Ban on FIFO in QLD

Discussion in 'Where to Buy' started by Jenko, 8th Nov, 2016.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Jenko

    Jenko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    75
    Location:
    Boyne Island
  2. Marg4000

    Marg4000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    6,421
    Location:
    Qld
    The newspaper heading and your heading are misleading.

    The bill is to ban 100% FIFO.

    And what will happen when they can't get enough workers prepared to relocate!?And some mines are located hundreds of km from a decent size town.

    But as always the devil will be in the detail.
    Marg
     
  3. Jenko

    Jenko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    75
    Location:
    Boyne Island
    I think if the money is right they will get the workers.
     
  4. Phase2

    Phase2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Jul, 2016
    Posts:
    1,289
    Location:
    Perth
    I think you misunderstand Jenko. The infrastructure costs of supporting a small town for a mining operation (for permanent residents) is prohibitive. Mining Co's just won't build new mines if they have to build whole towns.

    100% FIFO should be allowed on remote sites, but Mining Co's should not be allowed to discriminate against workers who choose to live locally.

    The issue that has spurred the whole debate is the fact that BMA were allowed to have 2 operations as 100% FIFO, AND they were less than 25km from Moranbah. It was a ploy designed to break the strength of the unions, as BMA and the CFMEU have been feuding for decades. Both sides are in the wrong and the workers lose out.
     
    Sonamic, bob shovel and willair like this.
  5. Marg4000

    Marg4000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    6,421
    Location:
    Qld
    They will be competing for workers with the other states where FIFO is allowed and the money is just as good.
    And when partners and children come into the mix it is not easy to uproot a whole family, particularly if the partner has a career outside mining.
    Marg
     
  6. Jenko

    Jenko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    20th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    75
    Location:
    Boyne Island
    If it helps companies look at employing more locals or encourage workers to live in the towns that thay work its a good thing. Obviously there would need to be the existing facilities that could cope with the amount of people. I'm not talking about far remote places but there are many little towns that abused by mine companies and their workers the workers don't like the place, have no respect for the town or the people that live there and do not contribute to the economics. Yet the locals don't get the opportunity to work in the mines. Just because of a lack of training.
     
  7. bob shovel

    bob shovel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    6,935
    Location:
    Lower Blue Mountains
    With the over supply of houses i would think many employers would be looking to force fifo to relocate. It would Save a fortune on fifo rates and the associated costs

    You do need a mix of fifo and locals. It will revert back very quick once fifo is needed
     
  8. Blacky

    Blacky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    25th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    2,066
    Location:
    Bali
    It depends. Its important to deliniate between the various phases of a mine.
    During operations I would agree a limit could be applied (100% seems a bit much though).
    However, I think during construction it should be the other way around. They should force the mining companies to fully provide accomodation for the workforce - thus removing the pressure from the local communities.

    Blacky
     
    bob shovel likes this.