Big news in New Zealand right now that has Labour voters and the unions up in arms is the legislation the Government has introduced which no longer makes it mandatory for employers to give staff breaks. Newstalk ZB breakfast host and Seven Sharp co anchor Mike Hosking has written a column in today's edition of the New Zealand Herald about the legislation. The premise of Mike Hosking's blog is that if you're a hard worker and enjoy what you do you will not need to worry.
Let's be realistic too please. Only a real rogue employer without any decency about them is going to stop you from getting a coffee, going to the toilet or something else during the work day. The majority of employers aren't going to care if you take a short break so long as you get the work done and do not slack off. Plus we have to take into consideration un allocated breaks. You may have an hour's worth of official breaks during an eight hour day, but in reality there will be unallocated breaks too - going to the bathroom, getting a cup of coffee or water if you work in an office. Some people would do this at a random time during the day and some people could do this before work. The point is that people take heaps of undesignated breaks and employers who deny you basic rights to get water, coffee or go to the bathroom would be denying you your human rights.
if you don't trust your employer to give you your basic rights then maybe you have a bad employer and should look around elsewhere.
Another point to take into consideration is that hard workers and some people in general don't want to take their breaks. This could be the case for office workers or retail and media workers. Because there is a lot of downtime and the work is relatively simple you don't really need breaks. The last job I had in Auckland before I moved back to Sydney was excellent. I hated when I was forced to take breaks by one of the managers because I was so into the work and figured that because I was enjoying it I didn't need a break. Then there is the other aspect that some people like to delay their break to the make the afternoon go shorter but eventually it becomes so late in the afternoon/evening or shift in general that there's no point in taking your break.
Hosking raised the very good point that if you enjoy what you do you don't want to take breaks and if you live for your breaks then there is something wrong.
And shouldn't the market be trusted to be reasonable? A rogue employer who would deny you a break during your shift without legislation is probably the type of employer who wouldn't give you your break anyway or who would expect you to work overtime without pay (which is acceptable if you're on a salary, but not if you're on a wage - you should be paid for time worked). Just as those who work independently without supervision should be trusted to do the ri
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
How recruiters and managers are being rude to applicants and why it needs to change
If you've ever been employed or changed jobs chances are that you've had to go through the recruitment process. The process involves scouring the job sites like Seek and others, and then writing a cover letter, updating your CV and sending it to prospective employers in the hope that they will get you in for an interview and eventually hire you. Of course sometimes the process is easy and painless. Other times you are left wondering, "how are these people even in positions of management?" and "do they even read CVs?" Then there are the managers who are so rude you mentally blacklist the company and talk to your friends about it.
So, let's talk about the ads first of all. Ads are becoming more and more aggressive with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS saying who should and shouldn't apply and basically treating the potential applicant as stupid. In some cases the ads will be designed to "scare people away" so that they don't apply for the job. It's all very well and good to have an idea of the type of employee you want but what happens if you're cutting off your nose to spite your face? What if you're missing out on someone who would be perfectly capable all because you don't want to invest resources and train them? And what happens when today's current employees resign if there is nobody left to fill their positions when they retire? Do those positions suddenly become redundant? It depends on the industry of course so it's not a simple question to answer.
Then there are the employers who will receive a CV and not only will they reply to reject you, they'll do it in a rude and hostile manner. When did it become okay for employers to treat their staff and applicants in such a way? Why are employers not being friendly anymore? If you're short staffed and stressed out then isn't that a sign you don't have enough staff in the first place? And yet for some reason we have an alleged unemployment problem with graduates unable to get jobs in their fields or having to do unpaid experience. It's not okay to abuse a potential job applicant and any manager who does this should be embarrassed at their poor communication skills and recruitment practices.
Of course, let's not forget the recruiters who do not even read someone's CV, how can you call someone unqualified if you haven't even read their CV? It's one thing to be in a hurry but should you be in such a rush that you close yourself off to other opportunities? Should you be so narrow minded and have such a fixed criteria that you don't consider someone who doesn't fit into your narrow criteria of what's acceptable? What happened to being willing to train people? Despite what employers believe, people actually can be trained and some people do learn fast. For some people it's just a case of needing to be given the opportunity but when they are given the opportunity they'll thrive and prosper.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is, people need to take a little more time to actually read CVs rather than treating applicants as if they are stupid; and if you are going to send a rude email back to an applicant then proofread it first so they can't (rightly) accuse you of not paying attention either. Treat applicants how you would want to be treated, remember, you too were once an applicant.
What gets on your nerves in the recruitment process?
So, let's talk about the ads first of all. Ads are becoming more and more aggressive with BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS saying who should and shouldn't apply and basically treating the potential applicant as stupid. In some cases the ads will be designed to "scare people away" so that they don't apply for the job. It's all very well and good to have an idea of the type of employee you want but what happens if you're cutting off your nose to spite your face? What if you're missing out on someone who would be perfectly capable all because you don't want to invest resources and train them? And what happens when today's current employees resign if there is nobody left to fill their positions when they retire? Do those positions suddenly become redundant? It depends on the industry of course so it's not a simple question to answer.
Then there are the employers who will receive a CV and not only will they reply to reject you, they'll do it in a rude and hostile manner. When did it become okay for employers to treat their staff and applicants in such a way? Why are employers not being friendly anymore? If you're short staffed and stressed out then isn't that a sign you don't have enough staff in the first place? And yet for some reason we have an alleged unemployment problem with graduates unable to get jobs in their fields or having to do unpaid experience. It's not okay to abuse a potential job applicant and any manager who does this should be embarrassed at their poor communication skills and recruitment practices.
Of course, let's not forget the recruiters who do not even read someone's CV, how can you call someone unqualified if you haven't even read their CV? It's one thing to be in a hurry but should you be in such a rush that you close yourself off to other opportunities? Should you be so narrow minded and have such a fixed criteria that you don't consider someone who doesn't fit into your narrow criteria of what's acceptable? What happened to being willing to train people? Despite what employers believe, people actually can be trained and some people do learn fast. For some people it's just a case of needing to be given the opportunity but when they are given the opportunity they'll thrive and prosper.
What I'm saying in a nutshell is, people need to take a little more time to actually read CVs rather than treating applicants as if they are stupid; and if you are going to send a rude email back to an applicant then proofread it first so they can't (rightly) accuse you of not paying attention either. Treat applicants how you would want to be treated, remember, you too were once an applicant.
What gets on your nerves in the recruitment process?
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Why Kiwis returning from Australia is not actuallly a good thing and how the full picture is not being shown.
Today the New Zealand Herald reported that more and more Kiwis are moving back from Australia to New Zealand. Apparently this is because the Australian job market is softening and there are more opportunities in New Zealand. On the surface this looks like good news, but it's actually not. When you consider the work available in New Zealand it actually paints a bleak picture. The work is primarily in construction and engineering. Now I'm not saying these aren't good opportunities for those who want them but lets look further into the issue rather than just taking it on the surface as being good news.
The types of people who are returning formerly worked in Australia's mining sector and are moving into construction or engineering in NZ. There are blue collar jobs. There's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs but questions need to be asked about what opportunities there are for those who are educated and attended university.
Recently a study showed that the majority of jobs on job site Seek in Auckland were based in call centres. The way this story was presented was as if it was good news, but when you have thousands of people graduating from universities with degrees you have to ask yourself why NZ is only offering customer service based jobs and why there aren't other opportunities. The average salary for someone starting out in a call centre in Auckland is approximately $40,000 which is low compared to wages overseas. But not only that, the major issue is that people with degrees are being forced to do jobs they could do without degrees, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to university in the first place.
Not only that, those who truly want to make a go of things in Australia who can offer a variety of skills and qualifications will have no trouble finding work here. It's only those who are close to the bottom of the scrap heap who will have issues and who will feel insecure. This is another thing that needs to be mentioned. According to Kacia Kissick jobs in Melbourne proved scarce which is why she and her husband moved back to NZ after seven years of living in Melbourne.
Questions need to be asked.
If you lived in Melbourne for seven years and people can get permanent residency after two years (subject to meeting criteria) and citizenship after a further two years, why didn't they take up citizenship? I can only assume they didn't qualify for citizenship, in which case it's actually not a loss to Australia and New Zealand shouldn't be happy that uneducated people are returning. Instead the NZ Government should be looking at a demographic breakdown of who is returning and asking what can be done to attract the educated back, because the reality is, those who are educated and can offer employment skills will not return for low wages and a lack of career progression opportunities.
The types of people who are returning formerly worked in Australia's mining sector and are moving into construction or engineering in NZ. There are blue collar jobs. There's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs but questions need to be asked about what opportunities there are for those who are educated and attended university.
Recently a study showed that the majority of jobs on job site Seek in Auckland were based in call centres. The way this story was presented was as if it was good news, but when you have thousands of people graduating from universities with degrees you have to ask yourself why NZ is only offering customer service based jobs and why there aren't other opportunities. The average salary for someone starting out in a call centre in Auckland is approximately $40,000 which is low compared to wages overseas. But not only that, the major issue is that people with degrees are being forced to do jobs they could do without degrees, which kind of defeats the purpose of going to university in the first place.
Not only that, those who truly want to make a go of things in Australia who can offer a variety of skills and qualifications will have no trouble finding work here. It's only those who are close to the bottom of the scrap heap who will have issues and who will feel insecure. This is another thing that needs to be mentioned. According to Kacia Kissick jobs in Melbourne proved scarce which is why she and her husband moved back to NZ after seven years of living in Melbourne.
Questions need to be asked.
If you lived in Melbourne for seven years and people can get permanent residency after two years (subject to meeting criteria) and citizenship after a further two years, why didn't they take up citizenship? I can only assume they didn't qualify for citizenship, in which case it's actually not a loss to Australia and New Zealand shouldn't be happy that uneducated people are returning. Instead the NZ Government should be looking at a demographic breakdown of who is returning and asking what can be done to attract the educated back, because the reality is, those who are educated and can offer employment skills will not return for low wages and a lack of career progression opportunities.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Music Review: Taylor Swift's 1989 (Deluxe Version)
Taylor Swift's latest album, 1989 was released today and being a Swift fan I purchased the album immediately upon discovering it had been released earlier than the expected time of midnight on the 28th of October.
The first single from the album, Shake it Off is similar to Speak Now's Mean, in that it is about dealing with bullies and 'shaking off" their comments. There have been rumours that it was about her feud with Katy Perry, which she hasn't confirmed or denied. It's the first single she's released that's a major departure from her traditional country pop sound and is up tempo. The track was highly successful going to number one in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The second single, Out of the Woods is a typical Swift song. It's about a break up she went through. The relationship was going through a period of turbulence and she was wondering "are we out of the woods?". That's the general premise of the song. The mainstream media has reported this song is about One Direction's Harry Styles. Taylor hasn't confirmed or denied this only saying that she thinks questions about her love life are sexist.
My favourite song on this album, Welcome to New York is very upbeat and about Swift's move to New York. Like most songs about New York she sings about how it's a place of opportunity with people having opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. It has a very catchy beat and Swift is singing about her experiences upon moving to New York. She sings that New York has been waiting for people. Despite not being officially released as a single, it went to number 6 on the New Zealand charts and 23 on the Aussie charts. It reminds me a bit of Red's The Lucky One which was about fame and success. This is a song for anyone who wants to move forward in their life and reach success. It is the first track on the album and really sets the tone of being upbeat.
New Romantics, track 16 on the deluxe version is a reflective song where Taylor sings about how we're constantly learning in life but trying to show off and appear to be cooler than everyone else. She describes everyday as a battle. The lyrics on this track are actually quite dark, but because of the structure of the song in that it's upbeat and uses warm notes it doesn't appear that way. It has elements of hope.
There are three voice memos at the end of the album where Swift goes into details about the song writing process on a few of the songs which feature on this album. They give you some insight into how Swift works with her producers and song writing crew.
It's an odd comparison but Wildest Dreams reminds me of tracks from Lana Del Rey's album Ultraviolence. The only differences between Swift and Del Rey are that Swift tends to sing at a higher pitch and slightly more upbeat than Del Rey, but there are certainly echos of her.
My only criticism of this album, is that although it is very polished it is too polished and it looks like Swift has sold out from her original style. Her voice is more edited than it has been on other albums. This said, as someone posted on Twitter last week - she sold out, but we still purchase the music despite this.
Overall I think this is a really great effort from Taylor and it will be on high rotate on my iPhone. I give it a 4.5/5 stars.
The first single from the album, Shake it Off is similar to Speak Now's Mean, in that it is about dealing with bullies and 'shaking off" their comments. There have been rumours that it was about her feud with Katy Perry, which she hasn't confirmed or denied. It's the first single she's released that's a major departure from her traditional country pop sound and is up tempo. The track was highly successful going to number one in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
The second single, Out of the Woods is a typical Swift song. It's about a break up she went through. The relationship was going through a period of turbulence and she was wondering "are we out of the woods?". That's the general premise of the song. The mainstream media has reported this song is about One Direction's Harry Styles. Taylor hasn't confirmed or denied this only saying that she thinks questions about her love life are sexist.
My favourite song on this album, Welcome to New York is very upbeat and about Swift's move to New York. Like most songs about New York she sings about how it's a place of opportunity with people having opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have. It has a very catchy beat and Swift is singing about her experiences upon moving to New York. She sings that New York has been waiting for people. Despite not being officially released as a single, it went to number 6 on the New Zealand charts and 23 on the Aussie charts. It reminds me a bit of Red's The Lucky One which was about fame and success. This is a song for anyone who wants to move forward in their life and reach success. It is the first track on the album and really sets the tone of being upbeat.
New Romantics, track 16 on the deluxe version is a reflective song where Taylor sings about how we're constantly learning in life but trying to show off and appear to be cooler than everyone else. She describes everyday as a battle. The lyrics on this track are actually quite dark, but because of the structure of the song in that it's upbeat and uses warm notes it doesn't appear that way. It has elements of hope.
There are three voice memos at the end of the album where Swift goes into details about the song writing process on a few of the songs which feature on this album. They give you some insight into how Swift works with her producers and song writing crew.
It's an odd comparison but Wildest Dreams reminds me of tracks from Lana Del Rey's album Ultraviolence. The only differences between Swift and Del Rey are that Swift tends to sing at a higher pitch and slightly more upbeat than Del Rey, but there are certainly echos of her.
My only criticism of this album, is that although it is very polished it is too polished and it looks like Swift has sold out from her original style. Her voice is more edited than it has been on other albums. This said, as someone posted on Twitter last week - she sold out, but we still purchase the music despite this.
Overall I think this is a really great effort from Taylor and it will be on high rotate on my iPhone. I give it a 4.5/5 stars.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
What computing device is right for you?
You could be forgiven for thinking technology is moving along faster than you can keep up - iPhones, iPads, lap tops, desk tops, tablets, phablets. Sometimes it can be hard to know what you should own and it can be hard to know what device is right for you. In this blog my intention is to offer you some advice and opinions on what device is right for you.
Desktop
A desktop computer is probably most suitable for those of you who don't need to take your computer out and who don't need portability. Despite lap tops and tablets or iPads selling higher quantities than desktops which have steadily declined in the last few years dew to the availability of new technology. Figures are hard to find but data and research shows that PC sales are down more than 10%.
However, just because PC sales are down doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. It depends on your needs. If you work in an office environment then a desktop could be right for you because they offer more storage and functionality than lap tops or iPads and other tablets. The biggest tablet only had 128GB worth of data and costs approximately the same as a desktop computer. If you write a lot of documents or use design suites like Adobe Photoshop and Final Cut Pro then a desktop may be best for you.
Lap top
A lap top is highly portable and Apple's new MacBook Air and MacBook Pros are lighter than other other lap tops on the market. This makes portability much easier. The only downside to the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro is that they do not come with a pre-installed DVD drive but you can purchase one of these for $99AUD from the Apple store. Apple removed the DVD drive as people move away from disks to digital data and presumably to cut down on weight and make the device lighter. A lap top is good for those who don't have a fixed office location and for those who want to take their lap top with them on trips or to meetings. The lap top is good if you write a lot. Writing is possible on tablets and iPads however it becomes tough after a while and these devices have limited functionality.
A lap top is also suitable for someone who does a lot of web browsing and requires more storage than what tablets and iPads do, and unlike iPads you can upgrade your data storage from the "off the rack" pre determined about by paying approximately $200AUD in the case of Apple. You may not need to upgrade your storage though because of the Apple and Windows clouds which you can pay an annual subscription to use. In many ways this is better than if you were to store files on your computer because when you upgrade you don't have to worry about losing the data and transferring it over is much simpler.
iPad/Other tablets
It appears as if everyone has been sucked into the hype surrounding tablets and believes they need one, The reality is much different. As I've previously mentioned, tablets have limited functionality and while you can type for a short amount of time, its not practical to type for extended periods and this is where a PC/Mac Desktop or lap top will always win out.
Tablets are good for editing photos and movies and can be good for browsing the internet on a short term basis however anything longer and you're best to get a lap top. The other advantage of a tablet is that they are significantly more portable than a lap top and lighter so easier to carry. Tablets have longer lasting batteries but they have limited storage as previously highlighted.
Smartphone/iPhone
The latest iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is more of a cross between a phone and a tablet, a phablet, due to its bigger screen and increased data storage capabilities. The lastest iPhone is very easy to use and has excellent battery life. I'm a high user and it's so nice to only need to charge it once or twice a day or an hour if I'm out and about and cant charge it for longer than that
The new iPhone has been designed to rival tablets and computers. It's been designed in such a way that watching videos, recording videos and taking photographs, doing your banking, email and other tasks is much more enjoyable. If you have a new iPhone it actually removes the need for a tablet because the functions are similar however you have the added bonus of being able to make phone calls, which you can't do on an iPad unless you use FaceTime, but that is only compatible with other Apple iPhone users.
The bottom line is, there are so many technological options and it can be hard to know which is right for you. If you are out and about and have an iPhone then chances are you don't actually need an iPad. Given the performance and functionality of lap tops and desktops, if you have a smartphone you're best sticking with the older technology rather than having an additional device. It doesn't make sense to have a traditional Mac or PC computer, a tablet and a smart phone. If you want portability and own a smartphone then a lap top is your best option.
As a random aside, IBM actually invested the first touch screen smartphone, but that was back in 1994. It was called the IBM Simon and was effectively the first version of what we know as a smartphone today, however due to poor internet and low market adoption it was only on the market for six months before being discontinued after 50,000 sales. It was black and white and a brick compared to the phones and tablets we see today.
Desktop
A desktop computer is probably most suitable for those of you who don't need to take your computer out and who don't need portability. Despite lap tops and tablets or iPads selling higher quantities than desktops which have steadily declined in the last few years dew to the availability of new technology. Figures are hard to find but data and research shows that PC sales are down more than 10%.
However, just because PC sales are down doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. It depends on your needs. If you work in an office environment then a desktop could be right for you because they offer more storage and functionality than lap tops or iPads and other tablets. The biggest tablet only had 128GB worth of data and costs approximately the same as a desktop computer. If you write a lot of documents or use design suites like Adobe Photoshop and Final Cut Pro then a desktop may be best for you.
Lap top
A lap top is highly portable and Apple's new MacBook Air and MacBook Pros are lighter than other other lap tops on the market. This makes portability much easier. The only downside to the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro is that they do not come with a pre-installed DVD drive but you can purchase one of these for $99AUD from the Apple store. Apple removed the DVD drive as people move away from disks to digital data and presumably to cut down on weight and make the device lighter. A lap top is good for those who don't have a fixed office location and for those who want to take their lap top with them on trips or to meetings. The lap top is good if you write a lot. Writing is possible on tablets and iPads however it becomes tough after a while and these devices have limited functionality.
A lap top is also suitable for someone who does a lot of web browsing and requires more storage than what tablets and iPads do, and unlike iPads you can upgrade your data storage from the "off the rack" pre determined about by paying approximately $200AUD in the case of Apple. You may not need to upgrade your storage though because of the Apple and Windows clouds which you can pay an annual subscription to use. In many ways this is better than if you were to store files on your computer because when you upgrade you don't have to worry about losing the data and transferring it over is much simpler.
iPad/Other tablets
It appears as if everyone has been sucked into the hype surrounding tablets and believes they need one, The reality is much different. As I've previously mentioned, tablets have limited functionality and while you can type for a short amount of time, its not practical to type for extended periods and this is where a PC/Mac Desktop or lap top will always win out.
Tablets are good for editing photos and movies and can be good for browsing the internet on a short term basis however anything longer and you're best to get a lap top. The other advantage of a tablet is that they are significantly more portable than a lap top and lighter so easier to carry. Tablets have longer lasting batteries but they have limited storage as previously highlighted.
Smartphone/iPhone
The latest iPhone 6 and 6 Plus is more of a cross between a phone and a tablet, a phablet, due to its bigger screen and increased data storage capabilities. The lastest iPhone is very easy to use and has excellent battery life. I'm a high user and it's so nice to only need to charge it once or twice a day or an hour if I'm out and about and cant charge it for longer than that
The new iPhone has been designed to rival tablets and computers. It's been designed in such a way that watching videos, recording videos and taking photographs, doing your banking, email and other tasks is much more enjoyable. If you have a new iPhone it actually removes the need for a tablet because the functions are similar however you have the added bonus of being able to make phone calls, which you can't do on an iPad unless you use FaceTime, but that is only compatible with other Apple iPhone users.
The bottom line is, there are so many technological options and it can be hard to know which is right for you. If you are out and about and have an iPhone then chances are you don't actually need an iPad. Given the performance and functionality of lap tops and desktops, if you have a smartphone you're best sticking with the older technology rather than having an additional device. It doesn't make sense to have a traditional Mac or PC computer, a tablet and a smart phone. If you want portability and own a smartphone then a lap top is your best option.
As a random aside, IBM actually invested the first touch screen smartphone, but that was back in 1994. It was called the IBM Simon and was effectively the first version of what we know as a smartphone today, however due to poor internet and low market adoption it was only on the market for six months before being discontinued after 50,000 sales. It was black and white and a brick compared to the phones and tablets we see today.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Why university & following your passions is important
Now earlier in the week I wrote about the injustice of the New Zealand student loan scheme. NZ news site www.stuff.co.nz has been inviting people, through their Stuff Nation platform, to submit stories on whether or not they think an education in New Zealand was worthwhile. The overwhelming response was that education is a waste of time unless you're going to become a doctor or a lawyer. The purpose of today's post is to refute that.
As some readers will know, I have a Post Graduate Diploma in Communications, Bachelor of Arts and a Diploma in Broadcasting. A lesser known fact is that I hold half a Diploma in Advertisinh & have taken marketing papers at university.
There are people who say you should only attend university to get a job but the problem with that is it could lead to people studying things they despise or that they do not have a natural aptitude for. This in turn would cost the taxpayer more money because of the cost involved in paying for people's unfinished qualifications.
Often following university one of three things will happen:
1 - You'll get a job in your field easily.
2 - You'll give up either for financial reasons or you just don't care enough about your chosen field.
3 - You'll be so passionate about your field that you'll make sacrifices.
If you fall into category one then you are very lucky however some industries like media and manufacturing are going through changes which means only the truly committed will get a job.
Category two disappoints me because nobody should ever give up on their dreams and passions if that's what gets you up in the morning however it should be acknowledged that dreams can change over time.
Then of course there are the people who try to balance money with their passion. These are the people who will only work to cover their bills while pursuing their calling. They're the people who work part time and in their free time they're working on their goals. You see, they're driven but realistic at the same time. They know they need to survive but they also don't want to wake up one day wishing they'd followed their dreams.
It's all very well and good for people to say that people should only study at university to get a job but no two degrees are equal because people take different electives outside of the compulsory papers and they approach the job hunt differently. There are those who make excuses as to why they aren't getting ahead and there are those who are so driven that they'll do whatever it takes to succeed. These are the people who will use small gains to propel them forward. These are the ones who are willing to work for free following completion of their study to gain experience.
Some people don't care about what they do as long as they're generating an income but there are others who can't do jobs they hate. While I was at university, until my last job at a news agency which I loved until being forced to resign because of upcoming redundancies, I had jobs I hated. Often if you hate a job you won't perform as well as if you're in a job you live and enjoy going to.
Those receiving welfare don't contribute to society but students through student loans and taxes they pay while working do contribute. It would be wrong to deny people an education based on what someone deems useful or useless. What if by doing so someone's exceptional talent doesn't have the chance to be developed and recognised.
People have missed the point of an education. It is to open up doors and opportunities but like anything it is up to the individual what they do with them.
Key failings of NSW Transport
Earlier this year I raved about how awesome Sydney's public transport network is but that is not true. In some parts of the city it's great, the inner suburbs are fine and the buses and trains to Bondi are generally pretty good too but try getting an enjoyable trip on the North Western routes - that's Penrith to Hornsby and its a nightmare.
Aside from not having enough trains, during peak hours they're always crowded and you're lucky to get a seat and if you're standing then you'll be packed in like sardines with absolutely zero personal space. This is made worse by the fact half of Aussies are overweight or obese so even if you do get a seat and you're little, you're likely to be squashed to the wall.
The NSW Transpory Minister Gladys Berejiklian seems to think that light rail and one level trains will alleviate the problem but it won't. When you see photos of her have you noticed that she's always at stations during non peak hours and that she probably doesn't have to endure crowded trains so doesn't get a true picture of what it's like to use public transport for long commutes of at least an hour, some purple have to commute for two hours. And that's just one way.
The NSW Transport Department and NSW Trains need to start talking to people who use public transport on a regular basis. For the most part it's good and better than other cities like Auckland but there are key areas where it's failing. That is ignoring the matter of Opal, which will eventually be forced upon us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)