in case somebody on board causes issues. Having a guard able to come down an apprehend somebody who's being threatening to other passengers, wether physically, verbally, or s*xually, makes me feel a lot more safe travelling on trains, especially at odd hours. These are unfortunately the sorts of things you have to worry about as a woman just trying to travel safely about your city at night 😔
Guards won’t do that though. They’re not police. They’ll stay in their cab and wait for police to do the apprehension for them. The presence of a guard really doesn’t make you any safer whilst on board.
I feel like if you remove train guards, they will still go on a strike, especially if you don't find a replacement role for them. My idea is to potentially use them for a more security job on trains. The drivers can use the external CCTV cameras for what the guard used to do, but in the guard compartment, you can use the interior CCTV cameras to watch out for anti-social behaviour. Then, after a couple of warnings on the speaker, they can go up to the people and use a small degree of force to remove them from the train at the next stop. Hopefully allowing for a safer onboard experience for these people. Another idea is to do a small degree of cleaning, and customer services
Nah. On intercity trains they should roam around the train to answer questions etc. Suburban guards (once appropriate trains are in service) should be given mass redundancies. We don’t need to hold on to outdated jobs, it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.
@@thetrainguy4 but we still need to give those laid off people proper jobs or they will risk being unemployed. You do not want a mass exodus happening right now when cost of living crisis is very much ongoing. Obviously, not everyone can be saved but it is terrible to lay off thousands of people just because “we don’t need guards anymore” either.
There are many factors and caveats behind a lot of these things. Many things in the Australian rail industry that are labelled “safety” issues are actually liability issues. If you look at the liability in may of those examples that you compared against then the culture in those countries does not seek out blame for every time someone is harmed. If you read ATSB reports around most fatal accidents, it is a driver or “safe worker” that is scapegoated as it’s the easiest case to make … I don’t disagree with you in general but if we had a safety culture that sort to improve CCTV and technology to support these changes and also did appropriate change management for public users then it wouldn’t be so bad but, the administrators are quite happy to get rid of guards and continue blaming and then sacking drivers for failing to fulfil guard duties as that is cheaper than spending a relatively small amount to genuinely improve the technology & safely. The Sydney Metro is a great case study in what can be done when you fully isolated the new technologies and run with two independent systems. But, if you sat at Broadmeadow station with no safety screens or anything and a Metro train pulled up … you are likely to have no idea of what is about to happen. That’s the issue with NIF etc. they have good capabilities but, none of the powers that be have properly thought about how everything gets implemented. If an automated train has a Safeworking breach, is it the driver’s fault … well with the attitude of the powers that be, yes it would be and the driver would be sacked … even if no one was harmed. The problem is that both parties are trimming around the edges of all the issues and are not willing to take the deep cuts needed to revolutionise the bad culture with the administrators that drives the bad worker/union behaviours.
Just to add: train guards are trained in first aid (Heart attacks etc), they are trained in safe evacuation procedures for derailment and they are also trained in passenger security as they often liaise with the driver and police to remove violent or threatening passengers stopping at a pre planned station for police intervention.
I'm trained in first aid. Drivers are probably trained in first aid. That's not a big decider. Most (busier) suburban systems around the world manage with DOO. For intercity services (as I was discussing in the video) I think the guard should be retained but removed from safeworking duties.
A Driver can't suddenly abandon their post to rush along to a train car where someone is becoming, to put it nicely for the sake of moderation, _inappropriate_ around another passenger who does not want their advances. Having a separate guard able to handle safety means they can rush to address it as soon as they're told of an issue, or even catch an issue on CCTV before somebody can get to an emergency help button. It also nullifies the decision of "is this incident big enough to stop the train over?", meaning it's less likely for a potential safety concern to be ignored because the driver doesn't believe it's significant enough to abandon their other duties to attend to!
Train the drivers, that’s shocking. Also a driver can just abandon the cab. Once the trains in emergency there’s nothing more to do- it’ll stop when it stops. Stick it in that and run back to the saloon with a first aid kit or smth. Again, look overseas. Not only do suburban systems work perfectly well (better than ours) without guards at all, even most trains with guards will have the guards roam and thus divert help points to the driver (who can also use discretion as to whether or not to stop the train).
@@thetrainguy4 I don't think you are a train triver. You shouldn't talk about what they can and can't do in or out of a cab. They can't abandon the cab unless it's life or death. With a train screaming to a stop standing is the last thing you should be doing, rather getting on the intercom and shout brace brace brace or similar so everyone isn't floored when the train finally does stop. Compare us overseas to other railways with long double decker trains full of people. Not to small single decker trains
Just wanted to clarify the new better off overall test (BOOT) The new EA is allowed to be worse on one point so long as it is better “overall” while in the past it needed to be better line by line This is a fairly new law reform (2023 I think) so easy to miss
Great video! Very informative, and very balanced. You'll never make everybody happy and you are dead right on the misuse of "safety" by the unions while also calling out the government's actions as wrong and incorrect. Let's just hope this dispute is resolved quickly.
Megapolis transport is VERY expensive, yes. Say bye bye to cheap city travel, hamsters. Its time to break this death loop - developers build offices in city because its cheap to collect (commute) workers to there, workers demand cheap travel to the city because their office is there. Who pays for this? No one! Govt! Society! Not we do! Everything goes to dumpster.
I work for a bus company on bus stops and I kinda get your position on rear door loading of buses, but it really isn't that simple. There are occasions when It is appropriate to load rear doors. Ie a busy stop where the buses are arriving empty ( start of run) with a large throughput or a crowded footpath (more so in the rain). There are situations where it is not a good idea in my view from experience. This is generally a crowd control issue where buses are overcrowded ( different issue and unsatisfactory but not assisted by rear door loading). For 2 reasons 1. People keen to get on a bus will enter through the rear door blocking people attempting to exit and causing gridlock. 1. The driver can inform passengers verbally to cease entering the bus at the nearby front door. They cannot at the rear door. This leads to overcrowding as the driver is put in the difficult position of allowing overcrowding or closing the door on passengers half in the door. Bus loading has to be controlled to some extent to allow the drivers vision to be unobscured, and the bus to be functional. Ie people able to exit along the route.
If the bus is full, close the door? I appreciate it’s a concern but virtually all buses in Europe have all door loading, are much busier and can manage.
@thetrainguy4 I think you missed the point about closing the door on passengers half way in the bus, at best it's rude and the buses we have here the doors are quite forceful. If the door released on contact you may never be able to get it shut. People trying to get on will keep trying and at times keep pushing.
@daleford8411 You are absolutely correct. I have experienced this very thing. It works well when you have someone on crowed control at the rear/centre doors and only on specific pick-up points.
In the rare case where overcrowding is a genuine problem maybe then you could have kerbside staff. Re the doors themselves that's why I mentioned plug doors. Overseas operators see up to a 50% reduction in dwell, it's a good policy.
Guards on the middle of trains are only a nsw thing. Vic and qld dont have this. This just keeps people in redundant positions with no increase to the level of safety. A camera and sensors lilely in the trains already are good enough. Victoria had a screen at the end of the platform that the driver can see of cameras along the platform to be able to do this job. Needing for someone on the metro when countries like singapore dont have it and the fact its only between a handful of stations (and pthers are ok) screams its about keeping people in redundent jobs. Anything more than 3-4% per year which is standard across all industries is just screaming greed. I havent had a significant payrise in several years. Most people dont because we arent under unions. Inflation sucks. There isnt much anyone can do about it and cost of living is going up. But arguing 8%+ every year when inflation is likely to slow down is just greed. The RBTU are a bunch of thugs who are doing nothing for the benefit of passengers and safety. Its solely on getting exorbitant increases for their members which will in turn increase their fees payable by members. Thats in. Self motivated greed. The strikes in the middle of covid were stupid. These strikes are just ridiculous. I hope the government sticks to their 3-4% and thats it. Thats all they should get. Suck it up and get back to work!
@@mightyknight its certainly not an easy job, especially on low speed trains where you have to look outside for your signalling and you have a lot of peoples lives in your hands, and theres a risk of watching someone die but 120k does seem abit steep, especially considering their hours 120k is roughly the same as UK train drivers get paid, who are by far the highest paid in europe, and make nearly twice as much as most other countries including france, netherlands and germany
@@mightyknight train driver base salary is around 90k, and with overtime it can go to 120k, but that’s with sacrificing after-work life and/or getting the job done. Also, train driver don’t work at set schedule. One day you could be asked to get up and ready by 2am, and the very next day you will be asked to be ready at 12pm. Such irregular shift start and end time messes up circadian cycles badly and can contribute to shorten lifespan. On top of that, an alarming trend in Sydney Trains network is many current employees are approaching their 60s, with I believe quite a few already IN their 60s. If not enough pay is provided, Sydney Trains network could plunge into a workforce crisis very quickly.
More driverless trains! The metro is awesome on every level and the government know it! $120k to drive a train, when our nurses are on much less than that and they work twice as long and actually save lives! They havin a laugh? Get back to work!
Train drivers work the same sort of shift patterns as nurses. They’re less important but still necessary. Not all lines can be converted and the ones that can would cost too much. Also metro staff are also unionised in the same union as drivers, they have negotiations coming up soon.
@@thetrainguy4 Train drivers work much worse shift patterns than nurses, imo. Nursing staff are basically either rostered on 7-7 (12hrs) or (roughly) 7a-3:30p, 1:30p-10p, 9:30p-7a.
Anything that makes the guards life simpler is good. DOO on our network is a nightmare waiting to happen. With all of the curved platforms and the unlevel boarding with huge steps at many platforms the driver should not be in charge of the doors. I'm tired of hearing about the stupid push buttons and as a passenger I don't want to push a button to get on. It's annoying and to me it is like self checkout registers at supermarkets. Then we have the short platforms and disabled access at stations that don't have staff. A driver should never get out of his seat to assist anybody and his sole focus should be on operating the train. I agree the union has no right to any demands on the metro and I think 4% should be the deal instead of 8% with the unions retaining there seat on decisions and design of future trains. That recent incident with the guard is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing occuring and using it as a reason to get rid of guards is ridiculous.
You are misrepresenting my arguments. The rest of the world has curved platforms, just use a good camera… Get over a passenger door opening, it’s one button and saves the HVAC from working overtime to keep the saloon at the correct temperature. Grow up.
If Sydney Trains drivers are getting paid $120 000 per year (according to this video) then I cannot see why they need a pay rise when they're getting paid way above the average national wage.
But QLD/VIC train drivers are paid more than that smh, while doing basically the same job. Smh NSW Government don’t want to give workers a good salary rise (likely not 8% but let’s say 5%) over the next 4 years. I suspect they don’t want to give up their own redundant management positions that got paid 3 to 5 times of what train driver paid either.
Bear in mind that includes oblvertime. You really need an ordinary time salary to judge how well paid they are as overtime comes at a cost to the individual.
@thetrainguy4 The only people that stay in Sydney are either people with the majority of their mortgage paid off, or people whose partner has a job they can't leave. Anyone who can get an equivalent job outside of Sydney and does meet either of those two criteria are already leaving, and it would take a lot more than even a 30% payrise to reverse this trend. It would take more money then the State government has. Median property (house and apartments) price in Brisbane is still less than $1 million while it is $1.6 mil in Sydney. Median apartment price in Brisbane is $600k while it is $1m in Sydney. Even a 60% pay rise would not be enough to allow a train driver to afford the same lifestyle in Sydney as in Brisbane, since progressive income tax means you can not compare these numbers linearly. This whole union debacle is, in my opinion, a reflection of a much more deep rooted problem with the Sydney economy for which there is no easy fix.
Honestly we should be more like other countries where striking is illegal and the organiser of the strike can face charges of up to lifetime in prison. It’s an extreme but certainly an effective one. Edit: Also opening every door at every station pisses me off so much like it’s so stupid
@@alecwilson8743 so what? Singapore is also a dictatorship country, unlike Australia. You guys are effectively asking Australia to function similar to what China does. Hope you don’t regret later if that does happen.
Ok so you hate strikes. You think those workers don’t deserve to be properly compensated just because YOU are being inconvenienced one day or two. Well then how about banning resignations? Because if workers can’t legally strike, they will just try to quit. Look no further than a recent mass resignation of 200 psychiatrists in NSW public healthcare sector.
The Government rejected the RTBU’s very reasonable (imho) 14.5% pay rise over 4 years. Disappointingly arbitration and legal action will continue. I suspect the case to permanently halt PIA will fail (again).
I believe the government offered 13.5% over 4 years which is higher than given to police and health workers ( I could be incorrect about being higher). I was a member of the RTBU for almost 50 years and many times the arbitration court made a decision that left us worse off than the government's proposals. I also know a number of train drivers who have received as high as $180,000 with klm and distance allowances. The union demands for increased overtime can only be achieved with staff cuts and long delays which already happens due to union directives outside of any industrial action. Union membership is declining because of the removal of compulsory membership in order to retain a job. Non members benefit from any agreements as much as members do and without paying union dues. I think it's laughable that they want a qualified driver at the front of the Metro trains even though they won't be driving especially as the union approved the driverless trains initially. I am all for unions but the RTBU are totally out of line with their current demands which are costing we taxpayers millions of dollars during their protracted disputes which commenced in 2019 with the arrival of the Dsets. I am impressed with your presentation and I think you would be a great negotiator for the union if and when you are old enough.
Strikes are Painful. It's not RTBU that doing it BUT ETU last time check. from Queensland, There is a point, I think we are this Point that Both Parties need to sit in a Room at fair and not be allowed out until a Deal/order is done
Government offered 15% over 4 years. Police got nearly 40%. I’d check your numbers.
Otherwise I agree
@@thetrainguy4 I did say correct me if I am wrong, and you have.
@ 32% is Dreaming level But 20 to 25% is going to be over 4 years But Back Dated Which 30% over 5 years
Thanks for this video. The Metro emergency procedures are as you described. If a train has to stop, emergency services and staff get on at nearest station, and the "rescue" train moves up to same location in adjacent tunnel, or nose to nose. There are multiple redundancy levels of power and computer systems, and an hour or so of battery backup on each set. The staff members on each train or station are usually very happy to have a chat and are really good with the public. Cheers
On the all door boarding, Brisbane has had it for years and it's been fantastic
As a former inspector at the Fair Work Ombudsman, I get the unions can and should have industrial action. I mean i was a former delegate with the CPSU at FWO. I believe in unions.
My issue mainly is with what you said. The unions continual blame game its the government fault for everything when realistically its also their fault but they are trying to keep the public on their side but this has begun to wait quite a bit.
What I also find a bit hypocritical, that they want investment in public transport but continually somewhat hamper this.
Furthermore, whilst I get they want the clauses the government wants to remove or amend, technically FWC can remove these under forced arbitration. Why? Well because these clauses fall outside the Fair Work Act and whilst included in the current or previous eba's they don't have to be included in the new agreement.
I think the 8% is also too high and I think the rbtu needs to adjust their views on this. It's negotiations and compromises but it's seems the rbtu and combined unions don't want to compromise and expect the government to. This in my opinion is absolutely wrong and they need to adjust and read the temp of the public as the tide is turning against the unions big time
I am in total agreement that RTBU and other unions have overstayed their welcome a while ago but they don’t seem to realise it. Government controls the media and controls the narrative. It’s an uphill battle for them at this point and things may not go the way they wanted initially.
“Take what you have right now or risk losing everything”. That’s what union is facing and I am not sure if they can get away with whatever mess created this time.
This is a very good and well balanced video! I agree with most of your points.
I do think there is still a case for conductors on trains rather than DOO from a emergency standpoint, so that the responsibility and workload isn’t solely on the driver. Better to have an extra pair of hands you know? But your point how (proper) CCTV can eliminate injury is definitely valid and makes sense why DOO would be better! Apologies if I got any info wrong or if it’s outdated, just going off of memory from what I heard about DOO lol
I was discussing the change from safe working guard to a roaming customer service guard. There would have still been 2 people on the train (which I support for intercity/regional services). Suburban could probably do with DOO.
Thanks for the video. Personally I believe however the '35 hour work-week' as well as '10 ADO's accrual' is to be more aligned with Transport For NSW staff members. Current employees within Transport are already contracted for 35 hour work weeks whilst Sydney Train's employees are contracted for 38 hour work weeks. Transport employees also receive additional leave entitlements during christmas. Whilst on paper these are the contracted working hours there are plenty of employees within both the operating agency Sydney Trains and within Transport that would always be completing more hours than required in order to complete their work.
The 32% payrise was also pitched at the beginning of the negotiations (which started after the agreement expired) around 9 months ago. This was solely to start getting the dollar figure conversation started with Sydney Trains management. Agreed 32% was never achievable but also the unions knew that as well however it was recommended as a conversation starter before finessing the final numbers. The latest offer from the CRU was 11%+ super over 3 years with no removal of the 35A clause however was also rejected by the government.
The risk assessment process clause 35A was also brought in after the debacle where the prior LNP government ordered the NIF trains which were not fit for purpose for our networks platforms, tunnels and bridges and did not consult any subject matter experts within their relative engineering framework namely all design disciplines within Sydney Trains. As a result, tunnel widening and other engineering recommendations were implemented to alleviate Transports hastened procurement contracts. Without this clause, all projects past/present/future will essentially skip consultation to 'push through' decisions by excluding union (or nominated subject matter expert) consultation. The current view of Transport for NSW is that the union (and by association - Sydney Trains employees) hold up Transport projects (past and present) including Transport Access Programs, More Trains More Service Programs, NIF etc. Additionally from experience it is always Sydney Trains as the operator and maintainer that has to come back and fix various issues that Transport and their associative contractors have failed to address after projects are completed.
Full disclosure, I am an employee within Sydney Trains Engineering & Maintenance. Prior to this I worked in private sector for various engineering companies. I also agree that both sides have played games and as a result the general public has been offered as collateral. It is all just a big waste of taxpayer money and ultimately the general public are the ones who suffer in the end.
The D set loading gauge was spun up by labor media- it was always going to be an issue locally made or not as the trains needed to be wide to fit platforms on other lines. They were always going to widen the BMT loading gauge, just as they did for the V sets in the 70s.
This is a fantastic Reply MrKiuYin! Though I do take issue with your characterisation of the NIF's introduction. The NIF was introduced at the Medium Electric KE size in order to standardise the rail network. The Main North, Illawarra and Blue Mountains lines have been progressively upgraded from Narrow- Electric Envelop KE over a period of decades. The issue facing the government was, do you buy/build a train that suits the network from Springwood to Lithgow and therefore has a larger platform gap (remembering the intended DOO operations of the original design) OR do you bite the bullet and standardise the WHOLE network, which was on the cards over the next 10+ years anyway. As an engineer, standardisation is always preferred and that was the recommendation from internal asset management SMEs.
As an employee of Sydney Trains my issue with clause 35A is that it has no limits. It just says, unions need to be involved in risk assessments. So if a union were perhaps particularly militant and happy to cause disruption, that union could say "where is your risk assessment?" on nearly any change within the organisation. Want to rearrange office layout? Where's the risk assessment? You now need to consult with the union. Want to rebrand and change the corporate colours? Would that change the colours of the trains? Does that impact their visibility? Where's the risk assessment to prove that it would or wouldn't? You now need to consult with the union. Want to change ticket prices? This would change the amount of people boarding. Have you done a risk assessment on that? You now need to consult the union. However these are, frankly, minor issues that realistically do not need organised labour consultation. Introduction of a new fleet, major infrastructure changes, absolutely there should be workforce consultation, doing that may in-fact come up with better outcomes for all involved as local knowledge or experience in a role will highlight a problem that can be easily rectified in the design phase.
As for the 35 hour week, transport employees traded ADOs for flex-hours. Not sure how you implement flex hours on wages staff that have to be at work from a particular time to ensure the train gets to it's location. The 35 hour week was in essence a one off 8% payrise of its own hidden within the details as you are reducing the worked hours by 8% (I know this doesn't add up to 8%, it's actually higher but let's keep the maths simple). That would also make the hourly rate of workers increase which would raise the cost to the business of overtime. What that would have resulted in, particularly for engineering and maintenance, would not have been more take home pay, but stricter conditions and approvals around overtime and likely a reduction in overtime allowed to be worked. This would have made our jobs harder as we'd now be trying to fit the same amount of work into our 35 hour week (I don't think I've worked a roster in 10 years that I have struggled to make up my hours) and more shift swaps for weekend work rather than overtime.
As for the CRU offer of 11%, the RTBU clarified on their website that the 11% was misreported in the media. Their actual counter offer was for 20% over 3 years with 9% year 1, and 5.5% year 2 and year 3. However neither the union or the government were allowed by the conditions placed on them by the FWC to clarify the issue.
You are 100% right in saying that neither side is blameless in the playing of games. The government has definitely dragged its feet and played games and the unions have raised the threshold on safety concern for cancelling or overriding protected industrial action from "safety critical" which is a well defined threshold in written standards with clear understanding of all parties as to what is and what isn't within that category, to "emergency critical" which is a made up term by the unions. This means that, and I've made these decisions, we have had to leave in track issues that could have potentially caused harm. When I've sought clarification on the union's reason this doesn't meet the threshold I've been ignored and unanswered. Or you have electrical SMEs stating that you cannot make repairs safely with overhead wires isolated because their electrical assets don't meet the criteria of "emergency critical", despite the fact that the track definitely does. This puts member in harms way through leaving electrical systems energised and puts people like myself in a difficult position where I need to either cut transport services off to large portions of Sydney due to safety concerns (something I have done during this industrial action) or run trains at extremely slow speeds over track that really, should have been repaired as it met the "safety critical" threshold but didn't meet a made up, unwritten and frankly changing and arbitrary checklist of "emergency critical". All this, off the back of the "safety" claims around the NIF have left a very sour taste in my mouth, and I believe that TheTrainGuy4 is right in what he's saying regarding the unions misrepresenting safety concerns to save jobs. On one hand we have unions saying that the government isn't listening to their employees and internal SMEs around safety, on the other hand you have unions not listening to their members (WHO ARE PAYING THEM) on matters of safety. That's why I left the union.
But overall, your comment if fantastic, great nuance and clarification and apart from the points above, I agree wholeheartedly.
@thebats5270 thanks for your response. My phrasing of NIF being 'Not Fit for Purpose' could have been better phrased as a non conforming rollingstock outline to be operated on the current track basecodes corresponding to the blue mountains and associative lines as governed by ESC215 (or rebadged transport standard TS 3500 if you will). Agreed standardisation is always best practice however:
1. Based on my experience dealing with asset people within the organisation these project requirements at the time are often lost through space and time and not considered/ignored.
2. The network as a WHOLE is beyond standardisation throughout. Majority of the general public would probably rather see more privatisation and more of the rail network converted to metro. It is just too unfortunate conversions will always cost too much and are not really a great use of funding. Personally I believe the ones who would suffer the most are the suburbs without access to heavy rail / metro lines.
Also agreed that clause 35A has no limitations and should rather be amended to suit instead of removed entirely.
@@MrKiuYin Absolutely agree on 35A, your dealings with transport projects (it's like their projects are sausages and they are just trying to see how fast they can turn the crank and don't care how much sausage meat actually gets in the skin). I also agree that we should be looking to connect more suburbs with rail (heavy or metro) than just papering over the current ones. For me, Bankstown line is probably the except to this rule as you don't need another rail corridor in Sydney's South that runs east/west and the original idea of metro was an orbital loop. But I think that idea has now gone by the wayside.
Under the safety argument, wouldn’t all D set doors opening at all stations present a greater slip and fall risk than simply having the doors released for passenger button operation?
Yes, RTBU wanted it removed because having passenger operated doors would have made the driver only operation model for the NIF completely safe - you can't get stuck running for a closing door if it isn't open.
The offer put forward by the state government is a good one and should be accepted by union members. I have been a union member most of my life, so I am not ant-union. Sadly the manufacturing industries I have worked in have withered and effectively died (plastics, white goods, metal Industry).
NSW rail obviously is not in a position to pay for unrealistic increases in wages. Ultimately jobs are lost, industries restructured, and workers are forced to adapt to changing times and technology.When I joined the workforce union membership was over 50%, today it's around 13%.
I realise union leaders need to obtain a good outcome for their members, otherwise their jobs are in jeopardy. I personally believe rail workers are well remunerated. If you don't like it you could always try your luck elsewhere.
I've been affected because I use the trains everywhere I go
That shouldn't happen to you.
@mightyknight absolutely 💯 agreed
a pretty balanced discussion, good on you mate
To be fair, I actually feel more comfortable if there's a member of staff on a train (including metro). This isn't in case the _metro_ encounters issues; this is in case somebody on board causes issues. Having a guard able to come down an apprehend somebody who's being threatening to other passengers, wether physically, verbally, or s*xually, makes me feel a lot more safe travelling on trains, especially at odd hours. These are unfortunately the sorts of things you have to worry about as a woman just trying to travel safely about your city at night 😔
Guards won’t do that though. They’re not police. They’ll stay in their cab and wait for police to do the apprehension for them. The presence of a guard really doesn’t make you any safer whilst on board.
Well argued
I feel like if you remove train guards, they will still go on a strike, especially if you don't find a replacement role for them. My idea is to potentially use them for a more security job on trains. The drivers can use the external CCTV cameras for what the guard used to do, but in the guard compartment, you can use the interior CCTV cameras to watch out for anti-social behaviour. Then, after a couple of warnings on the speaker, they can go up to the people and use a small degree of force to remove them from the train at the next stop. Hopefully allowing for a safer onboard experience for these people. Another idea is to do a small degree of cleaning, and customer services
Nah. On intercity trains they should roam around the train to answer questions etc. Suburban guards (once appropriate trains are in service) should be given mass redundancies. We don’t need to hold on to outdated jobs, it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.
@@thetrainguy4 but we still need to give those laid off people proper jobs or they will risk being unemployed. You do not want a mass exodus happening right now when cost of living crisis is very much ongoing. Obviously, not everyone can be saved but it is terrible to lay off thousands of people just because “we don’t need guards anymore” either.
Yes, I agree. That’s a different concern though. We shouldn’t be using these positions as a sort of welfare service.
Well thought out.
There are many factors and caveats behind a lot of these things.
Many things in the Australian rail industry that are labelled “safety” issues are actually liability issues.
If you look at the liability in may of those examples that you compared against then the culture in those countries does not seek out blame for every time someone is harmed. If you read ATSB reports around most fatal accidents, it is a driver or “safe worker” that is scapegoated as it’s the easiest case to make … I don’t disagree with you in general but if we had a safety culture that sort to improve CCTV and technology to support these changes and also did appropriate change management for public users then it wouldn’t be so bad but, the administrators are quite happy to get rid of guards and continue blaming and then sacking drivers for failing to fulfil guard duties as that is cheaper than spending a relatively small amount to genuinely improve the technology & safely.
The Sydney Metro is a great case study in what can be done when you fully isolated the new technologies and run with two independent systems. But, if you sat at Broadmeadow station with no safety screens or anything and a Metro train pulled up … you are likely to have no idea of what is about to happen. That’s the issue with NIF etc. they have good capabilities but, none of the powers that be have properly thought about how everything gets implemented. If an automated train has a Safeworking breach, is it the driver’s fault … well with the attitude of the powers that be, yes it would be and the driver would be sacked … even if no one was harmed.
The problem is that both parties are trimming around the edges of all the issues and are not willing to take the deep cuts needed to revolutionise the bad culture with the administrators that drives the bad worker/union behaviours.
*A very well balanced video*
Many thanks for presenting it without the main-stream media's usual hyperbole and emotionalism.
Just to add: train guards are trained in first aid (Heart attacks etc), they are trained in safe evacuation procedures for derailment and they are also trained in passenger security as they often liaise with the driver and police to remove violent or threatening passengers stopping at a pre planned station for police intervention.
I'm trained in first aid. Drivers are probably trained in first aid. That's not a big decider. Most (busier) suburban systems around the world manage with DOO. For intercity services (as I was discussing in the video) I think the guard should be retained but removed from safeworking duties.
@@thetrainguy4 Sydney trains drivers are not first aid trained. Only guards are
A Driver can't suddenly abandon their post to rush along to a train car where someone is becoming, to put it nicely for the sake of moderation, _inappropriate_ around another passenger who does not want their advances. Having a separate guard able to handle safety means they can rush to address it as soon as they're told of an issue, or even catch an issue on CCTV before somebody can get to an emergency help button. It also nullifies the decision of "is this incident big enough to stop the train over?", meaning it's less likely for a potential safety concern to be ignored because the driver doesn't believe it's significant enough to abandon their other duties to attend to!
Train the drivers, that’s shocking.
Also a driver can just abandon the cab. Once the trains in emergency there’s nothing more to do- it’ll stop when it stops. Stick it in that and run back to the saloon with a first aid kit or smth.
Again, look overseas. Not only do suburban systems work perfectly well (better than ours) without guards at all, even most trains with guards will have the guards roam and thus divert help points to the driver (who can also use discretion as to whether or not to stop the train).
@@thetrainguy4 I don't think you are a train triver. You shouldn't talk about what they can and can't do in or out of a cab. They can't abandon the cab unless it's life or death. With a train screaming to a stop standing is the last thing you should be doing, rather getting on the intercom and shout brace brace brace or similar so everyone isn't floored when the train finally does stop.
Compare us overseas to other railways with long double decker trains full of people. Not to small single decker trains
Just wanted to clarify the new better off overall test (BOOT)
The new EA is allowed to be worse on one point so long as it is better “overall” while in the past it needed to be better line by line
This is a fairly new law reform (2023 I think) so easy to miss
Brisbane has all door bus boarding following covid era rear door only boarding.
Great video! Very informative, and very balanced. You'll never make everybody happy and you are dead right on the misuse of "safety" by the unions while also calling out the government's actions as wrong and incorrect. Let's just hope this dispute is resolved quickly.
What a crock these unions are. Don't care about the public, only about themselves. WHY MUST WE SUFFER?!
Im more for sacking alot of STM because they cant do their jobs
Maybe I won’t watch this on the train with union members sitting behind me…
I have at one point criticised you for being anti union. I would like to say I was wrong, and offer an apology, even if it likely isn’t cared for :)
Megapolis transport is VERY expensive, yes. Say bye bye to cheap city travel, hamsters. Its time to break this death loop - developers build offices in city because its cheap to collect (commute) workers to there, workers demand cheap travel to the city because their office is there. Who pays for this? No one! Govt! Society! Not we do! Everything goes to dumpster.
I work for a bus company on bus stops and I kinda get your position on rear door loading of buses, but it really isn't that simple.
There are occasions when It is appropriate to load rear doors. Ie a busy stop where the buses are arriving empty ( start of run) with a large throughput or a crowded footpath (more so in the rain).
There are situations where it is not a good idea in my view from experience. This is generally a crowd control issue where buses are overcrowded ( different issue and unsatisfactory but not assisted by rear door loading). For 2 reasons
1. People keen to get on a bus will enter through the rear door blocking people attempting to exit and causing gridlock.
1. The driver can inform passengers verbally to cease entering the bus at the nearby front door. They cannot at the rear door. This leads to overcrowding as the driver is put in the difficult position of allowing overcrowding or closing the door on passengers half in the door.
Bus loading has to be controlled to some extent to allow the drivers vision to be unobscured, and the bus to be functional. Ie people able to exit along the route.
@@daleford8411 spot on with every point.
If the bus is full, close the door? I appreciate it’s a concern but virtually all buses in Europe have all door loading, are much busier and can manage.
@thetrainguy4
I think you missed the point about closing the door on passengers half way in the bus, at best it's rude and the buses we have here the doors are quite forceful.
If the door released on contact you may never be able to get it shut. People trying to get on will keep trying and at times keep pushing.
@daleford8411 You are absolutely correct. I have experienced this very thing. It works well when you have someone on crowed control at the rear/centre doors and only on specific pick-up points.
In the rare case where overcrowding is a genuine problem maybe then you could have kerbside staff. Re the doors themselves that's why I mentioned plug doors. Overseas operators see up to a 50% reduction in dwell, it's a good policy.
Guards on the middle of trains are only a nsw thing. Vic and qld dont have this. This just keeps people in redundant positions with no increase to the level of safety. A camera and sensors lilely in the trains already are good enough. Victoria had a screen at the end of the platform that the driver can see of cameras along the platform to be able to do this job.
Needing for someone on the metro when countries like singapore dont have it and the fact its only between a handful of stations (and pthers are ok) screams its about keeping people in redundent jobs.
Anything more than 3-4% per year which is standard across all industries is just screaming greed. I havent had a significant payrise in several years. Most people dont because we arent under unions. Inflation sucks. There isnt much anyone can do about it and cost of living is going up. But arguing 8%+ every year when inflation is likely to slow down is just greed.
The RBTU are a bunch of thugs who are doing nothing for the benefit of passengers and safety. Its solely on getting exorbitant increases for their members which will in turn increase their fees payable by members. Thats in. Self motivated greed.
The strikes in the middle of covid were stupid. These strikes are just ridiculous. I hope the government sticks to their 3-4% and thats it. Thats all they should get.
Suck it up and get back to work!
shitshow from both sides, what a shocker
Why do train drivers need over $120 000 is beyond me.
@@mightyknight its certainly not an easy job, especially on low speed trains where you have to look outside for your signalling
and you have a lot of peoples lives in your hands, and theres a risk of watching someone die
but 120k does seem abit steep, especially considering their hours
120k is roughly the same as UK train drivers get paid, who are by far the highest paid in europe, and make nearly twice as much as most other countries including france, netherlands and germany
@@mightyknight train driver base salary is around 90k, and with overtime it can go to 120k, but that’s with sacrificing after-work life and/or getting the job done. Also, train driver don’t work at set schedule. One day you could be asked to get up and ready by 2am, and the very next day you will be asked to be ready at 12pm. Such irregular shift start and end time messes up circadian cycles badly and can contribute to shorten lifespan. On top of that, an alarming trend in Sydney Trains network is many current employees are approaching their 60s, with I believe quite a few already IN their 60s. If not enough pay is provided, Sydney Trains network could plunge into a workforce crisis very quickly.
I bet this comment section is gonna be mad
More driverless trains! The metro is awesome on every level and the government know it! $120k to drive a train, when our nurses are on much less than that and they work twice as long and actually save lives! They havin a laugh? Get back to work!
Train drivers work the same sort of shift patterns as nurses. They’re less important but still necessary. Not all lines can be converted and the ones that can would cost too much. Also metro staff are also unionised in the same union as drivers, they have negotiations coming up soon.
@@thetrainguy4 Train drivers work much worse shift patterns than nurses, imo. Nursing staff are basically either rostered on 7-7 (12hrs) or (roughly) 7a-3:30p, 1:30p-10p, 9:30p-7a.
in many countries around the world have driverless trains working well
On new systems. It’s too hard/expensive/impossible to convert large parts of Sydney’s existing lines.
Anything that makes the guards life simpler is good. DOO on our network is a nightmare waiting to happen. With all of the curved platforms and the unlevel boarding with huge steps at many platforms the driver should not be in charge of the doors. I'm tired of hearing about the stupid push buttons and as a passenger I don't want to push a button to get on. It's annoying and to me it is like self checkout registers at supermarkets. Then we have the short platforms and disabled access at stations that don't have staff. A driver should never get out of his seat to assist anybody and his sole focus should be on operating the train. I agree the union has no right to any demands on the metro and I think 4% should be the deal instead of 8% with the unions retaining there seat on decisions and design of future trains. That recent incident with the guard is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing occuring and using it as a reason to get rid of guards is ridiculous.
You are misrepresenting my arguments.
The rest of the world has curved platforms, just use a good camera…
Get over a passenger door opening, it’s one button and saves the HVAC from working overtime to keep the saloon at the correct temperature. Grow up.
If Sydney Trains drivers are getting paid $120 000 per year (according to this video) then I cannot see why they need a pay rise when they're getting paid way above the average national wage.
But QLD/VIC train drivers are paid more than that smh, while doing basically the same job. Smh NSW Government don’t want to give workers a good salary rise (likely not 8% but let’s say 5%) over the next 4 years. I suspect they don’t want to give up their own redundant management positions that got paid 3 to 5 times of what train driver paid either.
Bear in mind that includes oblvertime. You really need an ordinary time salary to judge how well paid they are as overtime comes at a cost to the individual.
If they’re paid more elsewhere those who can leave will. Then we’re fucked. It’s pretty simple.
@thetrainguy4 The only people that stay in Sydney are either people with the majority of their mortgage paid off, or people whose partner has a job they can't leave. Anyone who can get an equivalent job outside of Sydney and does meet either of those two criteria are already leaving, and it would take a lot more than even a 30% payrise to reverse this trend. It would take more money then the State government has.
Median property (house and apartments) price in Brisbane is still less than $1 million while it is $1.6 mil in Sydney. Median apartment price in Brisbane is $600k while it is $1m in Sydney. Even a 60% pay rise would not be enough to allow a train driver to afford the same lifestyle in Sydney as in Brisbane, since progressive income tax means you can not compare these numbers linearly. This whole union debacle is, in my opinion, a reflection of a much more deep rooted problem with the Sydney economy for which there is no easy fix.
@ I like your last statement. I never thought of it that way.
Honestly we should be more like other countries where striking is illegal and the organiser of the strike can face charges of up to lifetime in prison. It’s an extreme but certainly an effective one.
Edit: Also opening every door at every station pisses me off so much like it’s so stupid
Jesus fucking Christ man what the fuck???
You want strikes to be illegal? Like in China or Qatar? Grow up.
@@thetrainguy4 look at Singapore
Striking is extremely regulated. This striking type is outlawed
Fascist
@@alecwilson8743 so what? Singapore is also a dictatorship country, unlike Australia. You guys are effectively asking Australia to function similar to what China does. Hope you don’t regret later if that does happen.
Ok so you hate strikes. You think those workers don’t deserve to be properly compensated just because YOU are being inconvenienced one day or two. Well then how about banning resignations? Because if workers can’t legally strike, they will just try to quit. Look no further than a recent mass resignation of 200 psychiatrists in NSW public healthcare sector.