5 ms·

> The company also claims it can be more productive with the trucks — it’s more expensive to hire drivers and handle the logistics of moving them back and forth

> The company also claims it can be more productive with the trucks — it’s more expensive to hire drivers and handle the logistics of moving them back and forth from the iron mines. Followed by: >But the reason why the technology is picking up in the mines is partly out of necessity. Partly because Rio Tinto can afford it. Let's face it. Anything to not pay pensions and workman's comp.

krasin 13y ago
Pensions should be paid by the government, not private companies. In this case, everything is clear: companies are trying to be as efficient, as possible (for example, by reducing labor costs), pay taxes which will be distributed by the government for the social purposes (pensions).
- robbiep 13y ago
  Australia's employer-funded pension system has meant that we have around 1.5 Trillion in fully funded retirement funds which have decreased infrastructure funding costs locally and are invested internationally making Australia's superannuation sector a major player in international investments. The government can't be counted on to fully fund retirement benefits without pillaging the pile of cash, as the example in most American states shows. It's a brilliant idea and has been extremely successful.
beambot 13y ago
They can afford it because they have sufficient cash reserves to pay the upfront costs of robotic vehicles versus ongoing personnel costs. Eliminating workman's comp suggests that the robotic vehicles are substantially safer compared to putting human lives at risk. (As a roboticist, I reject the notion that "all automation is bad", but that's a separate discussion.)
another-one-off 13y ago
Hey. I'm an Australian Mining Engineer, (co-incidentally employed by Rio Tinto, although obviously I'm no spokesperson and have no idea what the higher-ups are doing, or even blokes on other sites). While I don't have any knowledge of the autonomous truck project, pensions & workman's comp have basically nothing to do with it. The mining industry in Australia is on the tail end of the biggest expansion in living memory, and it turns out it is near-impossible for love or money to move Australians out into the desert to work in mines. It was not unreasonable to have trucks parked up because there simply was no human to drive them, and the salaries for a truck driver were in the $150,000+ Australian dollars, plus food, lodging and plane flights. This doesn't represent a scary cost for a mining company - it represents a scary lack of worker supply. A parked truck is an unhappy truck. In addition, we have very strict OH&S laws and the site mangers can be raked over the coals for the wierdest things. Eg, if I saw a light vehicle parked on non-level ground without wheel chocks, it would probably be escalated to the site Manager (not a pit supevisor, not the Manager of Mining, but the person responsible for the entire site) and someone being sacked would be an option on the table. Getting rid of the humans is a huge benefit from a safety perspective, which we take very, very seriously. Finally, automated trucks will provably do the right thing, all the time, without getting fatigued or taking breaks. Humans just cannot compete from a utilising-the-very-expensive-asset-properly point of view.
- joonix 13y ago
  Everything I heard indicates this is not true. A hand at the mines is a dime a dozen. Engineers are perhaps another story. But the myth that you can show up at the mines and make $150k was busted a while ago, especially now as the broader economy suffers and unemployment continues to rise.
- mcguire 13y ago
  "Finally, automated trucks will provably do the right thing, all the time,..." [[Citation Needed]]
  - hhandoko 13y ago
    What the GP comment meant that the robots won't deviate from the parameters. Contrast this with a human operator, who are instructed to drive at specific speeds at each road section. Perhaps due to fatigue , overconfidence (e.g. I drove on this road 1000's times before, I know what I am doing), or other factors, the driver did not slow down enough and subsequently accidents occur.
oh_sigh 13y ago
> Let's face it. Anything to not pay pensions and workman's comp. Yup. All innovation is really just a way to screw over the honest, hard working individual. From the mechanical loom to the automobile to electronically switched telephone networks, all innovation in the modern era has been to screw over the worker. You and me, let's start a society that gets rid of all those horrible, unemployment-inducing contraptions. Imagine - we will have 0% unemployment because all of the machines will be humans!
- powertower 13y ago
  The graph of gainful-employment vs. technological-efficiency is not linear. It first increase, then has a hump, and goes down from there. Eventually you get two groups - A few highly skilled and specialized people that design, maintain, and improve the automated systems. A large amount of unskilled workers, who are nothing more than "replaceable units", that get told what to do by those systems. And that does not even attempt to even show the amount of unemployable people that would be around from all the human jobs lost in the first place after the hump. Just think of the fast food industry, and how technologic improvements would "disrupt" it (by removing the work force). And then who do you sell the product to? The person who does not have a paycheck?
  - ChuckMcM 13y ago
    Uh, sarcasm miss? Oh_sigh was taking the "full Luddite" tack (I believe sarcastically). It is absolutely true that not needing to pay pensions or workman's comp is a part of the move to technology. But total jobs available goes up with increasing technological use while creating localized labor displacements.
  - notatoad 13y ago
    link to this graph please? as far as i know, unemployment has been fairly steady since the beginning of time. as new technologies come about, new jobs are created to replace the ones taken by machines. we're losing truck drivers at an alarming rate, but never before has there been so many designers and environmental consultants and political analyst jobs. it sucks if you're a truck driver, but doesn't really change much for global economics.
Shivetya 13y ago
did you ever consider that removing people from harms way is a good thing? Even it means their job is lost? People can be retrained, reanimation is a bit much. These are very hazardous work sites and these vehicles are bit unforgiving. The day we don't send people down in mines will be a good one, if it starts with the trucks up top then so be it.
chiph 13y ago
You're not thinking at the right financial scale. A Caterpillar 797 haul truck costs in the range of $5 million USD (not including delivery to remote Australia). Sounds expensive, right? Well it's paid for within 4-6 months of being put into operation. So worker salaries, pensions, etc. for the driver are a minuscule portion of the money being made from a mine. There's no reason to stiff them.
jacques_chester 13y ago
Australia is not like the USA. Companies do not pay pensions. That is left to a mix of a government-paid pension and individual retirement savings accounts (superannuation). Saving for retirement in Australia is compulsory. As for workman's compensation, Rio have the best safety record of the majors. They have a fairly unyielding OH&S culture. My old man needed dozens of tickets to do his work. He'd need to justify climbing a ladder and log it. Meanwhile, over in BHP, somebody seems to die every few months.
- marvin 13y ago
  In the North Sea, you're not allowed to lift anything heavier than 40 lbs by hand (you need lifting equipment/machinery). These rules are there to ensure that workers can't be forced to do dangerous work. You said it yourself; having strict safety procedures leads to fewer deaths. And climbing a ladder can be more dangerous than you'd think. Imagine it's a 10-meter ladder on top of some tall-ish structure. Falling down could easily cripple or kill you. The only reason this seems like a stupid safety measure is because people do it in civilian life all the time, without thinking about the (small but serious) risk. Such risks are things you see all the time when operating at scale.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Automation isn't the problem. The problem is what to do with the displaced labor.

krasin 13y ago

Pensions should be paid by the government, not private companies. In this case, everything is clear: companies are trying to be as efficient, as possible (for example, by reducing labor costs), pay taxes which will be distributed by the government for the social purposes (pensions).

robbiep 13y ago
Australia's employer-funded pension system has meant that we have around 1.5 Trillion in fully funded retirement funds which have decreased infrastructure funding costs locally and are invested internationally making Australia's superannuation sector a major player in international investments. The government can't be counted on to fully fund retirement benefits without pillaging the pile of cash, as the example in most American states shows. It's a brilliant idea and has been extremely successful.

beambot 13y ago

They can afford it because they have sufficient cash reserves to pay the upfront costs of robotic vehicles versus ongoing personnel costs. Eliminating workman's comp suggests that the robotic vehicles are substantially safer compared to putting human lives at risk. (As a roboticist, I reject the notion that "all automation is bad", but that's a separate discussion.)

another-one-off 13y ago

Hey. I'm an Australian Mining Engineer, (co-incidentally employed by Rio Tinto, although obviously I'm no spokesperson and have no idea what the higher-ups are doing, or even blokes on other sites). While I don't have any knowledge of the autonomous truck project, pensions & workman's comp have basically nothing to do with it. The mining industry in Australia is on the tail end of the biggest expansion in living memory, and it turns out it is near-impossible for love or money to move Australians out into the desert to work in mines. It was not unreasonable to have trucks parked up because there simply was no human to drive them, and the salaries for a truck driver were in the $150,000+ Australian dollars, plus food, lodging and plane flights. This doesn't represent a scary cost for a mining company - it represents a scary lack of worker supply. A parked truck is an unhappy truck. In addition, we have very strict OH&S laws and the site mangers can be raked over the coals for the wierdest things. Eg, if I saw a light vehicle parked on non-level ground without wheel chocks, it would probably be escalated to the site Manager (not a pit supevisor, not the Manager of Mining, but the person responsible for the entire site) and someone being sacked would be an option on the table. Getting rid of the humans is a huge benefit from a safety perspective, which we take very, very seriously. Finally, automated trucks will provably do the right thing, all the time, without getting fatigued or taking breaks. Humans just cannot compete from a utilising-the-very-expensive-asset-properly point of view.

joonix 13y ago
Everything I heard indicates this is not true. A hand at the mines is a dime a dozen. Engineers are perhaps another story. But the myth that you can show up at the mines and make $150k was busted a while ago, especially now as the broader economy suffers and unemployment continues to rise.
mcguire 13y ago
"Finally, automated trucks will provably do the right thing, all the time,..." [[Citation Needed]]
- hhandoko 13y ago
  What the GP comment meant that the robots won't deviate from the parameters. Contrast this with a human operator, who are instructed to drive at specific speeds at each road section. Perhaps due to fatigue , overconfidence (e.g. I drove on this road 1000's times before, I know what I am doing), or other factors, the driver did not slow down enough and subsequently accidents occur.

oh_sigh 13y ago

> Let's face it. Anything to not pay pensions and workman's comp. Yup. All innovation is really just a way to screw over the honest, hard working individual. From the mechanical loom to the automobile to electronically switched telephone networks, all innovation in the modern era has been to screw over the worker. You and me, let's start a society that gets rid of all those horrible, unemployment-inducing contraptions. Imagine - we will have 0% unemployment because all of the machines will be humans!

powertower 13y ago
The graph of gainful-employment vs. technological-efficiency is not linear. It first increase, then has a hump, and goes down from there. Eventually you get two groups - A few highly skilled and specialized people that design, maintain, and improve the automated systems. A large amount of unskilled workers, who are nothing more than "replaceable units", that get told what to do by those systems. And that does not even attempt to even show the amount of unemployable people that would be around from all the human jobs lost in the first place after the hump. Just think of the fast food industry, and how technologic improvements would "disrupt" it (by removing the work force). And then who do you sell the product to? The person who does not have a paycheck?
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  Uh, sarcasm miss? Oh_sigh was taking the "full Luddite" tack (I believe sarcastically). It is absolutely true that not needing to pay pensions or workman's comp is a part of the move to technology. But total jobs available goes up with increasing technological use while creating localized labor displacements.
- notatoad 13y ago
  link to this graph please? as far as i know, unemployment has been fairly steady since the beginning of time. as new technologies come about, new jobs are created to replace the ones taken by machines. we're losing truck drivers at an alarming rate, but never before has there been so many designers and environmental consultants and political analyst jobs. it sucks if you're a truck driver, but doesn't really change much for global economics.

Shivetya 13y ago

did you ever consider that removing people from harms way is a good thing? Even it means their job is lost? People can be retrained, reanimation is a bit much. These are very hazardous work sites and these vehicles are bit unforgiving. The day we don't send people down in mines will be a good one, if it starts with the trucks up top then so be it.

chiph 13y ago

You're not thinking at the right financial scale. A Caterpillar 797 haul truck costs in the range of $5 million USD (not including delivery to remote Australia). Sounds expensive, right? Well it's paid for within 4-6 months of being put into operation. So worker salaries, pensions, etc. for the driver are a minuscule portion of the money being made from a mine. There's no reason to stiff them.

jacques_chester 13y ago

Australia is not like the USA. Companies do not pay pensions. That is left to a mix of a government-paid pension and individual retirement savings accounts (superannuation). Saving for retirement in Australia is compulsory. As for workman's compensation, Rio have the best safety record of the majors. They have a fairly unyielding OH&S culture. My old man needed dozens of tickets to do his work. He'd need to justify climbing a ladder and log it. Meanwhile, over in BHP, somebody seems to die every few months.

marvin 13y ago
In the North Sea, you're not allowed to lift anything heavier than 40 lbs by hand (you need lifting equipment/machinery). These rules are there to ensure that workers can't be forced to do dangerous work. You said it yourself; having strict safety procedures leads to fewer deaths. And climbing a ladder can be more dangerous than you'd think. Imagine it's a 10-meter ladder on top of some tall-ish structure. Falling down could easily cripple or kill you. The only reason this seems like a stupid safety measure is because people do it in civilian life all the time, without thinking about the (small but serious) risk. Such risks are things you see all the time when operating at scale.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

Automation isn't the problem. The problem is what to do with the displaced labor.