Chapter 5 - Working conditions
5.1
Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard that transport employers are
facing workforce challenges from two angles. First, many experience difficulty
attracting workers in the first place; and second, even where workers are trained
and engaged, it can be difficult to retain those workers for any length of
time, let alone long enough to off-set the costs invested in training and
orientation. Both these issues have been covered in earlier chapters of the
report providing detail on issues of recruitment and worker demand.
5.2
However, in addressing problems of worker retention, a number of
witnesses and submissions brought to the committee's attention the significance
of working conditions associated industrial arrangements. This chapter will
provide further detail on the committee's findings and conclusions in relation
to the practical experience employees in the transport and logistics industry
have, and how this may influence retention of workers.
Road transport driver conditions
5.3
Scarcity of labour, and the difficulty of filling employment vacancies
raises the immediate issue of wages and working conditions. Are truck drivers
paid enough? Are the conditions of employment so onerous as to deter people
from entering the industry? Evidence from witnesses and submissions during the
inquiry suggests that there are inter-related problems associated with the
distance drivers may be required to travel, the adequacy of rest facilities on
route, and management of family responsibilities.
The tyranny of distance
5.4
Distance from home drives down job satisfaction, particularly for
smaller owner-operator drivers. Business imperatives may require that drivers
undertake long journeys in short periods of time, which can result in dangerous
levels of fatigue. The Queensland Trucking Association told the committee that:
It is where you get the large distances – and, being honest with
you, we have got blokes who are just live cannons. They go in up to here,
purchase trucks and trailers that they really can't afford, and the only way
they can keep those things running is to keep them working.[1]
5.5
This problem is compounded by a lack of adequate and available rest
facilities on route, an issue which a number of witnesses and submissions
raised. For instance, the Australian Trucking Association explained that:
You will often get to a rest area where you had planned to pull
over and it is either full of heavy vehicles, because of the sheer number that
is growing on the roads, or has our friends with their touring caravans. They
are entitled to get off the road and have a rest, and often they do not quite
get off the road in the sense of making room for other vehicles to come in.[2]
5.6
Main Roads Western Australia stated that declining numbers of rest
places for truck drivers is a real problem in that state, where road freight
routes are often long:
...in relation to roadhouses, the industry is making it very clear
to us that they are concerned with their dwindling number. If you go back in
time, transport truck drivers could actually find a good place to stop off, get
some fuel, get a shower, have a good meal and then maybe have a rest or move
on. The roadhouses are dwindling in number.[3]
5.7
It was suggested during public hearings that, as a result of inadequate
space available at designated rest areas, drivers sometimes have to pull up in
other places, which can create safety hazards for themselves and other members
of the public:
Finding the right place to park safely to rest is a major issue.
If they pull up in the wrong place and abide by the law (requiring rest after a
certain number of driving hours), somebody can run into the back of them and
kill themselves.[4]
5.8
Although it was generally not raised in the context of working
conditions, the committee is also concerned about the implications for driver
wellbeing of extended and more complex container combinations on trucks. Some
witnesses explained that one solution being used to address driver shortages is
to have individual trucks carrying more freight. For example, the Queensland
Trucking Association told the committee that:
I think there is a place for all those sorts of effective
combinations. We have a situation on the waterfront where we run super B-double
units...It allows us to put on two 40-foot containers. They are running them in Melbourne
and they are running them on the Brisbane port...I do believe that there are a
lot more effective combinations that could be used to service the adjoining
capitals and to service the local situation than is currently the case.[5]
5.9
The committee further noted the Commonwealth Government's recent
announcement of a new B-triple network to operate on selected routes in
Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and the
Northern Territory, with the explanation that 'Two B-triples can do the work of
five semi-trailers, take up much less space on the road, and emit much less
carbon into the atmosphere'.[6]
5.10
While there may be situations in which additional trailers on individual
trucks can be a viable option for moving more freight with fewer drivers,
carrying such a load must also place extra stress on drivers, particularly in
more congested and urban traffic conditions.[7]
The safety risks associated with this extend beyond individual drivers to
include others on the roads, as the NRMA pointed out in a press release on 3 July 2007:
B triples weigh around 74 times more than the average family
car. Overtaking a B triple is the equivalent of overtaking around 9 cars – all
in one go. Allowing B triples on NSW roads raises serious road safety issues
that need addressing first...While there are economic arguments supporting the
need for these trucks, this cannot overshadow legitimate safety concerns.[8]
5.11
The committee notes that speculation on extension of the B double and B
triple network has not yet made much impression on the mainstream media. It has
serious reservations about whether these suggestions can stand the test of
public opinion. Road trains on the Newell Highway, for instance, would appear
to be a far less desirable prospect than trains operating on a proposed new Melbourne
to Brisbane route.
Possible solutions
5.12
In finding solutions to these problems, it is clear that overarching
policy and investment decisions for transport infrastructure should be
considered. This will be dealt with in more detail in the next chapter on
strategic coordination and long-term strategies, but it is important to note
here that the trucking industry has been looking, with some success, at other
ways to address the problem.
Staged driving
5.13
One of the strategies most commonly suggested to the committee is staged
driving, whereby a series of drivers based in different locations carry a
freight load for part of a given route, pass it on to the next driver, and then
return home with a load going to other way. This eliminates the need for a
single driver to be away for days at a time, and helps to guarantee adequate rest
breaks. For example, the Australian Trucking Association explained that:
For example, someone who, say, lives in Melbourne can drive to
Wagga, do a changeover and get back home that night, while the person who lives
in Wagga can drive the truck up to Goondiwindi and be back home the next night.
A bloke or woman out of Brisbane can so the next leg. The whole thing has gone
from Melbourne to Brisbane with three different drivers, and they are all home
for the night.[9]
5.14
The committee recognises the life-style rationale for this suggestion,
but is not convinced that this is a viable long-term solution. Staged driving
relies on suitable drivers being available to pick up the load at each stage of
the route, and given the weight of evidence about driver shortages the
committee is not convinced that this would be regularly guaranteed. The
logistical task involved in transferring a load between drivers at each stop
would be more complex, and therefore inherently carry more risks of delay, than
if a single load is carried by one driver. While staged driving may present
some advantages, in general it does not appear to solve underlying problems of
worker or skills shortages in the industry. The committee did not encounter
representative driver groups who would support it, and the system is certainly
unworkable for owner-drivers. On the other hand, it is normal Pacific National
practice for rail movements between Sydney and Melbourne.
Technological change
5.15
Technological change to improve the physical work experience for
truckers is a factor which the committee heard may create better work
conditions. Chapter 2 of this report discussed some of the ways in which
technological changes are helping make working in trucking more attractive and
comfortable for women; however, many of these improvements would apply equally
to male employees. For example, the Australian Trucking Association described
with interesting detail the many ways in which the physical work environment
has improved for all truck drivers in recent years. The committee heard that
vehicles are quieter, seating has been designed with ergonomic considerations,
cabins are fully air-conditioned, and there are benefits in ABS braking systems
and cruise control:
The cabin ambience itself is significantly better than it has
been. There have been appointments inside the cabin – so we have seen the ride,
comfort of the seats and ambience inside the cabin, such as the quietness, to
be quite significant factors in attracting people to the vehicles themselves.[10]
Remuneration
5.16
Remuneration levels offered by mining companies cannot be matched by
most other transport operators, as this report has explained in chapter 4.
However, the committee was interested to hear that some transport operators
reporting a level of success in mediating wages pressure from the commodities
sector by improving working conditions, or finding other ways to provide
financial rewards. For example, Queensland Rail explained that it has
developed a system of financial incentives outside the formal pay scale:
...we have to look carefully at not having a huge capacity to
increase wages in one area without affecting other parts of the business. We
looked at incentives that sat outside the pay system. We set up an incentive
called StaySmart, where we would offer an incentive to hot spots around the
state that had been identified through our career centre as having a
significant number of vacancies we were unable to fill. So we would pay a
retention payment, particularly to tradespeople in those areas, and we would
use the incentive as an attractor in our advertising as well.[11]
5.17
The large rail freight operator Pacific National appears to have no
problems retaining employees. The company employs 4,000 personnel, including
840 drivers, and claims a staff turnover of less than 10 per cent. Drivers earn
up to $85,000. There are no recruitment problems, and the company told the
committee on its visit to Dynon yards that if a driver lasted for two years
they were there for life.
5.18
During a visit to Queensland Rail's training workshop, the committee
also heard that workers may be offered flexible working hours or additional
time off, as well as more options for task variation and extension, as an
example of a non-monetary incentive to stay with that employer; and that this
was viewed particularly favourably by younger workers and apprentices. This is
in line with Queensland Rail's submission to the inquiry showing that while
employees from the baby boomer generation are generally happy to work in a
hierarchical organisational environment and value monetary recognition,
employees from generations X and Y place more emphasis on access to training
and development, flexibility and challenge in their work. Where these types of
working conditions are available, a powerful incentive to remain with that
employer is created.[12]
5.19
This perspective was further supported by comments from the Victorian
Transport and Logistics Industry Government Partnership indicating that
although some employers do focus on retaining staff by paying higher wages,
others find that workers are often prepared to accept slightly lower wages
where working conditions are favourable:
We also hear about drivers who decide to work for somebody else
and then find themselves coming back to the original employer because...they
appreciate the employment arrangements that were offered to them by the other
employer...I think you are right that employment practices and conditions are a
part of that.[13]
5.20
This is not to suggest that remuneration and wages are unimportant in
overall working conditions. TOLL Group, one of the major providers of
integrated logistics services in the Asian region, told the committee that
obtaining workers has generally not been very difficult, due in part to the
company's high profile, growth and competitive working conditions, but also to
the fact that:
Generally speaking the Toll (wage) rates would be more
attractive even to the TWU than a lot of other companies in the industry. If
there is a general issue of low wage rates, the Toll rates would generally fair
well in comparison with the industry; to a lot of the industry, anyway.[14]
5.21
This may be true, although the committee notes that the Transport
Workers' Union considers wage rates in the transport industry overall too low,
highlighting the relative nature of an assessment of one company's wages
compared with others.[15]
On balance, the committee believes that remuneration is an important issue in
retaining workers, but that other aspects of working conditions are equally
important in providing incentives for workers to enter and remain in the
industry, as a number of operators have demonstrated with considerable success.
Aviation working conditions
5.22
The committee also heard evidence of concerns about working conditions
in the aviation industry. It appears that much pressure on working conditions
in the aviation industry stems from the need for airlines to remain competitive
in a predatory international environment. This can lead, for example, to long
and erratic working hours, particularly for maintenance staff. The Australian
Licensed Aviation Engineers Association told the committee that many
maintenance staff are required to work shifts operating on a continuous basis,
24 hours a day and seven days a week.
Unfortunately, the nature of shiftwork that is involved in the
aviation industry can contain anywhere from working the shifts of seven o'clock
in the afternoon to 11 o'clock at night...If you were working for Qantas, that
would be a start of approximately 6.30 in the morning to 6.30 at night and then
6.30 at night until 6.30 in the morning. I believe that there is a particular
type of person that can sustain that sort of work over such periods. One of the
things that you obviously need to get used to is sleeping during the day. Not
everyone is totally interested in doing that.[16]
Remuneration
5.23
The committee heard that there are also concerns about workers, and
particularly apprentices, being attracted away from the transport industry by
higher wages elsewhere:
Recently one of the apprentices left Qantas after finishing his
apprenticeship to take up work in the area of IT, which offered an immediate
salary of $120,000. He completed certain courses in IT during his
apprenticeship, which enabled him to do this. So I believe we are competing
against those technological industries for apprentices of the necessary
aptitude.[17]
5.24
Given the evidence of strong financial competitive pressure in the
aviation industry, the committee is interested in the value of non-monetary
incentives (such as those described by Queensland Rail above) to improve work
conditions, and thereby retention, for workers in this sector. Measures such as
increased opportunities for time off, or less strenuous shift arrangements, may
be useful. It is also possible that the reason such measures do not yet appear
to have been introduced is the relative ease with which operators have been
able to secure trainees up to now, compared with the road and rail sectors.
Given that worker shortages in aviation are expected to worsen, the committee
considers that pre-emptive attention be given to non-monetary improvements in
working conditions.
5.25
Some witnesses and submissions mentioned the likelihood that aviation
operators may also consider a return to formal indentured apprenticeship
arrangements as a method of ensuring workers are retained for at least a
certain period after initial training. For example, Qantas told the committee
that training an engineer can cost over $100,000, and training a pilot can cost
over $200,000, and that in order to ensure this investment produces a return:
We will build over time some clarity in the expectation of those
people (trainees), because I think it is quite a reasonable ask for an employer
like us to say: 'If we invest in you, we expect you to stay. In the event that
you leave, we will put some further consequences for you within that.' We have
not done that yet. That is a piece of work we need to do to deal with the phenomenon,
otherwise we are training the industry.[18]
5.26
While such an approach may appear somewhat rigid, the committee notes
evidence from other witnesses that trainees may welcome the certainty and
employment security inherent in such and arrangement. For example, the
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association described a new style of
traineeship trialled by Qantas in recent years whereby the apprentice was
assessed annually as to whether he or she was competent to continue with
training in subsequent years. The committee heard that:
That traineeship system was soon wound back to the
apprenticeship system because they found that people were not happy to go year
by year. They wanted to know that they had a job for four years where they
could build up and, if at the end they were deemed competent, could continue on.[19]
5.27
On the basis of such evidence, the committee considers that there can be
merit in the option of indentured apprenticeship schemes as one way of ensuring
training investment returns dividends to employers, and that this could apply
to other sectors of the transport industry aside from aviation.
5.28
However, the committee also suggests that in the introduction of an
industry-wide training levy (recommended in Chapter 4 of this report) may
alleviate some employer concerns about inequities in the distribution of
training costs. Further, the committee also notes evidence from other employers
(for example, from TransAdelaide, as described in Chapter 4) who explained that
a more flexible approach allowing workers to move between sectors and
industries can be a positive for the workforce overall, sharing expertise and
creating more attractive career paths. This can mean that, while individual
workers may remain with a particular employer for shorter periods of time, they
may remain in the broader transport industry for longer, lessening some of the
overall skills shortages highlighted in this inquiry.
Maritime working conditions
5.29
Evidence to the inquiry also touched on concerns about working
conditions in the maritime industry, although these were again different from
concerns in the road, rail and aviation sectors. It appears that the prospect
and experience of long periods at sea, and the pressure this puts on personal
relationships, can affect both the attractiveness of a career in seafaring, and
retention of existing workers. For example, the Australian Shipowners
Association told the committee that:
Many of the people who come into the industry and whom I speak
to say that (life at sea) is a positive for them. They are aware of the
lifestyle challenges that confront them...whereas others are not aware of those
challenges and that causes them to leave the industry. We are trying to
implement strategies to make sure that more people who pursue a career at sea
are fully aware of the lifestyle implications at sea.[20]
5.30
The Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council also cited reports
by the Australian Maritime College which found that:
Sectors of the international shipping industry have complained
for years that quality young people will not go to sea. This is the case for
almost all the developed nations because capable young people see better career
opportunities ashore where they do not have to spend long periods away from
home and family.[21]
5.31
Witnesses also expressed concern about occupational health and safety
issues in the maritime industry, with reference to port facilities and
stevedores. In particular, it was noted with concern by the Maritime Union of
Australia that in the six month period between lodgement of their submission in
December 2006, and appearance by a Union representative at the inquiry's public
hearing in Canberra in June 2007, there had been two further deaths at
Australian ports.[22]
The committee is concerned by any evidence that lives are being risked and lost
in Australian workplaces, and considers that where there may be problems with
occupational health and safety standards or practices, these should be dealt
with as a matter of urgency. In this context the committee noted the Union's
evidence that the Australian Safety and Compensation Council meeting in May
2007 considered a proposal for a new national stevedoring OHS standard, and
supports the urgent development of this work.[23]
5.32
The committee also heard evidence of particular problems for female
employees in the maritime industry, where aspects of work conditions appear to
be causing women to leave the industry. For example, problems were suggested in
relation to the following:
Based on advice from women members of the stevedoring workforce
and information from job delegates there are two key causation factors –
harassment (the most common) and family commitments (a lack of paid maternity
leave, or inability to return to work due to insufficient flexible working
hours arrangements).[24]
5.33
These and related issues will be dealt with in more detail in the
section on industrial arrangements below.
5.34
Chapter 4 of this report has also explained some of the legislative
issues associated with income tax arrangements for Australian seafarers engaged
on foreign ships, and the committee considers there is value in reviewing
remuneration for maritime workers, and seafarers in particular.
Industrial relations
5.35
Practical experiences of working conditions are closely linked to
legislative provisions for industrial agreements. The committee heard evidence
about the effectiveness of contemporary workplace provisions in this area. As
is to be expected, given progress of the progress of recent debate about the
Commonwealth Government's WorkChoices legislation, much of the evidence on this
matter was framed in the WorkChoices context. It is not the concern of this
inquiry to comment on the details of the WorkChoices legislation itself, which
has in any case been dealt with in the course of other Senate inquiries.[25]
However, in so far as industrial arrangements and legislation are relevant to
working conditions and worker retention in the transport industry, it is
important to note some of the issues which were raised in the course of the
inquiry.
5.36
Earlier sections of this chapter note evidence of concerns in the
transport industry related to occupational health and safety, workers'
compensation, flexible work hours and leave provisions, which are matters
commonly discussed in legislation for industrial arrangements.
5.37
The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations submitted that some
types of workplace arrangements are more suited to delivering satisfactory
employee outcomes in these areas than others. For example:
As many employers have found, one of the key factors in
highlighting the attractiveness of the industry particularly to female
employees who, overwhelmingly, continue to be the primary carer of children, is
the availability of flexible working arrangements built around their child care
requirements. While award based workplace arrangements are frequently rigid,
workplace conditions determined at the enterprise of individual level have the
flexibility to allow all employees with family responsibilities, regardless of
gender, the freedom to commit to the workplace while still providing support
for families.[26]
5.38
On the other hand, other witnesses and submissions argued that the
reality of workplace experience is quite different, and the claimed
flexibilities of individually negotiated agreements (such as those detailed
under the WorkChoices legislation) will not flow automatically from
legislation. For example, the New South Wales Government submitted that one of
the primary effects of the WorkChoices legislation will be to place downwards
pressure on pay and conditions for employees in the federal system:
...the removal of important workplace rights such as protection
from unfair dismissal, access to the AIRC for dispute resolution, access to
union representation, and the absence of a right to collective bargaining can
only exacerbate such downward pressure on pay and conditions. Such provisions
may also have significant effects on occupational health and safety, by, for
example, discouraging employees from raising OH&S issues for fear of
arbitrary dismissal.[27]
5.39
Similarly, the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union submitted
that the new WorkChoices legislation does not adequately account for inequities
in the power relationship between employers and employees when negotiating
flexible work arrangements, and that:
Whilst forms of employment other than full time employment are
not undesirable of themselves, problems arise when they are motivated by a cost
cutting agenda and where the savings to the employer are a consequence of
shifting the cost to the employee/s.[28]
5.40
On the other hand, the committee also recognises that the labour market
does not necessarily respect industrial legislation that attempts to check the
free movement of labour. Generally, large employers in both the public and
private railway industry continue to pay good wages and allow good conditions
of employment. Small businesses like owner-drivers, who have less power to
influence prices, continue to be underpaid, and underpay their employees. The
committee believes that there is a strong case for increasing wage levels for
the lowest paid employees in the industry, who have been squeezed in the race
to the bottom of the tendering process.
Recommendations
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that all jurisdictions ensure
legislation is enacted to give effect to the model bill on chain of
responsibility approved by Australian Transport Ministers in November 2003;
and that all jurisdictions implement procedures to ensure the transport system
is operating at optimal safety standards.
The committee recommends that employers in all sectors of
the transport and logistics industry give priority to improving work
conditions, including minimum safe rates of pay and paid waiting time, as well
as offering shorter or more flexible shifts and any other options as appropriate,
as a means of retaining workers and encouraging current license holders to
return to the industry.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page