Written By: - Date published: 7:03 am, January 13th, 2012 - 264 comments
Categories: business, employment, Unions, wages, workers' rights -
Tags: maritime union, ports of auckland
A leaked Ports of Auckland strategy document shows their goal is to reduce the stevedores’ wages by 20%. They were planning to manufacture a crisis even before the stevedores’ collective expired. They’ve been rumbled breaking the law by not bargaining in good faith. Their political support will now evaporate. They should cut their losses, and a deal with the workers, now.
Last night, the Maritime Union released this draft document, written before the collective expired. It outlines in bullet points the Port management’s objectives and strategy:
The Port is trying to deny that this document represents the Port’s policy, yet it is clear that the Port has pursued this strategy.
The offer they put up is tantamount to demanding a 20% wage cut from the workers. The union offer is the status quo with an inflation adjustment to the hourly rate. The Port spun their offer as a 10% hourly pay increase, and had the gall to call the workers unreasonable.
The Port then moved to further toxify the relationship with the stevedores by branding them as overpaid and lazy via their blogosphere allies. This dirty campaign has further eroded the already slim chances of a settlement.
After mediation yesterday, the management promptly blamed the union for not giving in but also showed that it won’t take one step toward compromise: “today’s marathon six-hour mediation session with the Maritime Union was frustrating … Whatever the union comes up with has to stack up in a business sense compared to an outsourced labour model”
The Port even had the cheek to offer the crisis it has created by refusing to try to reach an agreement as a reason for not trying to reach an agreement: “Right now though, we’re running out of time. Our customers are looking for a quick and definitive outcome. Our employees’ jobs are uncertain [because we've said we're going to sack them all]. We have to protect our existing business, win back the business we’ve lost, and put the foundations in place to achieve sustainable growth over the long term, in the interests of all stakeholders”.
Documentary proof that the Port has been running a strategy to make the negotiations fail all along shows that they have not met the requirement to bargain in good faith, which is an offence under the Employment Relations Act. It also destroys the credibility of the Port management and its spin machine.
Whereas National had seemed about to jump in the ring on the Port’s side (following an oh so conveniently timed Productivity Commission report that calls for partial privatisation and de-unionisation of ports) they will now stay well clear. National has no interest in being seen siding with the Port’s dirty tricks team now that it has been exposed for what it is.
If they have any sense, the Port management will cut their losses at this point and settle for a status quo agreement with the workers. The directors will surely be telling them to get it sorted before any more business is lost.
We can expect CEO Tony Gibson, the man employed for a $750,000 salary to break the union, to be gone by the end of the year.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Oh yes there is no doubt that PoT with it’s ruthless contracting model has lower labour costs. The owners of that Port are making bigger profits at the expense of the people who do the actual work That is plain, it’s not in disagreement.
PoT could be even more profitable by employing endentured slaves from Bangladesh, or wherever, and make even higher profits. And logically you’d have no objection.
But really you are fighting yesterday’s argument. Events in the last 24hrs have confirmed that the dispute is NOT about labour costs or flexibility. The Union has met PoAL’s demands, but have been rejected.
What PoAL are demanding now is that the workers leave MUNZ and signed Individual Employment Agreements (IEA’s). In other words the actual overt goal is to de-unionise the port.
All the rest about costs, pay rates and labour flexibility was only ever a diversion.
Red
How can that be POA profits,and dividends are going backwards at a rate of knots, POT are going up at a rate of knots. An alternative view maybe that the POA workers are screwing the company,and causing the profit errosion, because it isnt happening in Tauranga
How is it that POAL profits are “going backwards at a rate of knots” but the pay of its directors and executive management keeps getting bigger at a rate of knots?
Are they cutting their own pay, terms and conditions in order to lead their workers by example?
CV
You may have a point there,and they shouldnt be getting a pay rise agreed fair is fair, but at the end of the day we are talking a problem in the 10s of Millions not a few hundred thousand. That is where the work force has to be much more flexible as the scale of the cost problem is very big
Its about setting the moral example as management and leaders of the company mate.
By the way firing the Board and the CEO and replacing them with a workers council boosts POAL $19M pa profitability by $2M, i.e. 10.5%.
That’s very significant.
James you are a fucken idiot! – I can’t even be bothered going into why!
Perhaps because I dont look at things your way Muzza. I forgot you are the Oracle and have all the answers.
Here is the fundamental flaw in your thinking James.
Let’s imagine that the workers at PoAL improve their productivity by say 20%. In other words they reduce the time to handle a container from 1.2 hrs to say 1.0 hrs to match Tauranga.
Logically then the average hours actually worked might drop from say 26 hrs to about 21 hrs. Now you’ve consistently said you want the workers to be paid ONLY for the hours actually worked. Bear in mind that PoAL cannot simply cut the number of people available, because it needs them to service peak demand.
So at the new pay rate they are being offered on a IEA of $30 per hour (not including any night shift allowances).. this works out at about $32,000 per year. Not a great deal more than the minimum wage and … well even you might think this a bit of a drop from $91,000.
This for skilled and sometimes arduous work and being required to be available to work any hour of the day and night 24/7/365..
In other words if the workers step up and meet management’s demands … they finish up being punished for doing a better job.
Red
Lets explore this a little further are you telling us all that the POT workers are only making just above the minnimum wage. Because its working down there for them ,and the Port Company
Do you have a problem with the above calculations, and in what way are they inconsistent with what you have been arguing for?
I dont believe the POT workers are only making $32000 a year on average I would think it much closer to $65000 per year. On that basis it works for everyone down there .So no reason why it cant work here
You misunderstand. I’m not talking about PoT workers… I was talking about Auckland.
I’m using the figures for PoAL that we have already established and you have used in your own comments.
If the PoAL workers accept the casualised rates on the terms you have insisted on… then $32,000 would logically be their base salary. Various add-on would certainly increase that a bit… but nowhere near $65,000.
Yet the hilarious thing is … PoAL management have made it clear they really don’t give a rats arse about any of this, because the Union met their terms and were rejected.
Excellent analysis, RedLogix.
I’m just peeved I didn’t come up with it. *thumbs up*
RED LOGIX.
full marks dude.
the whole damm thing was a diversion and still is.
timed to coincide with the holidays so the grubby little managers and beancounters can play their tricks while everybody else is trying to have a holiday.
thats the crummy way things are done around here and its time the Mayor LEN BROWN got of his arse and made a statement about who owns the Port Of Auckland and why the hired hands think they can take over the ownership of the peoples property.
Len has made a statement he wants a much better return out of the POA, he isnt happy with the dividend continually falling whilst Taurangas goes up. He wants that for the rate payers of Auckland a fair request I would have thought.
Sacrifice the community to improve the returns to the community?
Yeah right. This is the kind of bullshit you get when you decide that short term financial measures are the only measures of importance in your business.
I reckon Len Brown has been sold a bogus story by the CEO and the Board as to how easy it would be to make these changes to get the improved profitability that they no doubt hyped as very possible, and he is now trapped in a corner by that same story.
CV
Sacrifice the community to improve the returns to the community?
Well there are 1.4 million people in Auckland if he can improve the bottom line of POA by about 19 million a year. He has done the right thing the wishes of 350 people versus needing to support 1.4 million. Your equation doesn stack up really does it
Its not in the interests of the people of Auckland to have the ports run by fucking morons and incompetent managers!
Has he really James, and where would that be, as the only comments I seem to be able to find say nothing of the sort came out of LB’s mouth
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6230039/Mayor-wants-port-dispute-settled
Pick through this lot James… – Can’t see where Brown mentiones anything about dividends!
http://www.nbr.co.nz/category/category/ports-auckland
You can take my name out of the 1.4m people you refer to, as well as the other 1.399999m people who, even if they wanted do make a decision for themselves, would not be able to beause of the lies and BS, which people such as you lap up, and peddle outwards.
What is it that prevents you from seeing what this is really all about – The local privatization of public assets, going the same way as the national assets, what is left of them!
Mate you are not even a good troll!
Muzza
Epic fail again see below Lens comment on Stuff
‘Everyone involved in the dispute is entirely clear of my expectation that it needs to be resolved. A competitive port returning a much better dividend to ratepayers is pivotal to Auckland becoming the economic powerhouse it needs to be.”
What does everyone involved mean in your language?
What do you believe a competitive Port returning a much better dividend to ratepayers is pivotal? means in your language
Epic fail you fool
Er, the epic fail is all your own, James. See anything in Brown’s comments about screwing the workers to improve the dividend? Nope, ’cause it ain’t there.
Idiot.
“Better Dividend” – “Better means what exactly James?
Its political double speak up there with – “Brown said ”both sides are very aware of what is at stake” and he wanted to reassure ratepayers he was doing all he could”
By the way, you still have not answered a single question or provided any numbers of your own!
Well obviously much better than what they have which has been falling since 2003. I would also imagine in a Business sense that it needs to be a Return that covers capital employed, and is matching your nearest competitor which is POT. Im sure if they get near those numbers they will be happy. Business is all about trends POA profit has been trending down for at least 7 years whilst POT has been trending up. They will want to see the bottom line curve upwards again as Does Mayor Len in his Statement
Public Business are NOT “all about trends” – are you a student James, I hope so as its the only possible excuse for your shit reading, poor interpretations and total lack of any understanding about what the world and its resoures actually are…NOT JUST MONEY DICK HEAD!
Let me tell you what people want to see James – People want honesty, integrity and truth brought back into their communities, only they don’t know how to go about getting it back. Those such as yourself who clearly are all about the “bottom line”, have no fucken idea of how to create cohesive, work place, communities and all around more enjoyable cities to exist in because you only believe in cash, and fake material constructs – You have no idea how trapped you are, at least that is how your posts read!
Muzza
[For someone who has already been caught out this morning in a number of mistakes you had no answer to you are in no position to demand apologies. This kind of thing is the stuff of flame-wars. ..RL]
muzza dont know what sort of business you are in are you a Public service worker or a union delegate? Its an economic reality if the bottom lines continue to go down and into the Red Companies close workers lose jobs. Some how I dont believe you work in a occupation that has to make a profit
So yes I do have a very good idea about workplaces ,and what is required. You are getting very emotive ,and losing the plot. Len has asked for improvement in competitveness, and dividend he is asking that for all rate payers of Auckland. Perhaps you need to ask your mate on his exectutive team why Len would ask for such an abhorent thing.
Im not stuck just a realist some one who has moved on from the Labor relations of the 1950s what about you Muzza
There is nothing abhorrent about improved productivity, James. But you are assuming Brown is talking about it in relationship to POT and that is not actually what he has said.
BTW, for about, oooh, forever, public servants have to meet budget in a business like manner, so your snide remarks about them are particularly stupid. And try and get your anti union prejudices up to date, too. Union delegates aren’t what you think they are.
James, I note you haven’t addressed the quite significant points raised by Redlogix above?
He has made valid points. You’ve skirted past them, it seems?
Did the Question ever get asked who Mr gibson’s past employer was… he was a manager at MAERSK……
VTR
Its says everyone involved (which includes the Union) improving the dividend which involves the Union. Its all about accountability you are part of the problem so you have to at least try and be part of the Solution
I said Len has made a statement where he wants a better return from POA and as proved what I said was entirely true. This was what Muzza was responding to in my message 38.1
So yes VTR it is an epic failure by Muzza will accept his apologies humbly of course
Nope. Here’s what you claimed Brown said:
“Len has made a statement he wants a much better return out of the POA, he isnt happy with the dividend continually falling whilst Taurangas goes up”
The simple fact is that he did not actually say what you claim he did and your bullshit is a hell of a long way from being “entirely true”. Muzza 1, James 0.
VTR
Read into it what you like Im sure Len wouldnt be unhappy with the Dividend going up.He wants a competitive Port (this implies he doesnt think it is at the moment other wise why make the statement) He wants a better dividend (This implies not good enough at the moment pathetic when compared with Tauranga)
What I dont understand is how Muzza didnt know that Len has said this as he openly states on here that he is in contact with people in Len Browns executive Team
Of course Brown wants a better dividend. Who doesn’t? But that statement does not ‘imply’ anything regarding the dispute or relativity with POT. The implications are entirely in your own head, dude, which is what both Muzza and I are trying to get through to you.
“Tony served as Managing Director of Maersk, New Zealand for three years. Most recently he has pursued his own business interests as a director and then Chairman of ERoad, a road-user charge solution provider. In 2008 he was appointed by the Minister of Transport to the Road User Review Group.”
Len Brown did mention the word dividend James – So when will you be disputing the figures or logic above, and why are you so seemingly staunchly in favour of the union being busted, and the workers being screwed harder?
I bet you’re in favour of leveredged buy outs too right, cos it all about the debt!
Muzza
I want the Union to get real and the workers keep their Jobs. I dont believe the Union is facing the economic reality at the moment that the Port has to deliver. I am not against Unions I am against bloody mindedness that loses workers Jobs. As I have already stated my Grandfather was a Wharfie, My Uncle was a Wharfie, My Best Man a Wharfie. I dont care about Leveredged buyouts what I do care about is a good performing wharf in Auckland.
[your idea of 'economic reality' is a profitable business imposing a 20% pay cut on its workers to make more profit and reduce its charges to foreign shipping lines. That's not decent Kiwis' idea of reality. Zet]
Tell me Zet if they took a 20% paycut would that put them on the same Level as POT workers ?
ie $91000 x 20% minus =$72800 average
This is still very good money in anyones mind. If it makes the wharf efficent and improves the dividend keeps their jobs. Why is it such a bad thing. I know its a bitter pill for the Union to swallow but they have obviously been on the pigs back for a few years that is why the profitability is falling ,and the port is losing business to POT
[well, when your boss comes along tomorrow and says 'the business is making money but we want to make more money, so you've got to take a 20% pay cut or loss your job', let us know how you react. Oh, and it doesn't make the port more efficient - it takes the same amount of working time to unload a container, its just that the cost of downtime is lumped on the employee rather than the employer. Kind of like your boss stopping paying you if there's no work to do for a couple of hours but expecting you to be ready and willing to starting work again at the drop of a hat 24/7/365. Zet]
Zet following the 87 crash I took a 20% cut when the company wasnt performing along with other staff. Believe this crash is worse than 87. Sometimes no gai nwithout pain
“Zet following the 87 crash I took a 20% cut when the company wasnt performing along with other staff. Believe this crash is worse than 87. Sometimes no gai nwithout pain”
James… ???
Do you really believe that cliche?
Considering that during the Recession, whilst you took a 20% cut (I assume you are being honest in this), the top 150 NBR Rich Listers INCREASED their wealth by 20%. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/171212/rich-list-shows-rich-getting-richer)
You took the cut.
They took the money you gave up.
Unless you happen to be one of those 150 rich listers – what possible benefit did you get from them getting wealthier at your expense.
I honestly don’t get this kind of thought-pattern. It’d be like a starving Somalian giving up his meal for an obese Westerner – because the Westerner feels slightly “peckish”.
This is utterly alien to me.
James is an astroturfer. Or a financial masochist. Who knows which. One thing is certain though: the top 0.1% think that he is a useful sucker in making them richer.
Over the last few days our friend James:
1. Has demanded that productivity must improve to at least match Tauranga, ie a 20% improvement. This logically implies the current 26hrs per week would drop to only 21hrs hours worked per week.
2. Has insisted that workers are only paid for the hours actually worked, regardless of what time of the day or night, and the need to be on standby to meet the employers requirements.
3. Has insisted that PoAL’s offer to increase the pay rate from $27.40 to $30 per hour is a ‘generous’ 10% pay increase.
4. Logically then the workers would receive if they moved to casualised contracting: 21hrs * $30 *52 weeks = $32,000 pa.
On his own terms.
Catherine Etheridge
Stated average Pay for a Full time worker with more than 1 years service was $91000 including holiday pay this came from Payroll information take off 20% as Zet has stated the company is after. You end up with $72800 which is more than double the number you are quoting. I think I would believe the Companys payroll information. This is still very reasonable money in any ones terms
No.. I am using your own logic. Point by point. And so far you have failed to show where it is wrong.
All you are doing is extrapolating back off the discredited $91k figure that was always inflated with a bunch of non-cash ‘benefits’. Remember if the PoAL workers are turned into contractors they won’t be getting annual/medical leave, trauma and medical insurance, or superannuation.
Besides all I’ve done is use your OWN logic and suddenly you don’t like the answer it comes up with…do you?
Red the $91000 k figure has not been discredited every company looks at all benefits that a worker receives in a year as income. That is what is provided to IRD. Please show me your evidence that is better than the POA payroll info where the average full time POA worker doesnt receive this much money. Are you calling Catherine Etheridge a liar, and all the information that she gracioulsy revealed to all on here false? I f so what are you basing your information on.
I am saying that $72800 for a full time worker is still a good wage
You are becoming incoherent. I’ve only used exactly the same figures YOU have repeatedly used in comment after comment.
I’m not talking about what PoAL workers are paid now, I’m merely using your own numbers and applying your own logic to them.
Really?
That’s big of you.
It’s worth considering that any sum paid to maritime workers will be derided as “greedy” by reactionary right wingers.
Ironic isn’t it; criticise the top 150 NBR Rich Listers for increasing their wealth by 20% – and right wingers respond with “politics of envy”.
Those same right wingers think nothing of deriding workers, doing a hard, dangerous job, as “greedy”. Evidently it’s not “politics of envy” then. As I pointed out to you above James,
…
Considering that during the Recession, whilst you took a 20% cut (I assume you are being honest in this), the top 150 NBR Rich Listers INCREASED their wealth by 20%. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/171212/rich-list-shows-rich-getting-richer)
You took the cut.
They took the money you gave up.
Unless you happen to be one of those 150 rich listers – what possible benefit did you get from them getting wealthier at your expense.
James I think you need to go do some reading about morals and ethics, what they are, and where they can add value to society (not in monetary terms only).
Why is it “bloody mindedness” of the unions – can it not be “bloody mindedness” of PoAL board etc?
Telle me about economic reality James – Is that the one where globalization has fucked all but the top tier of professional services to the wall!
Yes I do know people close to LB, and I assure you he is being used as a political football, internally by factions inside the council, and externally the same way.I am not making excuses for the guy by any means, because frankly he should know exactly what the situaiton is and where the agendas and lies are on both sides, that should be his intentions, he has the hot seat and has to deal with it! – I did not vote for him, or anyone else, but imagine the shit that would be rained down on the union if John Banks was mayor!
Maybe go show some solidarity to your family and friends who you claim to be warfies, because your posts dont show much in terms of loyalty bro, cos if you think your best man is part of the problem, well that speaks volumes eh!
Muzza you Say
can it not be “bloody mindedness” of PoAL board etc?
Well actually no the board know the Port is not performing you only need to look at the comparitive figures submitted by Brian Gaynor in the Herald today.
The board also has duty of Governance they have been asked by the Mayor of the city to make the Port more competitive,and improve the Dividend. That is the direction they have been given. They are now putting a process in place to achieve that objective there is no great conspiracy. They are just responding to the economic realities
Its one of BG’s worst articles, I think Frank & RL at 35.1 and 36 already explained the flaws!
I have stated before, and in emails to the council, about the lack of transparency around the interaction between PoAL, MUNZ etc – How are you so certain that either party has full disclosure of relevant details, because I for one am not!
See below from George Wood – Posted higher up in the blog – have you read the SOI to back up your statements James?
_______________________________________________________________________
The parent body of Ports of Auckland is Auckland Council Investment Limited. A statement of intent has been prepared by Auckland Council that clearly sets out what the council requires as a return from the Ports of Auckland. That SOI is a public document which you could obtain a copy of of from Auckland Council.
Auckland Council expects the board of Ports of Auckland to follow the same requirements as any other public company. It is important therefore that councillors do not become involved in trying to manage Ports of Auckland and leave that job to the board and CEO.
Regards
George Wood
Councillor
Auckland Council
_______________________________________________________________________
The email below was a reply from Councilor Mike Lee to Christime Fletcher and below that Christines initial response to myself
______________________________________________________________________
Thats nonsense Christine – you are deliberately or through ignorance confusing the current dispute with the issue of ownership – which is quite another matter. You claim the port needs to be ‘returned to profit’ – this is either ignorant ( read your agenda) or the propagation of a deliberate political lie. The port is profitable – and relatively efficient (compared to other regional ports such as Botany Bay and Melbourne).
That being said It could be and needs to be more efficient and more profitable.
Talking about selling the port business and keeping the land is politically fraudulent. Virtually all the publicly valuable port land eg Westhaven, Britomart Quarter, Wynyard Quarter,
Queens Wharf has been transferred out
of POAL by the ARC (Wynyard Quarter which has enabled the current ongoing development), purchased by Auckland City Council, Westhaven, Halsey Street Wharf, harbour Park (by bridge) Teal Park) or purchased from POAL jointly by ARC and Government (Queens Wharf). The ‘land’ remaining is the reclaimed rubble laying half a metre under the tarmac upon which is located all the incredibly valuable cranes and infrastructure you want to sell. This asset belongs to the people of Auckland. They deserve to be told the truth not spun artful lies
_______________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your email. I appreciate the opportunity to make clear my position.
I believe that there are two stages to the current situation.
Firstly return the port to profitability and put in place whatever measures are required to maximise the value of this ratepayer business that is so critical to the economic growth of Auckland and employment for Aucklanders. The council have been advised by the board of the port that there will need to be an improvement to the organisational structure and greater labour market flexibility. There needs to be a step change in customer service and productivity levels if the Port is going to be competitive in a difficult market.
Only when this has been achieved we should seriously and carefully consider the best structure for the Port. It is premature to suggest what is the right structure at this stage but I have long personally believed that having an investment partner with council for the commercial operation of the port could be a workable possibility.
For the record I have never suggested nor would I support privatisation of the total commercial business of port and I would not support the sale of port land which is strategic to the development of Auckland.
Sincerely
Chris Fletcher
James..you keep blathering on about the need for workers to take pay cuts and be more flexible.
Yet when MUNZ offered exactly what the PoAL has demanded… they were rejected.
You’re running yesterday’s argument. Events have moved on.
More info from George Wood, just received now, to my questions first, followed by response from GW
__________________________________________________________________________
George,
:Who appoints the Management/Board/CEO etc?
:When you say “follow the same requirements” – What exactly do you mean, and whom exactly decides the “requirements”
: Do you have any involvement in POAL, directly, indirectly or otherwise?
:At what point is it decided that the Board/CEO have failed in the roles, and who would make that decision?
________________________________________________________________________________
Auckland Council appoints the board of ACIL who in turn appoint the board of Ports of Auckland. This is the requirement under the Auckland legislation.
Auckland Council decides the requirements for all its subsidiaries. Ports of Auckland is just one subsidiary.
All Auckland Council members are involved in setting these directives. Therefore all councillors have involvement.
George Wood
Councillor
Auckland Council
I asked a question earlier of James which he avoided. What do MPs get paid and how many days do they appear in the House?
Well, a backbench MP gets paid almost $142,000. Parliament sits for 93 days (or about 1.8 days per week). Of course MPs do some electorate work. But by international standards, it is apparent that MPs do not spend as much time as they could on parliamentary business. It is also apparent that in comparison with wharfies, MPs have got by far the better deal. MPs’ sick leave provision, for example, is far more generous than that of wharfies.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/4970907/What-me-work-Fridays
Ross
I avoided nothing I said that MPs were working their electorate office ,and working in their community when not in Parliament.
My Mp works way more than 40 hours a week. He doesnt get paid for sitting at home waiting for the Phone to ring or watching TV.
Not many people do these days times have changed. If his hourly rate was calculated for hours actually worked versus paid hours. Im telling you it would be wayless than the $62.50 the POA workers currently receive for the same measure
From where I sit everything the Union ,and the Standard are throwing up are Red Herrings it isnt going to change one thing,
POA have a private contractor running their business who is doing a very good job for the community, and returning them a great dividend
Fact
1) POT is working very effectively much more profitable than POA
2)POT returns a dividend to its rate payers that is 128% greater than POA
3)POT wage costs are significantly less than POA
4)POA profit is much less than POT yet it has more revenue from vessels coming in
5)POA profit ,and dividend has been sliding since 2003 whilst POT has been rocketing
6)The mayor has asked for greater productivity ,and dividend return at POA
7)POT workers do not get paid for being at home POA workers do
Why wouldnt you if you were the POA of Auckland employ the same private contractor to run POA.They know he is going to get the Port working properly again.
You would have rocks in your head if you believe that POA workers can hang onto any conditions that they have over and above POT Workers this isnt going to happen.
Both Ports are competiting against each other very comparable businesses .So their costs ,and profits should be very similar POA is underperforming versus its competition it needs to be sorted as a Business.
So that rate payers get the return they deserve.Of course Mr Dickson is going to end up running POA, and many of your current union members there will end up working for him.
There will be some redundancies but in 5 years the Port will be in a significantly better place in profitability, and dividend wise than it is now.
The only thing that can save the Union is if they accept every condition without exception that has been put before them by POA. As said in one Newspaper article yesterday the Culture at the POA has to change who do you think they are talking about there.
James you are really hard to argue with because you have this list of slogans which you keep repeating like self fulfilling truths and you refuse to debate the details.
Try this one:
POT wage costs are significantly less than POA
They are actually greater if you add on the contractor costs. This is a relevant consideration isn’t it?
James.
Turns out one of your ‘facts’ isn’t quite so obvious after all. Yesterday mickysavage did a little rather obvious in hindsight comparison of the actual 2011 Annual Reports for the two organisations.
Both reports are on the net. You can check this out for yourself quite easily. Unfortunately the two companies use different accounting and reporting systems, which makes direct comparison less than straight forward.. but that is a sword that cuts both ways.
If you guys are so right and the workers at POA are so efficent , and their Productivity is so good which is completely opposite to Brian Gaynors article Yesterday.
Why do you think that POA is running toward private contracting at POA at million miles an hour.
They obviously believe it has huge benefits to the Wharfs profitability.
In regards to where the contractors costs fall in the POT P&L they must be accounted for otherwise they would be filing illegal returns are you saying they are?
Right now then accepting that they arent all costs are accounted for in their Annual Returns this shows them far more Profitable than POA, and giving a dividend that is 128% greater than POA. There is obviously room for huge improvement at POA that is what the board is looking at.It has to be competitive with its nearest competitor ,and it isnt. I still make my claim that POA will move to a private contractor to gain some of these low hanging fruit. Also that many of your current workers wil lend up working for them
James 111
Care to argue the figures? It looks like Tauranga spends MORE on employees and contractors than Auckland spends on employees. You have spent the past few days parroting the company line but it looks like the company line should not be believed.
Go on argue the figures. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s screen space.
Micky
I am arguing the figures
All of the costs have to be included in the Annual report including all contracting costs otherwise they would be illegal. These reports wil lbe audited standard practise. That being taken for granted the two Annual reports when compared with each other show POT performing much better than POA.
Divdend Paid
POA POT
17.6 million 40.2 million (POT dividend is 128% more that POA startling)
POA dividend to Auckland rate payers has gone from 34.5 million in 2003 to 17.6 million in 2011 a decline of 16.9 million
POT dividend to its rate payers has gone from 22.8 million 2003 to 40.2 million in 2011 an increase of 17.4 million
You show me your report for POA that increases its profit ,and for POT that decreases its profit otherwise you are living in Disney land
James,
Your entire argument is based on the idea that LABOUR costs at Auckland are higher than Tauranga. And that therefore MUNZ has to accept lower wages.
This has nothing to do with dividends.
Now go and look at the Annual Reports. Please.
Red
Have you have ever been in Business it has everything to do with dividends! If one company has significantly mor Labour cost than the other company on directly comparable business. Then their return profit/ dividend wil lbe lower. That is the case here that is why they are looking at altering their cost structure
DNFTT
Are you telling us that labour is the ONLY input cost for a business?
Please say yes… it would explain a lot.
No im not saying that at all but its a big part of the problem at POA I guess this statement says it all really.
In 2010, POA had total employee expenses of $51.9 million compared with only $18.5 million at POT and last year employee benefits plus pension costs were $54.9 million at POA compared with POT’s $25.3 million.
The big difference between the two companies is in terms of contracting out.
POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.
There is little doubt that the employees/contractors mix at POT works
Now add in the cost of labour contractors at PoT
Tauranga has three figures in its 2011 accounts, employees ($25.3m), contractors ($33.9m) and transport contractors ($5.8m).
That adds up to…go on you can add can you?
Red
Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working. At the end of the day Managment have decided they need to get much more productive at a lower cost. The Mayor has also asked for it. The wharf will change whether you and the maritme union like it or not. It will get more productive. There will be a private contractor brought in there is no doubt about that the writing is on the wall.
I remember well when Talleys took over Affco all the problems that Affco use to have with the meatworkers union they couldnt fix it. Never hear about any problems now at Affco do you ? because Talleys have sorted it ,and got more productivity out of the plants. The same will happen at POA ,and the maritime union will lose its biggest base of workers because of bloody mindedness. At the end of the day one of us will be proven right one will be proven wrong lets see what transpiers .Given what has already happened at Tauranga,and how well that business is operating. I know where my cards are stacked
Both organisations have similar revenue. For POAL it was $177m, for Tauranga it was $185m. Call it $180m for both
For both organisations total labour costs amount to about the same, call it $55m, or about 31% of total revenue. Which can only mean that the big difference in profitability must be due to costs OTHER than labour.
Or as Brian Gaynor went on to say (the portion of his article you selectively chose not to wax lyrical about ):
In other words PoAL management are attempting to drive down workers pay to cover up for THEIR failures.
Bail outs and limousines for the wealthy, austerity and “belt tightening” for everyone else.
Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working.
You keep repeating this bit of nonsense. As one of our other commenters last night pointed out here most people do not work every hour that they are paid for:
In other words almost all occupations run at about 75% utilisation. The 60% at PoAL is lower, but then this can be fully expected due to the extremely variable nature of the workflow operating over a 24/7/365 operation.
Besides, MUNZ have repeatedly offered to work with management to improve that number and have been rejected. Therefore it’s not the issue at stake here.
/bashheadontable
I am saying that Tauranga spends more and your response is that they have to report the figure because they have a legal requirement to do so?
And then you discuss the employee cost figures by talking about dividends??
You are trolling, aren’t you.
Is there any chance that James 111 is historically related to the Black Knight?
Nah all that is just a smoke screen of flim flam.
The final goal here is of total, unconditional and untramelled control of the work force.
Therefore breaking the union no matter the cost is a necessity.
FFS James can you read!
Thats nonsense Christine – you are deliberately or through ignorance confusing the current dispute with the issue of ownership – which is quite another matter. You claim the port needs to be ‘returned to profit’ – this is either ignorant ( read your agenda) or the propagation of a deliberate political lie. The port is profitable – and relatively efficient (compared to other regional ports such as Botany Bay and Melbourne).
That being said It could be and needs to be more efficient and more profitable.
Talking about selling the port business and keeping the land is politically fraudulent. Virtually all the publicly valuable port land eg Westhaven, Britomart Quarter, Wynyard Quarter,
Queens Wharf has been transferred out
of POAL by the ARC (Wynyard Quarter which has enabled the current ongoing development), purchased by Auckland City Council, Westhaven, Halsey Street Wharf, harbour Park (by bridge) Teal Park) or purchased from POAL jointly by ARC and Government (Queens Wharf). The ‘land’ remaining is the reclaimed rubble laying half a metre under the tarmac upon which is located all the incredibly valuable cranes and infrastructure you want to sell. This asset belongs to the people of Auckland. They deserve to be told the truth not spun artful lies
_____________________________________________________________________________What part of being lied and spun to dont you understand! – Have you read the SOI yet, you did not answer the question!
I said that MPs were working their electorate office ,and working in their community when not in Parliament.
And I said “Two words: Alamein. Kopu.”
I am well aware some MPs do a hell of a lot of work, well over 40 hours a week. But some don’t. So care to start applying your own “logic” to their pay packets? Or going to continue avoiding that question too?
Red
Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working. At the end of the day Managment have decided they need to get much more productive at a lower cost. The Mayor has also asked for it. The wharf will change whether you and the maritme union like it or not. It will get more productive. There will be a private contractor brought in there is no doubt about that the writing is on the wall.
I remember well when Talleys took over Affco all the problems that Affco use to have with the meatworkers union they couldnt fix it. Never hear about any problems now at Affco do you ? because Talleys have sorted it ,and got more productivity out of the plants. The same will happen at POA ,and the maritime union will lose its biggest base of workers because of bloody mindedness. At the end of the day one of us will be proven right one will be proven wrong lets see what transpiers .Given what has already happened at Tauranga,and how well that business is operating. I know where my cards are stacked
_________________________________________________________________________________
James what is your interest/incentive to be so staunchly in favour of the breaking of the union?
Muzza
Absolutely none at all. I just wish they wouldnt lead their workers down the Garden path.I saw exactly the same thing happen on the New Zealand Coast with the Seamans union ,and The Coooks & Stewards. If they had been much more flexiable we would have more Kiwis working on the Coast today. Its funny the only thing we dont learn from history is history
Hey james you given up 10% of your pay packet to give to your boss yet? He’ll appreciate it. It’ll make your employer much more ‘efficient’ and ‘competitive’.
So by your rationale James, we should all bend over, get fucked, then repeat..
Great way to improve peoples lives mate – Glad you dont represent me in any way!
http://thestandard.org.nz/ports-paid-propagandist-says-cut-workers-pay/#comment-425505
james 111,
No what we never learn from history is that the employers are always greedy for more profit and see the employees as costs.
Family on the other hand sees the employee as Mum, Dad, sis, bro, etc. etc.
What we never learn from history is that NAct is comprised of greedy people who never see employees as people. If they did they would never treat them like serfs, which is precisely what they are doing now and always have and always will.
That is why in order to get elected they have to lie, swallow dead fish, import an American flunky pretending to have some sort of interest in the place, NZ, where he was born and given plenty of government support to and who intends to serve New Zealand and New Zealanders up on a plate to those other greedy people that inhabit the black lagoons.
CV
Told you yesterday work for myslef have to adjust my rates accordingly its all about flexibility at the end of the day.Something I believe POA is looking for from the workforce!
Flexibility for the employers
Tied to the phone waiting for a call on standby for workers
Your kind of ‘flexibility’ sucks
Hey are you on 24/7 standby for your clients at no cost to them? Sucker!
Ok, so you do have some sort of chip/agenda then….. You have to lower your rates downwards to compete with the ever increasing pools of labour force in the market for an every decreasing pool of available jobs, shit system isn’t it!
This is where your attitutde comes from!
OK so seeing as how you refuse to answer the points above lets go back to what you have already outlined in terms of what YOU are expecting from the workers in terms of ‘flexibility’.
In various comments you have insisted that:
1. Productivity must improve to at least match Tauranga, ie a 20% improvement. This logically implies the current 26hrs per week at Auckland would drop to only 21hrs hours worked per week to handle the same number of containers.
2. Workers are only paid for the hours actually worked, regardless of what time of the day or night, and the need to be on standby to meet the employers requirements.
3. PoAL’s offer to increase the base pay rate from $27.40 to $30 per hour is a ‘generous’ 10% pay increase.
Logically then the PoA workers would receive if they moved to casualised contracting: 21hrs * $30 *52 weeks = $32,000 pa.
And as casualised contractors (the model you think works so well at Tauranga) they would get no annual or medical leave, no superannuation, no insurance.
Care to show us exactly where I am wrong?
That’s it exactly, James! Finally you have it.
You “work for yourself”, you adjust your rates as needs be. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down.
In the case of extreme profit, you will be paid accordingly. You take the risk, you get the reward.
People who work as employees of others typicaly don’t have that salary fluctuation. Employers are very keen to lower salaries, not so keen to raise them other than throwing a few crumbs such as a one-off bonus or a party. The bulk of the profit is kept by the employer, because they take the risk.
PoAL are attempting to increase their workers’ “flexibility” so that PoAL get the reward in the good times, but their workers take the risk.
Glad you finally get it.