Re: GrainCorp

[dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage)]

tezza (tezza@atinet.com.au) wrote:
>
>Bob wrote in message <34D19359.A00332FE@fastlink.com.au>...
>Also of note , is that the PTU have advised their
>>members that if the Graincorp deal goes ahead, redundancies would be
>>inevitable for some Freightcorp crews. Does this sound correct Tezza?
>
>It undoubtabley(?)  would be. There are so many blokes who want
>redundancy anyway that it wouldn't be a problem.
>
>Casual crews are *very* big stumbling block for the PTU. Problem is once
>FC or anyone else get a foot in the door with *voluntary* casual, it's
>not a big step to *mandatory*.

The obvious answer would be multiskilling to keep fewer staff fully
occupied. In some areas a crew might only get one or two shifts per week,
so on some other days they could be doing other tasks such as light
maintenance. So instead of, say, two drivers, two fitters and an
electrician to look after a pair of 48s, a remote location might have two
driver/fitters and a driver/electrician whose jobs could be rotated. The
capital cost of training would ultimately be offset by the savings in
current costs. 

A useful analogy is West Coast Rail where some conductors and catering
staff also do administrative work, and this newsgroup's resident
conductor/engineer.

Cheers
David