Engineers strike could effect service @ Telecom?

[Firefight]

What fuckin service ??????:no:








F/F:shit:

[Pussy]

What fuckin service ??????:no:








F/F:shit:

It might improve it!

[oldrider]

It might improve it!

Took the words right out of my mouth!.......er wash your hands next time...p..leeease! :eek:

[Jase H]

It won't affect the service one bit.

It's bad now - it'll be just as bad during the strike.

Oh, and don't bother replying. With my Xtra Broadband down to dial-up speeds, I'll not get your reply until after the strike, anyway :yawn:

[ready4whatever]

"didnt i tell you telecom was shitty", "no, you didnt richard"

[MisterD]

It won't affect the service one bit.

It's bad now - it'll be just as bad during the strike.

Umm, these blokes do the work for Chorus, it's their copper whoever you get your service from...so it doesn't matter if you're with T'com, Ihug, Orcon or whoever (unless you're lucky enough to be on cable or TelstraClear's own copper) if there's a fault it's the same blokes that fix it.

[Dave Lobster]

Umm, these blokes do the work for Chorus, it's their copper whoever you get your service from...so it doesn't matter if you're with T'com, Ihug, Orcon or whoever (unless you're lucky enough to be on cable or TelstraClear's own copper) if there's a fault it's the same blokes that fix it.

Not for long. They're striking because they've lost the contract with Telecom - to another aussie outfit.
Aussie outfit needs to take on staff here. But instead of taking them on as employees, will only take them on as subcontractors.
Each bloke, most of whom are in their 40s/50s/60s (some of them) will need to fork out over $100k to get the kit together that they'll need as subcontractors.
Now, if they only get a maintainance contract, they'll be taking home about $21k a year.

[nudemetalz]

They're allowed strikes in the Phillipines?
Oh hang on, that's the Customer Service Department......

[sil3nt]

I tooted at the workers today. Mainly to see if my horn worked on the bike. I fail to see how standing at the side of the road getting people to honk resolves anything.

[Pussy]

They're allowed strikes in the Phillipines?
Oh hang on, that's the Customer Service Department......
You get the Phillipines? Luxury! I'm normally speaking to someone from dowtown Delhi when I get hold of Telecom customer service....

[Mully]

They were striking outside work this morning, with the EPMU. I didn't have the heart to go down there and tell them that Telescum don't have an office in our building.

[hospitalfood]

i feel sorry for the tele workers and they have my full support.

telecom was not making money with maintenance and service. the fact that they make massive profit overall does not seem to matter. so........they contract it out.

now they have a recession on ( i bet they were waiting for it ) they are in a better position to contract it out to an Aussie company which is forcing the tele workers into self employment. and the workers are getting fucked ! don't try to tell me telecom is doing it so the workers will be better off. it should be illegal to do what they are doing in a recession!

same old same old, CEO on millions and workers getting screwed down to a very typically low N.Z. income.

give them a toot, dial in faults, do all you can for these boys as they are almost the only ones in telecom who do a hard days work for fuck all pay.

[Dave Lobster]

same old same old, CEO on millions and workers getting screwed down to a very typically low N.Z. income.


Downer's CEO isn't.
She's resigned.

[Swoop]

I fail to see how standing at the side of the road getting people to honk resolves anything.
It annoys the senior management. More specifically, it puts them off of their freecell game and ruins their game stat's.

[Mully]

Downer's CEO isn't.
She's resigned.



I think I've found Downer's problem........

[laserracer]

What the indians on the help desk are going on strike ?greedy buggers what they cant live on 3 rupees a week and all the rice they can eat...i say they are overpaid i only get 1 rupee a month and no rice :eek5:...but free parking for my elephant:yes:

[MisterD]

Not for long. They're striking because they've lost the contract with Telecom - to another aussie outfit.
Aussie outfit needs to take on staff here. But instead of taking them on as employees, will only take them on as subcontractors.
Each bloke, most of whom are in their 40s/50s/60s (some of them) will need to fork out over $100k to get the kit together that they'll need as subcontractors.
Now, if they only get a maintainance contract, they'll be taking home about $21k a year.

I know all that Dave, the point I was making is that regardless of who provides your service, it's the same bunch of field techs that fix the faults...

[MisterD]

Downer's CEO isn't.
She's resigned.

You mean Sheridan?

[Lias]

Its rare that I support the work of unions, but this time I'm with them. The workers are getting shafted, and it will decrease the quality of the network. The companies involved are trying to force the employees to become subcontractors, and rather than being paid wages they will be paid on a per job basis. This means they will have to do more jobs in the same span of time to make the same money. This means that they are more likely to rush jobs, or do them halfassed to get more money. This WILL break stuff, and its our telecommunications that will suffer. If you think the network is shit now, its going to get alot worse if this goes ahead.

[Pussy]

Its rare that I support the work of unions, but this time I'm with them. The workers are getting shafted, and it will decrease the quality of the network. The companies involved are trying to force the employees to become subcontractors, and rather than being paid wages they will be paid on a per job basis. This means they will have to do more jobs in the same span of time to make the same money. This means that they are more likely to rush jobs, or do them halfassed to get more money. This WILL break stuff, and its our telecommunications that will suffer. If you think the network is shit now, its going to get alot worse if this goes ahead.


Agree with you on this, A!

[oldrider]

Its rare that I support the work of unions, but this time I'm with them. The workers are getting shafted, and it will decrease the quality of the network. The companies involved are trying to force the employees to become subcontractors, and rather than being paid wages they will be paid on a per job basis. This means they will have to do more jobs in the same span of time to make the same money. This means that they are more likely to rush jobs, or do them halfassed to get more money. This WILL break stuff, and its our telecommunications that will suffer. If you think the network is shit now, its going to get alot worse if this goes ahead.


Agree with you on this, A!

Sorry, I don't agree with you! (well in theory anyway)

If the contractors are being rewarded for their competence and performance by adding value to the network, the service should improve or at least maintain it's current standard as a minimum.

The better contractors will get a greater percentage of the work and will need to employ the others as they get busier and take on more work.

The Unions just protect the incompetent members and maintain performance to the level of the lowest common denominator!

Why do Unions do that? Because it is the lowest common denominator's that need unions the most!

The unions life blood is incompetence, go figure, do rabbit boards ever eliminate "rabbits" ? NO, the rabbits are their life blood!

Telecom doesn't want labour problems, they just want their system maintained and let the contractors worry about employment details.

Can't blame them for that!

If it improves their performance even better for me, as one of their (currently dissatisfied) customers!

[Clockwork]

Its about squeezing every last cent of profit by reducing working conditions and other overheads by transfering liability for them on to someone elses balance sheet. Then, (here comes to good part) Those poor subbies will have to compete with each other on price and service thereby reducing cost even more.

Of course they may go bankrupt in the process but that will be their and their creditors problem too! There will always be some other desperate sucker who will try to pick up the slack.

Of course the ones that do scrape a living income they probably will not make enough to ever reininvest or save for their retirement or earn through sickness but again.... that wont be Telecom's problem.

The subbies will be forced to cut corner's to compete, that will affect service and quality but you guessed it, that wont be Telecom's problem either.


Obviously you can't off-shore this kind of support to India or Asia but this is the fiscal equivilent of doing so.

[marty]

I'm a member of the EPMU. They are fucking useless. Toothless, out of touch and ineffective.

[Ixion]

So, these contractors. Will they be permitted to take work for other companies. Like, Telecom opposition? If they really ARE contractors, they should be allowed to . And to work when and where they choose, subject to meeting agreed SLAs.

If they really are, then Telecom can at least say that they are genuinely wanting to use a different business model. But if not, then it's just exploitation

[MisterD]

So, these contractors. Will they be permitted to take work for other companies. Like, Telecom opposition? If they really ARE contractors, they should be allowed to . And to work when and where they choose, subject to meeting agreed SLAs.

These guys contract (or subcontract) to Chorus, who are operationally separated (by act of Parliament) from Telecom Wholesale and Telecom Retail. On the copper side of things, there effectively is no competition, on the Optical Fibre side it'll depend what happens with the gummint's $1.5bn promise and how much the utilities companies get of it...

The business model Visionstream want to use is the way they work for Telstra in Australia and the fairness / unfairness of it really depends on the terms of the sub-contract as far as I can see...although the general feeling, especially out of Northland, is that if Visionstream think they can just transplant what they do in big Aussie cities in to provincial NZ they're "dreaming".

I also don't see how Visionstream can hold any kind of economic gun to the guys' heads though...there's a shortage of techs nationwide, and if Transfield and Downer are prepared to recruit and relocate people from the Philippines, then moving within the North Island shouldn't be a drama should it? The power would appear to be slightly on the techs' side on this one...

[oldrider]

So, these contractors. Will they be permitted to take work for other companies. Like, Telecom opposition? If they really ARE contractors, they should be allowed to . And to work when and where they choose, subject to meeting agreed SLAs.

If they really are, then Telecom can at least say that they are genuinely wanting to use a different business model. But if not, then it's just exploitation

If I understand you correctly, I agree with you.

Legally,Telecom does have the right to manage their business as they choose!

Their declarations of purpose, intent and governance must be available for public scrutiny and legal challenge!

I presume that Telecom directors and management have done their work accordingly. :rolleyes:

[Lias]

So, these contractors. Will they be permitted to take work for other companies. Like, Telecom opposition? If they really ARE contractors, they should be allowed to . And to work when and where they choose, subject to meeting agreed SLAs.

If they really are, then Telecom can at least say that they are genuinely wanting to use a different business model. But if not, then it's just exploitation

Chorus (Aka the bit of telecom that handles the lines) currently has all its service/maintenance work contracted to Downer & Transfield. They've decided they want to make room for the 3rd big aussie player, Visionstream so they've redivided the country up. Basically this means all the Downer/Transfield techs in certain areas are going to become VisionStream employees instead, but VisionStream dont employee people directly, they only subcontract. So all the techs have to become self employed subcontracters, running their own mini business, but with VisionStream as their only contract. They take all the risk, have to invest in all the equipment (and were talking 10's of thousands of gear), and VisionStream takes all the profit. Plus as mentioned earlier as subcontracters they get paid on a "Per job" basis rather than wages like an employee. From what i've been told to make the same money they are on now as employees, they will have to increase productivity, meaning more rushed jobs, meaning shitter service for us the consumer.

They are being shafted Ixion and right royally too.

[Lias]

Legally,Telecom does have the right to manage their business as they choose!


Yes well, Telecom is one business that has no right being a private business, it (along with the power companies) need to be nationalized again to keep them honest.

[Dave Lobster]

Yes well, Telecom is one business that has no right being a private business, it (along with the power companies) need to be nationalized again to keep them honest.

That's the funniest thing I've heard this month!!

Unless, by honest, you mean wasteful and incompetent.

[idleidolidyll]

you don't care that this is nothing less than another foreign company driving Kiwi wages down so they can send more money offshore?

I do and I support the telco workers; this is illegal (dependent contracting)

[Dave Lobster]

another foreign company

Remind me where Downer are from..

[idleidolidyll]

sure, i never said the business roundtable and its adherents hadn't already sold out half+ of NZ

so does that mean you support even more kiwi cash being sent offshore for nothing but more fat profits for foreign companies?

do you know what dependent contracting is and why its just plain criminal?

[MisterD]

do you know what dependent contracting is and why its just plain criminal?

Perhaps you could explain the difference here between the owner-operator model for a telco tech versus, say, a courier or a taxi driver?

As I said before, given the supply/demand equation for the skills these guys have, I don't see anyone in the position to shaft them. The (pretty well qualified) opinion I heard from reasonably high up in one of the two incumbent service companies, is that a young go-ahead bloke could do very well, someone looking at sub-ten years to retirement, not so much.

[oldrider]

Yes well, Telecom is one business that has no right being a private business, it (along with the power companies) need to be nationalized again to keep them honest.

Government utilities "honest", run for the benefit of the end user, do you really believe that bullshit?

Power companies "nationalised again", tell us which ones are not owned by the government now!

Transpower, Genesis, Mighty River, Meridian, all still owned by the government!

Since deregulation, they have extended their operations into retail by buying up the old power boards!

Same government owned utilities (SOE's) but even bigger than before!

Power (electricity) was deregulated, not privatised!

The government now own more of the electricity supply than they did before deregulation!

They sold a few stations to help set up Contact as a private company to create the illusion of competition to drive prices down, big deal!

Are you and the rest of NZ consumers benefiting from this "competitive" market??? NO, because it is controlled by government monopoly!

Who is screwing who and why do you think nothing ever really gets done about it? State controlled socialist cunts! :Pokey:.....:brick:

[idleidolidyll]

Perhaps you could explain the difference here between the owner-operator model for a telco tech versus, say, a courier or a taxi driver?

As I said before, given the supply/demand equation for the skills these guys have, I don't see anyone in the position to shaft them. The (pretty well qualified) opinion I heard from reasonably high up in one of the two incumbent service companies, is that a young go-ahead bloke could do very well, someone looking at sub-ten years to retirement, not so much.

Easy; dependant contracts like that offered to the Downer guys and gals is an exclusive contract to only one company. The staff have been told they must be available 12 hours per day 6 days per week so there is no way they can work for any other business under the contract and the contract holder has the power, through a monopoly on their hours, to force them to accept lower or higher hours and conditions without the ability to go elsewhere.

A taxi driver is a free enterprise and can sell their services to anyone on the street.

[MisterD]

is an exclusive contract to only one company.

Apparently not, there's a legal opinion for the EPMU linked on the Stranded...

[idleidolidyll]

Apparently not, there's a legal opinion for the EPMU linked on the Stranded...

When the contract they ask you to sign calls for 12 hour a day, 6 days a week availability, that pretty much excludes all ability to offer services to other companies.
Under the ERA, that kind of dependent contracting is effectively nothing more than an employment contract to a sole company and therefore constitutes employment under that company with all standard rules of employment applying. The ability for the contract holder to abuse their monopoly over the contracted worker is recognised as an abuse of employer worker relationship and can be prosecuted under the ERA.

I don't have the specific clauses but this was something I studied in 2005 while sitting my Comms Degree. Yes, of course it can be challenged by a lawyer as can any law or statute but effectively it is in breach of the ERA as it stands and that's not good for Kiwis at all.

That said, the last Nat govt introduced the odious Employment Contracts Act: a document that robbed most workers of their rights and transferred them to the employer. I fully expect that to happen again with changes to the ERA allowing abuse of workers under National.

Nationals Hollow Men are taking control again. The latest is the proposed shift to taxation.
To reduce income tax and increase gst is nothing less than a faster transfer of wealth to the wealthy in a system where that is already happening.
The tax cuts promise will be totally eroded for most Kiwis in favour of tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate.

[idleidolidyll]

That said,

the company could reduce the demanded availability of the contracters allowing them to work for other companies during the same hours. This would of course mean that a call out could take many more hours to be attended to and the standard of service will become merkedly worse.

the real issue though is that we are allowing foreign companies to drive down Kiwi wages so they can ship more of our money offshore with less comeback on them

[Dave Lobster]

The tax cuts promise will be totally eroded for most Kiwis in favour of tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the less fortunate.

Define 'less fortunate', if you wouldn't mind..

Would it happen to be those of us that:
Don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't have children. Don't have cars on HP. Don't have PS3s/Xboxes/etc. Don't have takeaway food. Don't have credit cards. Don't have a whole heap of other shit they don't need. Don't appear on the TV whining they don't get a hand out for some shit they've caused themselves.
But DO have a mortgage on a nice house. DO save up for things BEFORE buying them.
Are they the less fortunate you have in mind?

[idleidolidyll]

Define 'less fortunate', if you wouldn't mind..

Would it happen to be those of us that:
Don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't have children. Don't have cars on HP. Don't have PS3s/Xboxes/etc. Don't have takeaway food. Don't have credit cards. Don't have a whole heap of other shit they don't need. Don't appear on the TV whining they don't get a hand out for some shit they've caused themselves.
But DO have a mortgage on a nice house. DO save up for things BEFORE buying them.
Are they the less fortunate you have in mind?

oh please

don't pretend you're some kind of angel and do stick to the point

capitalism is a contract and part of that contract is the understanding that capitalists need the unemployed to help drive wages down.

if a certain percentage of jobs are bot available then the contract is moot.

likewise, if capitalists whine when governments try to find work for people to do while on the dole because it "takes away a legitimate and profiable business"; they should NOT whine when the government pay people to sit on their arses.

Fact: wealth has been trending away from mid and lower classes

Fact: National policies will increase that trend and the bulk of ordinary Kiwis will lose from the changes

Fact: I stand to gain considerably from National policies and so does my wife as we are both very well paid

Fact: I'd rather see the money go to the lower and middle classes and have NZ stay the relatively class free nation it is with top rankings in all the things that really count like quality of life and access to health care

Fact: Nationals cronies dont give a rats arse about ordinary Kiwis and those ordinary youths who had never experienced Nationals abuse are about to learn a hard lesson

[Dave Lobster]

Fact: I'd rather see the money go to the lower and middle classes


I'm quite sure they'd be happy to take it off you. Do you need the government to force you to hand your money over, or are you willing to do it off your own back?

Personally, I'd rather keep the money I earn, and let those of us that choose to squander their unearned cash on shit rot in the squallor of their own making.

[idleidolidyll]

Slippery Slope, Divide and Conquer; call it what you will..............

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller

The National Party version:

First they came for the unemployed but I didn't care because I had a job I thought I could keep,
Then they came for the telco workers but those lazy bastards deserved it, then they came for the bank staff and they've always pissed me off so I said nothing, then they came for the engineers and those guys are so smug i didn't give a damn.......then they came for me but by that time the gap between the have and have nots was so huge and I'd been such a bastard to all the others I had no support or power and I too was driven into wage slavery along with all the rest.

If you don't see the danger behind this you're either blind or don't give a damn about Kiwi society

[idleidolidyll]

I'm quite sure they'd be happy to take it off you. Do you need the government to force you to hand your money over, or are you willing to do it off your own back?

Personally, I'd rather keep the money I earn, and let those of us that choose to squander their unearned cash on shit rot in the squallor of their own making.

yep, we need the govt to force it to happen because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: those with power (money in todays' language) won't offer it freely; all they will offer is crumbs from the masters table.

the real joke is that those with a few grand, tens of k, even hundreds of thou are not the power brokers, they are merely the apologists for what will eventually happen to them too

capitalism is about cornering power for a tiny minority not about freedom, democracy or egalitarianism; those are socialist tenants