200 SMRT bus drivers refuse to go to work over pay issue

[3Boys]

ruohoo97:

:goodpost:

Twinkies:

Nationalize the public transport won't solve the labour crunch problem, the reliance of foreign labour will still be the way to go.....


Nationalize or not, won't make much difference, unless the resentment echoed here is about the transport fare, rather than the foreign labour and the strike.

Looks like some people misunderstood the situation. To continue enjoy the affordable fare, we need the foreign labour to keep the overhead low. Has anyone having any problem understanding this simple economic bacics?

(I read somewhere in this forum, a $3000 and above salary for bus driver was proposed... and, is it the same people asking to keep the fare low and unchanged for the next decade?)

According to some of you, the idealized state is much like asking the state to do a welfare transport system, no fare adjustment according to the inflation. 

Should the public transport system being run with the welfare format, the tax payers are to foot the bill. Will it be fair? To those that rely on public transport they may find it agreeable, but to others who don't, what's your say?

This is something almost unheard of, a nation of highly educated people, asking for nationalization of their public transport which many countries had abolished since the 70s.

Need I say more about the pros n cons of privatization n nationalization? 

Are we moving backward?

What are we?

Where are we?

:goodpost:

+1

I really can't understand all the clamouring to nationalise the transport system.

I mean, do we REALLY want to turn ALL our bus drivers into civil servants??

:?

How does that improve service delivery or costs, hidden or otherwise?

[concern2]

3Boys:

concern2:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]
No, dun need money.

Ask Volvo and Mercedes to give us buses for free, ok?

You find some friends and volunteer to go drive buses for free, ok?

It's ok as long as its someone else's money.

Living in dreamland.

Perhaps you could explain to me the economics of rising raw materials, rental, yet hawkers asked to maintain their selling price and not raise them? We don't even talk about engaging workers. Just the boss managing the biz himself, and doing this for the last decades, not living extravagantly, just for a living. How? Using this as a simpler example so that commoner like me can better understand. If the same is asked of these people, why can't the people expect smarter people to be able to do it? Please explain.

I support hawkers raising their prices in the face of rising costs.

I suppose if one expects the bus drivers to continue to 'not live extravagantly' on low wages, then your approach is ok.

But if one says \"Pay higher wages to drivers so that Singaporeans can have those jobs and still have a reasonable lifestyle\" (I support this notion, by the way), then your entire premise falls apart, does it not, if it's predicated on \"people\" (includes everyone, execs down to workers) \"not living extravagantly\".[/quote]My point on equality and expectations and desperations of the people has been expressed in my post. You are reasonable, so I shall not dwell on this issue further.

My sentiments towards the general public outcry in fare rise is this:
Public Transport is one of the basic needs as people need to travel to work. I don't see there is anything wrong in pressurizing the authorities to come up with better solutions and also found it disappointing that this is the best solution they can come up with.

People are coming up with different ideas because they have been asked numerous of times: \"So what is your solution?\" Isn't this ironic? Or is this pure politics?

So now when they try to provide their solutions, they are mocked to be 'experts'?! What,now they want to 'shut' the 'noise' again? This is what the 'educated' and 'knowledgable people' and 'smart' people who earns millions of dollars can come up with? Shoving back at its people? (not targeting at 3Boys).

[limlim]

MR06:

limlim:

[quote=\"phtthp\"]first strike is SMRT

now 2nd strike is crane operator
next 3rd strike ?

They learnt fast.. that strike is effective method to get the message across..

Maybe locals should learn from them too..?

limlim, your own brew not aromatic enough and want to be invited to lim kopi izzit? :nailbite: [/quote]Strike approved by union chief is legal.. :evil:

[wonderm]

limlim:

And, to those who feel that using tax money to pay for public transport is unfair..


Will you feel better if the public transport is sub-standard and many pple are driven to drive and you got to share the road with 100x more cars on the road? sounds good? jams from one end to the other end of the express way.. you like?

Or would you rather public transport be improved such that pple are encouraged to take it and you can zip thru the roads with ease as pple give up on cars and less pple to compete with you for road space?

What say you?

My response to your questions:
I do not want a sub-standard public transport.
I rather our public transport be improved.

But are you saying the above are better achieved when the public transport system is nationalized? I am not challenging you, just curious if anyone has some data to show some comparisons between the 2 models.

I agree public transport is an important basic service which should be supported by tax money. However, the best way of spending that tax money is not so straight forward. The answer could very well be a hybrid model with both direct and indirect investment/subsidies. Personally, I don't think nationalizing our public transport system is the best approach. On the other hand, I think the government could provide more transport subsidies, for example, to needy families and senior citizens.

[limlim]

ChiefKiasu:

It might be overly simplistic to dismiss the concept of nationalisation on the basis that it is incompatible with capitalistic ideals. And it has nothing to do with whether a nation is \"educated\" or not. The key argument against nationalisation is that it tends to lead to poorer performance in the long run, given the lack of incentives to exceed prescribed quality levels, since the organisation will not be profit driven.

I would like to comment on the part in bold.

I don't see why a privatized, profit driven company holding a monopoly will have \"incentive\" to exceed prescribed quality levels, when their foremost priority is profit, which may not be correlated to \"quality of service\".

Hence, the argument that privatized company can delivery better quality is flawed. Althou I have no doubts of it being more efficient at generating profits. Not forgetting that a large part of the profits goes into a few deep pockets.

On the other hand, nationalised companies can also be driven to delivery better quality if the KPIs are correctly planned out for the key appointment holders, even if they are not as efficient in generating profits.

[janet88]

In order to make bus drivers happier and hopefully avoid future strikes, bus fares wil be increased :roll:

[limlim]

3Boys:

Chief, in another thread, we had already discussed affordability. It is affordable for the big majority of commuters. Our fares are not that high compared regionally and internationally.

Actually, I kind of agree that fares are not that \"high\".

However, I feel that the proposition to raise fares would have been better received by the public if the quality of service have been better..

that is..

No massive breakdown/disruptions..

No frequent disruptions.

No overcrowding.

No excessively long waiting time.

No situations when one is unable to board a train.. etc..

Why would the public care about how much SMRT can make from the leasing of station areas for profits etc..? Their main concern is reliable and robust transportation facility. And the company should look at their core obligations first and foremost before worrying about how to generate more profits from other \"business\".. Again.. the argument of private companies against nationalised companies..

And.. OT a bit..

I wonder why the company cannot consider improvements like adding addition train cabin (without doors), say, in front and at the back, to increase capacity. Surely passengers who travel long distances can/will move into these cabins? less trains/drivers are needed to transport the same number of passengers, and they may travel at higher speed, the journey gets shorter, fuel efficiency increase etc..

To the transport companies This is my suggestion on how to improve service standard. Is raising salaries and increasing number of drivers all that you can come up with? How much are you paid.. again?

[matrix0405]

ChiefKiasu:

It might be overly simplistic to dismiss the concept of nationalisation on the basis that it is incompatible with capitalistic ideals. And it has nothing to do with whether a nation is \"educated\" or not. The key argument against nationalisation is that it tends to lead to poorer performance in the long run, given the lack of incentives to exceed prescribed quality levels, since the organisation will not be profit driven.
.

Totally agree with you. Nationalisation takes the pressure off delivering ever increasing profits. Nationalising is on going, without using that word. Putting in $1.1B and putting Gov men back into the system are the tell tale signs. See what they do, not what they say.
The strike is a failure of HR and Mgmt. Fare increase/ decrease will not prevent the strike.

[limlim]

3Boys:

How does that improve service delivery or costs, hidden or otherwise?

Service delivery : Profit oriented vs quality (KPI etc..?) oriented.

you say leh?

Cost : maybe no improvement.

But cost is not the public's concern. Service delivery is.

If the target objective is self sufficiency via fares, vs profit maximising.. why would it not be expected to be able to deliver higher standard of service with lower fares?

[teddy]

Public transport is not very good now, agree?

To improve public transport need more money right? But what has that to do with car owners?

Actually the simplest solution is to nationalize the public transport since govt are already co-funding so much infrastructure & why are the 2 companies making & taking all the profit without coming out with money for all these public-funded infrastructure which they then profit from? (and furthermore they are GLCs anyway with big govt ownership). I am sure getting rid of them can improve the public transport & still reduce the fares (by using the profits now pocketed by these 2 companies). The so-called efficiency poor if nationalized is just plain rubbish. If entities owned & operated by govt cannot be efficient, then we should privatize all GLCs, Temasek, all statutory boards, all town councils, and even ministers' jobs! We can employ Tony Brown & Bill Clinton & still has spare change left for the pay of 1 full minister in our cabinet! :imcool:

limlim:

Should the public transport system being run with the welfare format, the tax payers are to foot the bill. Will it be fair? To those that rely on public transport they may find it agreeable, but to others who don't, what's your say?


Car user subsidise public transport, so? I don't see why is it unfair. w/o public transport to ease the burden on the roads, would car user enjoy mostly congestion free road?

If there are less cars on the road, we may not even need so much road space (3 lanes, 4 lanes) in the first place! How many road in Singapore is not ply by buses at all? what ignorance..