Editorial: Bus drivers asking for too much

Opinion

In terms of popular perception, bus drivers are rather like nurses. Nobody envies them the job of meeting tight timetables while negotiating Auckland's congested streets and coping with the hazards posed by inconsiderate car drivers and abusive passengers. Thus, unsurprisingly, there appears to be significant public support for the Stagecoach drivers who have begun a six-day strike.

That backing may, however, reflect not so much the detail of the drivers' case for a sizeable pay increase as a widespread frustration with employer wage offers during a time of economic prosperity. The disappointment is unjustified in a great many cases. Nonetheless, it is easier to understand than blanket endorsements of the drivers' position.

The drivers have been made a fair offer by Stagecoach. This is not just the company's view but that of a most neutral of parties, Employment Relations Authority member Alastair Dumbleton, who has acted as a facilitator during the dispute.

This was not, he concluded, a case of an overseas company fleecing its workers while shipping vast profits out of the country. A report by accountant Ernst & Young had found the returns to Stagecoach shareholders were "sub-optimal". The company was, Mr Dumbleton said, commercially and financially justified in rejecting the drivers' demands.

The drivers might have had a stronger case if the company's offer was palpably deficient. But an initial 7.6 per cent wage increase, rising to 14.8 per cent over three years, plus $600 in cash, is far from that. It clearly exceeds the 5 per cent pay rise over 15 months just negotiated by the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union with 75 metal-working employers. The union is now trumpeting the 5 per cent as the benchmark for 2005. Arguably, the settlement equates to only 4 per cent over 12 months, but, whatever the mathematics, the Stagecoach employees were offered considerably more.

The drivers' position might also be strengthened if the company had been absolutely resistant throughout the negotiating process. Stagecoach did refuse to lift its pay offer from an initial $15 an hour to $16, or to entertain a claim for six months' backpay. The reasons for that are indicated in the Employment Relations Authority recommendation. But it did come back to the negotiating table with an offer of improved conditions - namely reduced unpaid time in the middle of split shifts. This has been a particular bugbear with many drivers.

It is difficult to discern other grounds for the drivers' claim - and for imposing an unprecedented strike on Aucklanders. Their productivity has not surged over the past year, and nor, unlike builders, for example, are they in an occupation where there is a particular skills shortage.

There is, thus, an air of unreality about the drivers' determination to force Stagecoach to meet their claim. Possibly, they share the feeling that workers have missed out on the economic good times, a sentiment being reinforced by trade union campaigning. If so, they should ponder the illogicality of the proposition that 5 per cent should be the minimum expectation of all workers.

For some, a wage increase of that magnitude, or greater, is realistic and justifiable. Typically, such people work in occupations unconstrained by the high exchange rate and international competition, but crying out for skilled workers. In other cases, 5 per cent across the board is simply not realistic. Wage settlements must reflect the financial health of the employer.

The Employment Relations Authority judged that Stagecoach's offer followed that dictum.

Its recommendation should have been accepted by the drivers. Seemingly, however, their expectations have been elevated beyond what is reasonable.

Auckland and the credibility of its public transport system are paying the price.