Re: Drivers and guards to be sacked.

["Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au>]

"Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
wevn5.491909$MB.7482836@news6.giganews.com">news:wevn5.491909$MB.7482836@news6.giganews.com...
> "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
> 399e7563$0$757$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:399e7563$0$757$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > > > By the threat of sacking them?
> > > > >
> > > > > If they will not comply with lawful directions from their
managers,
> > then yes.
> > > >
> > > > Ludicrous. It'll just waste hundreds of thousands of dollars as each
> > > person takes them to the appeals board and gets re-instated.
> > >
> > > Money well spent if it gets rid of riff raff who refuse to comply with
> > > lawful directives.
> >
> > Money wasted when they get re-instated by the Transport Appeals Board.
>
> Mony wasted by the ridiculous industrial relations process we have in
place.
> If someone *refuses* to comply with *lawful* requirements of management,
> then they have no business keeping that job. If those requirements are
> unsafe, there are mechanisms in place (workCover, etc) to enusre that
those
> requirements are no longer *lawful*. If you do not want to do what your
> employer tells you to do (as long as it is lawful) then find another
> employer, quite simple really.

But it's OK for the employer to do something unlawful? ie, sack the
employee.

>
> > Guard who doesn't want to wear a tie is not riff-raff.
>
> Someone who will not comply with lawful directions from their employer is
> riff-raff.
>
> > Maybe we should put
> > management into uniforms and making them work to some of our ridiculous
> > conditions would be a good idea. Maybe even show them a picture of a
> train,
> > so they know what it looks like.
>
> AGree there. But if you don't like the conditions that management wants
you
> to work under, why not find another job?


They changed the conditions.