Re: Austrac requires drivers

["deano" <dsma@pigpond.com>]

The airline industry deals with these issues pretty well.
Maybe if rail is to move into the 21st Century on time it may need to look
at similar measures. Several things are common in aviation, one is training
bonds until
such time as return of service is completed. These are applied in
such a way as to withhold an agreed portion of salary until return of
service is
completed and then pay it up or the other way is for the person wanting
employment to put up some money up
front. I have a mate with  $100,000 US bond for ten years. It earns interest
and so long as
he does ten years he gets it back. If not, it is paid back, pro rated. The
other thing which
is becoming fairly common is "no disadvantage" contracts. This is where you
sign to say that
any training you get from company X will only be used for their exclusive
benefit for a set period
of time, usually about 6 years. So if you leave company X after three years
as a driver who has been
trained at company X's expense you can't be a driver for another 3
years(unless you want to be sued out of existance). This one works very well
and makes companies much more likely to train new staff up. A lot won't like
these ideas but if you
want someone to spend a quarter mill training you from scratch then you
gotta expect they want to
protect their investment. And for every person who says no way there are a
thousand who will say yes!
Russell Norton <russelln@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
3935a979@news.iprimus.com.au">news:3935a979@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> Dave Proctor <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:nzuY4.1$Il2.432@news0.optus.net.au...
> > "Stuart Thyer" <s.thyer@anatomy.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:8gt3ug$b04$1@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > In article <jZnY4.14$KR2.1575@vic.nntp.telstra.net>, "Thommo"
> > > <mjthom@hdc.net.au> wrote:
> > Just on this, with all of the operators seeking QUALIFIED drivers, who
is
> > supposed to train the crews these days, and should an operator decide to
> > train some drivers, how can they be assured that these crewpersons won't
> > defect to the opposition?
> >
> > It is all well and good to try and attract FA or FC crews at the moment,
> but
> > sooner or later, new crews will have to start to be trained, but nobody
> will
> > want to do it unless they can get some security for their investment.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Dave
>
> This is entirely correct. Operators are currently very reluctant to train
> drivers' from scratch in any reasonable numbers, as there is no way to
> prevent them from leaving once qualified. Hiring off the street, as far as
> major operators are concerned, is also viewed as a last resort, as
potential
> trainees would generally be sourced from employees within the company
(owing
> to the current trend to reduce costs = downsizing). An example would be
> Guards becoming Drivers' in Cityrail.
>
> Operators, especially the major players, are still coming to grips with
the
> fact that drivers' have many alternatives if they are unhappy with their
> existing employer (of if they get a better offer from another operator).
It
> would be prudent for companies to implement a strategy to retain their
> existing drivers' (e.g. improvements to wages / conditions, bonuses etc.).
> Failure to do this would ultimately result in train cancellations due to
> driver shortages, and a resultant drop in revenue for the organisation as
> customers are equally aware that there are alternatives in the rail
freight
> marketplace, if their consignments become disrupted.
>
> Ultimately, someone is going to have to start training in significant
> numbers. However, I doubt this will happen in the short term as there is
> still uncertainty about exact driver requirements owing to the
> implementation of new service plans, longer trains, and DOO.
>
> Russ...
>
>