What’s really going on at Ports of Auckland 2

Written By: - Date published: 8:03 am, January 10th, 2012 - 256 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, employment, workers' rights - Tags:

Since my post yesterday, Ports of Auckland has upped the ante  threatening to sack all its workers and contract out (to quick and loud cheers from the National-aligned blogs they are working with – Cameron Slater’s rate is $10,000 for an operation like this). What they’re proposing is a breach of the law and wouldn’t work, but its just setting the scene for the next stage.

Parties to collective bargaining are required to bargain in good faith. There’s many aspects of this. It requires parties to be “responsive and communicative“, which Ports of Auckland has not been over the Christmas period to the offers the workers have put forward. It requires parties to agree a collective agreement unless “there is a genuine reason based on reasonable grounds not to“. There’s no hard and fast definition of what a “genuine reason” is but examples point to it being a serious obstacle, such as “where a wage claim is at a level outside the employer’s ability to pay and where the employer can provide information to support their inability to meet the claim.”

Ports of Auckland paid a $17.6 million dividend last year, there’s no doubt they can afford to keep the employment conditions that have generated $90 million in dividends over the past 5 years, even with a pay rise that would cost the Port about $1.25 million a year (btw, ‘Key management personnel‘ costs rose by 20% last year, excluding termination costs). So, they’re going to have a tough time pleading poverty as a reason for not concluding an agreement, especially as they haven’t sought mediation or arbitration.

The Port says it will continue to negotiate the collective but will sack all the workers to make the process irrelevant, again, hardly meeting the good faith test.

Now, the Port boss has finally come back from his beach house holiday with a threat to sack his entire workforce. Tony Gibson says the Port will contract out all its work. That is, it will sack its workforce (these, remember are the people about which the Port, in its annual report, says “we respect and care about each other – we show consideration for, and look after each other“) and  replace them with contractors. Gibson says he expects that “the majority of affected employees would continue to work for the Port as employees of the selected contractors“. This is just a farce to try to cut the workers’ pay and conditions via the back door (and let some of their mates set up ‘contractor’ companies to clip the ticket on the way through).

Fortunately, the law’s not ass enough to let that go past: when a restructuring, including a contracting out, occurs the law says “An employee may elect to transfer to the new employer” and If an employee elects to transfer to the new employer, then to the extent that the employee’s work is to be performed by the new employer, the employee … is employed on the same terms and conditions by the new employer as applied to the employee immediately before the specified date, including terms and conditions relating to whether the employee is employed full-time or part-time“. If workers were to opt not to work for one of the Port’s contractors, they would be entitled to redundancy payments worth up to $24 million, or more than a year’s profits for the Port. In other words, contracting out isn’t a free pass for the Port to trample all over the workers’ pay and conditions.

So, if it won’t work, and the Port is in breach of the law and possibly subject to serious penalties as a result, then what are they up to?

The next stage, I suspect will be for the Port to plead for the government to get involved, to make it legal for them to sack staff who won’t accept having their wages and conditions gutted and re-employ them (they need those particular workers – they’re skilled) for less cost. There will already be work on behind the scenes on this, I reckon. Key will be getting off his plane from Hawaii in a week or two and declaring that the Employment Relations Act – that piece of law which defines and codifies your rights at work – has to be ripped up so that Ports of Auckland can make a few more dollars.

256 comments on “What’s really going on at Ports of Auckland 2 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Colonial Viper 1
    10 January 2012 at 8:25 am

    Who the frak is this brainless, incompetent CEO who has now opened POAL to massive legal liabilities and operational risks?

    What networks is he tied into, what are his qualifications and work background, his professional/political affiliations and most tellingly of all, does he have a small penis?

    • bbfloyd 1.1
      10 January 2012 at 11:29 am

      ….. what inducements has he been offered? ambassador, attache to monaco? a truckload of money in the form of bonds and shares? ceo of the new privatised port corporation? should tauranga, littleton etc stevadores be getting nervous about now?

  2. Janice 2
    10 January 2012 at 8:27 am

    The mugwamp, Len Brown, needs to get off the fence over this. While he may see some points in both sides’ arguments he cannot possibly support both sides. He is sitting down on the fence so hard that he appears to have cut off the blood supply to his balls.

    • Fotran 2.1
      10 January 2012 at 2:01 pm

      How much did the Union pay to the election funds to both Brown and Lee ?
      Surely they can expect some support for their money ?

      • BD 2.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 7:13 pm

        Exactly, whats the use of buying an elected official if they aren’t going to keep up their end of the bargin.

  3. Peter 3
    10 January 2012 at 8:33 am

    That incompetent CEO was once upon a time the CEO of MAERSK ….

    Has everyone forgotten that in 2005/2006 MAERSK pulled all it’s services from Tauranga in favour of Auckland..Citing Tidal flow problems, restrictions on the rail network etc.

  4. Lanthanide 4
    10 January 2012 at 8:34 am

    Radio New Zealand had far better coverage this morning.

  5. Hilary 5
    10 January 2012 at 8:37 am

    The CEO was on Radio New Zealand this morning saying he was only acting on the request of his board. So who are these board members so keen on casualising the workforce of a very productive public asset and one which requires a highly skilled workforce?

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      10 January 2012 at 8:44 am

      Its true the Board holds the ulitmate power. But Tony Gibson is brand new at the port and I suggest that he would have been hired on spec by the board for the job of breaking the union. And was thus selected on that basis.

      And he would have known about it at the time that is what the Board had in mind and agreed to it.

      I bet Tony Gibson has a net worth of a few million dollars and a secure future for his family; yet putting the livelihoods and happiness of hundreds of people and their families that you are ostensibly responsible for in the rubbish bin is what you do for your annual bonus.

      Sociopaths are in charge of this declining country.

      • DavidW 5.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:54 am

        Drawing a long bow there CV. People generally get appointed because there is a vacancy.
        Hysterical suppositions about unpublished intentions and individual’s personal circumstances go a long way to confirming in the general public’s minds that the union side is all bluster and bullshit. You therefore have already lost the PR battle and get lumped in with the image of irrational, vindictive and totally selfish cloth cap union thugs of the past. At least Parsloe speaks with a Kiwi accent from the little I have heard him speak which I suppose is a small plus.

        Talk about having to stand by the phone 24/7 for the call to drop everything and rush to work is also counter-productive because it is irrationally extreme and again the average joe-blow ratepayer can see through it as a nonsense so easily.

        The facts would seem to be in short supply on this dispute which actually involves us all in some way or another (either through being ratepayers or connection with people who are dependant on the Port for employment). No-one has defined it yet but I would bet that for every stevedore, there are 100 truck drivers, container packers and unpackers, warehousemen, delivery personel, customs clerks and shipping clerks that owe their livelihood to an effective functioning Port. They are all vitally interested in a solution and certainty of their futures and will not be happy chappys and chapesses to see the pampered militants at the Port costing them their jobs.

        • McFlock 5.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 12:12 pm

          So, let me get this straight:
            
          The way someone chooses to do a job shortly after their appointment is no indication that it was suggested by their employer that they do the job that way.
            
          Posts with multiple links to source documents that the employer supplies is union “bluster and bullshit”.
           
          But it’s not “bluster and bullshit” when anti-union commenters assume that the majority of port workers “will not be happy chappys and chapesses to see the pampered militants at the Port costing them their jobs”. Of course, when pro-worker commenters put two and two together to arrive at a reasonably qualified four, obviously it’s lala-land.

           
          So tell me, what is it like to exist with absolutely no apparent capacity for self-reflection? Are you just strictly a stimulus:response reflexive kind of guy, or do you occasionally – in the dead of night – allow a complex thought to flit across your mind?

        • Jum 5.1.1.2
          10 January 2012 at 10:13 pm

          davidw, said:

          ‘there are 100 truck drivers, container packers and unpackers, warehousemen, delivery personel, customs clerks and shipping clerks that owe their livelihood to an effective functioning Port. They are all vitally interested in a solution and certainty of their futures and will not be happy chappys and chapesses to see the pampered militants at the Port costing them their jobs.’

          Yes, davidw, and I’m sure they’re following the fact that the employees are happy to take 2.5% and not 10% and keep their security of work. These above people also have children or are the offspring of adults in other jobs that can recognise the end time for any sense of fairplay towards employees if Gibson succeeds on behalf of his clients i.e. not the directors but the government backers who want to own the POAL and are controlling the directors.

          Our children’s children will also be talking about Len Brown and his so called dream for a greater Auckland and what he did when faced with the choice on which principle he should choose – the lack of a principle (CEO) or the principle of fair pay and job security. Simple choice I would have thought for a man who got in as Mayor for the needs of the people – public transport, etc.

          Key will have long gone as a weasel that slinks off into the woods after killing the hen and sucking out the rich golden yolk from the eggs that are our SOEs and our future income.

          In the end every New Zealander with a thought towards any thread of egalitarian future for their children needs these people to succeed in getting their needs met – fair pay and job security, not casualisation and a return to the disgraceful past that New Zealander workers once endured at the hands of greed.

          PS Len Brown’s still better than Banks, Key’s pocket puppet, would have been.

    • Sanctuary 5.2
      10 January 2012 at 10:52 am

      Who are the board of POAL?

      http://www.poal.co.nz/about_us/board_of_directors.htm

      Richard Clive Pearson BCA
      Chairman
      Mr Pearson was appointed a Director in December 2010 and Chairman in 2011. He has extensive experience in port operations and investment around the world and has recently returned to New Zealand following a long career with Hutchison Port Holdings Group, most recently as Managing Director, Hong Kong International terminals Ltd (1996 – 1998) and Managing Director – Europe Division, President ECT Rotterdam (1998 – 2007).

      He is currently Chairman of Wellington Electricity Distribution Network Holdings Ltd.

      Graeme Scott Hawkins BSc, BCom
      Director and Audit Committee Chairman
      Mr Hawkins was appointed a Director in September 2009. He is a professional Director, with extensive experience in senior management roles in the private sector, including at Fletcher Challenge and as Chief Executive of Dominion Breweries in the late 1980s.

      Mr Hawkins is currently Chairman of Watercare Services and Southern Cross Healthcare, a Director of Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited and Cavalier Corporation. He has previously been a Director of a number of dairy industry organisations including Fonterra.

      Andrew Bonner BA (Hons)
      Director
      Mr Bonner became a Director in December 2009. He is also a Director of Marlborough Wines. Mr Bonner was formerly an executive with Fosters Group Limited where he ran the import arm of the Fosters business in Australia, was Managing Director of Fosters Group New Zealand and also Managing Director and Chairman of Fosters Group Pacific Limited in Fiji . He is currently a founding partner in an export focused wine business.

      Robert James Campbell (Rob) BA (Hons), M.Phil (Economics)
      Director
      Appointed a Director in December 2010, Mr Campbell is Director and Owner of Tutanekai Investments Limited. He is a Director of a number of New Zealand and international companies including the Accident Compensation Corporation, Aquasure Pty Limited (Australia), Guinness Peat Limited (UK), Serica Balanced Credit Fund (Hong Kong), Truescape Limited, CallPlus Limited and Murray and Co, as well as being a Trustee on the Auckland City Mission Foundation.

      Mr Campbell has been a Director and Investment Manager at Tappenden Holdings Limited, has lectured in the Economics Departments at Victoria and Massey Universities and has been a Union Advisor, acting as an advocate in the Arbitration and Appeal Courts. He has previously been on the Boards of NZ Post, Bank of New Zealand, Government Printing Office, Mitsubishi Motors (NZ) Limited and Netway Limited.

      Elizabeth Mary Coutts (Liz) BMS, CA
      Director
      Appointed a Director in December 2010, Ms Coutts is also a Director of EBOS Group Limited, Skellerup Holdings Limited, Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative Limited and Chair of Urwin and Co Limited.

      She has previously been Chief Executive of Caxton Group, Chairman of Meritec Group Limited, Industrial Research Limited and Life Pharmacy Limited, Deputy Chairman of Public Trust, and a Commissioner of both the Commerce Commission and Earthquake Commission. She has been a Director of the Health Funding Authority, PHARMAC, Air New Zealand, Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Trust Bank New Zealand, and a member of both the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

      Wayne Walden ONZM
      Director
      Wayne is an experienced Company Director, and was previously Managing Director and shareholder of Farmers/Deka Ltd. He has had more than 30 years senior management experience in the liquor, wholesale and retail trades in New Zealand.

      Wayne’s past directorships include, Director of Farmlands Co-Operative Society, Director of the Westpac Bank NZ Advisory Board, Deputy Chairman of Meat New Zealand, Director of Mighty River Power Limited, Chairman of Tranz Rail and Chair of Maori Television. Wayne was also a member of the Board of the Auckland Transition Agency. He is currently a Director of Television New Zealand Limited.

      All hand picked by Rodney Hide, what immediately leaps out to me is only one has any shipping experience, and Graeme Hawkins is a well known ACToid.

      • DavidW 5.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:57 am

        And your point Sanctuary is ????????????

      • tc 5.2.2
        10 January 2012 at 12:13 pm

        Andrew Bonner LOL…..it’s certainly not what but who you know seeing that name. Didn’t walden’s BBQ factories just go out of business also.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 1:18 pm

          Its should be obvious to all that there is a great clique of socialism amongst the 1%. Giving each another various official appointments and directorships. This is why the Right is so strong, so well resourced, so interconnected and so organised.

          The Left in comparison is clumsy and lacks financial and economic leverage.

          • Ari 5.2.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 3:34 pm

            Yep, they’re big fans of corporate welfare and jobs for the boys. (or in very rare cases, for the girls)

    • Mike 5.3
      17 January 2012 at 3:27 pm

      Oh so its not just employers who want value for money, or who are prepared to pay out to shore up a defence-less case?

  6. james 111 6
    10 January 2012 at 9:02 am

    I cant help but notice that in your article you didnt mention how unproductive The Ports of Auckland has become for shipping companies because of union stand over Tactics. Unions demanding 8 hours pay for only five hours work with no increase in productivity. Doesnt cut it any more.
    Tauranga has become much more efficent because they dont have the Union controlling the work force. Shipping companies dont want to use an inefficent Port where you have a union that continues to push up costs.
    The union leader for the Port workers should be ashamed he is pushing the company into a corner and his workers will face the consequences.

    No doubt he will move on to another Union and try to bring more companies to their knees. This type of Union bargaining stopped in the 1950s you need modern negotiators now not devout communists who want to cripple companies.

    You need people who can string at least three words together in a sentance. This man should not be in control of this Union he makes the union movement look like a bunch of uneducated cluts

    • Blighty 6.1
      10 January 2012 at 9:31 am

      well, why don’t you tell us how unproductive the Port has become.

      And tell us where you’re getting your facts, because the latest annual report – linked to in the article – says that productivity was up 4.12% last year and the Port makes a big deal of how productive it is.

      Also, present some evidence that the union leader is pushing things. You do know that every decision to reject an offer, propose an offer, or to strike has to be approved by a secret vote of the members affected, eh?

      Oh, and then you attack the workers’ elected representative for not being educated enough. Maybe he sounds class because he’s a stevedore http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Joe_Fleetwood like the people who elected him. You want him to sound like some toffee-nosed arsehole? Then you’ll listen to him?

      • james 111 6.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:56 am

        Blighty
        Thanks for the opportunity to repond.Love the way you selectively use figures up 4.1% from what? From their performance the year before where they are already 20% below the productivity of Tauranga (Please see article below)

        Productivity at Ports of Auckland was 20 per cent lower than at Port of Tauranga, where the reforms of the late 1980s had led to competition for stevedoring work, he said.

        If the productivity of Auckland Wharf is 20 % behind Tauranga that adds up to Costs right the way through that is why shipping companies are moving.

        In regards to the neogtiator being toffee nosed not at all. Just a skilled negotiator my Grandfather worked on the Wharf, My Uncle worked in the Wharf I know what goes on. I was at sea.

        I dont want to see the Wharf contracted out just like the Coast has become. Because of the ineptitude of a Union Delegate ,and his hatred of bosses ,and companies.

        He really does come across as a Delegate from the 50s the world has moved on all the Estern Block Countries have fallen over. Bring in Andrew Little Im sure he can get the parties to sort it before its to late I have faith in him.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 1:29 pm

          Bull shit this “productivity” measure.

          POAL are highly profitable, and now they want to increase their profits by taking more from the workers and giving back exactly what – less job security and the need to stay on unpaid standby indefinitely? Fuck off.

          The way to increase profitability at POAL is to fire the value destroying Board and Executive management.

    • Hami Shearlie 6.2
      10 January 2012 at 10:17 am

      If the Port of Auckland has become so “unproductive”, how come the workers have been getting regular productivity bonuses then?

    • Rodel 6.3
      10 January 2012 at 8:37 pm

      james “You need people who can string at least three words together in a sentance.”(sic)
      We rest our case.

  7. mickysavage 7
    10 January 2012 at 9:06 am

    Good work again James.  I have thought for a while the Union was losing the propaganda war to the likes of Cactus and Slater and it is good to see some real information being released.

    Unions do need to sharpen up their publicity responses.

    The problem with mass redundancies is that the stirrer unionists will probably be lost to the industry.  This seems to have been a gradual long term campaign waged against the Union movement.

  8. james 111 8
    10 January 2012 at 9:19 am

    Micky
    Understand what you are trying to say but what makes Tauranga so much more cost effective than Auckland for shipping companies. Some if it will come down to lack of productivity. This needs to be addressed by the Union if they have the workers lively hoods and jobs at heart.You cant negotiate from a point of we dont want to go there stance.

    I was involved with the Seamans Union and The Cooks and Stewards. I have seen how this sort of stance ruined the Coast in New Zealand for New Zealand workers.

    If they had been more felxible we would have more Kiwis sailing around our coast today. Do we want the same to happen to our Port Companies where they have to contract out to gain productivity. I hope not I believe the Union has to meet in the middle otherwise workers jobs ,and conditions will be lost.

    You need smart negotiators not negotiators who are driven by ideaology or basic hatred for the Boss or Company

  9. RedLogix 9
    10 January 2012 at 9:34 am

    I tell you what James.

    You approach your own employer today and in the spirit of what you are telling us you believe in … offer to work any hours of the week 24/7. And to be on unpaid standby 24/7.

    Anytime the phone rings, day or night, you get to go in for maybe 3 hours work, maybe 16. You’re never given any advance notice.

    Because I’ve been there. In the 80’s I worked under similar terms for 7 years. It took an appalling toll on my health and cost me my marriage.

    Feel like signing up for those terms James?

    • prism 9.1
      10 January 2012 at 10:13 am

      This is the type of total casualisation that motel cleaners have. Some women live under this on-call regime that virtually imprisons them in that they aren’t free at any time to live their own lives, and make appointments, see friends, attend to private concerns planned in advance. And motel cleaners are not getting extra rates of pay to compensate for this. They need the money and are supposed to carry a cellphone with them so they can be reached at any time. Also being on call 24/7 has been introduced into the air industry for some pilots.

      The general public are blissfully unaware of the extent that living conditions have deteriorated for many people. Low-income people are ground down sometimes ironically by too short hours of work not providing a living or survival wage. They will be called to travel to work for just a few hours which disrupts their whole day, on low pay, and and with no options to find better.

    • Hami Shearlie 9.2
      10 January 2012 at 10:20 am

      True RL. The people who are in favour of these type of employment conditions are never subject to them themselves. Funny that!!

      • Tigger 9.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:32 am

        Thanks RL, always good to have facts and personal experience to show how important fair employment conditions are.

    • confused 9.3
      10 January 2012 at 10:40 am

      Maybe you should ask a farmer or Horticulturalist the same question. If I dont like a job, I change and get another job. There is work out there for people who want work. We all have choices. I dont hear the farmers moaning about there conditions. And No not all of them make the sort of money the Wharfies do.

      • RedLogix 9.3.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:46 am

        I dont hear the farmers moaning about there conditions.

        Oh yes they do. Everytime there’s a drought, or flood, or disease they’re first in the queue for a govt handout.

        And No not all of them make the sort of money the Wharfies do.

        Oh don’t take us for idiots. No-one farms for cash flow these days; it’s all about capital gains on their multi-million dollar properties. Which they’ll sell for a tax-free profit. No stevedore gets that kind of windfall gain at the end of their working life.

      • prism 9.3.2
        10 January 2012 at 12:41 pm

        Cripes you are confused aren’t you!
        Farmers are always moaning about something. It is a hard sector to be in so there is a lot to moan about, weather etc. But most are able to manage well, with some down years. It’s only little squirts like the Crafar family who have been trying financial finangling and leveraging their way to getting hold of multiple properties without equity who are up the (polluted) creek.

        • Fotran 9.3.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 2:11 pm

          Out of a population of 4.2million there are approx 12,000 dairy farms whose production provides this country with over 25% of its export financial productivity, and rising. The land provides over 40% in all. We feed 165 million people throughout the world.

          • Colonial Viper 9.3.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 2:16 pm

            Dairy farms provide many jobs to immigrants, often at rates effectively below the minimum wage and has polluted the majority of NZ waterways to a level that they cannot be drunk from or swam in.

            While ensuring that milk is more expensive than Coca Cola in our own supermarkets, and that diary is a food category which is frequently beyond the reach of a million NZ’ers.

            • Fotran 9.3.2.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

              Your first paragraph is nonsense. Most Dairy farms are owner managed and worked often by husband and wife, and posssibly some assisted labour. Perhaps many New Zealanders will not do this work as it requires physical effort. In the BOP there is no shortage of work in the packhouses. I know I have worked many shifts there. You get the local lad sent by WINZ who signs on and then works to get put off so he can go back to WINZ with his chit to collect the dole again. By after lunch he and his mates are stoned so stuff ups occur.

              As for Sugar drinks being cheaper than Milk, I agree. They are costed that way. Look at the cost of production of milk and compare what the farmer gets against the retail price. I still get my milk for $3.40 per two litre. I see somebody today wants the school milk flavoured ie chocolate, so that the sugar intake can be increased. Milk has natural sugar at below 5%. to put in flavour would go to about 16%, a bottle of Coca has the same equivalent.

              • mik e …
                10 January 2012 at 2:51 pm

                Fotran old operating system most dairy farms are now company owned or managed the number of family owned and operated farms has declined rapidly just like wages water quality and animal welfare!

                • Colonial Viper …
                  10 January 2012 at 5:37 pm

                  Fotran is ignorant/living in the ancient past (pre 2000). At a guess there are 1500-2000 low waged immigrant dairy farm workers in NZ.

              • seeker …
                10 January 2012 at 7:23 pm

                Fortran, right back at you- your first paragraph is appalling. In it you completely disparage many young and fellow Kiwis from perhaps one experience you have had of such a situation.

                Attitudes like yours are what hold this country back and, unfortunately, cause New Zealand to be viewed as a small narrow minded, petty, parochial backwater by the outside world.

                Thank God we have The Standard website to hold minds like yours to account and show that all is not yet lost in New Zealand, where many of our youth are much maligned scorned and scoffed at by their”betters”(or should I say ‘betteroffs’) rather than supported, motivated and encouraged.

                New Zealand is a land of under utilised, untapped talent, and unless stale, stagnant,cynical minds like yours undergo a transformation it could stay that way for a long time yet.-

                Here’s to your transformation Fortran – cheers.

          • Jackal 9.3.2.1.2
            10 January 2012 at 7:17 pm

            Agriculture exports accounted for only 4.6% of GDP last year with most of the profits going into private hands. On average, farmers payed less tax than a couple of old age pensioners.

  10. prism 10
    10 January 2012 at 9:58 am

    I remember the name Patrick from the days of Oz taking on the watersiders. Is this Gibson and his management group connected or trying the same procedures. I didn’t think that our wharfies had got such bad practices as they had in Oz. So what’s the excuse to behave like this here, more profit at any cost? Len Brown referred to wanting better returns. What returns has Auckland Supercity getting then and what are they aiming for and what other ports in the world are they losing as measuring sticks?

  11. randal 11
    10 January 2012 at 10:12 am

    just heard a rep[ort on the radio and it looks like ceo gibson is backing off.
    for a while anyway.
    the full glare of the spotlight doesn’t seem to appeal to him very much.

    • Lanthanide 11.1
      10 January 2012 at 12:42 pm

      I guess now the media is starting to come out of holiday mode, some journalists are thinking “there must be more to this story”.

  12. randal 12
    10 January 2012 at 10:19 am

    and btw in answer to the question, “what are they up to”, the answer is obvious.
    ‘they’ are going to set up a new comapny with themselves as major shareholders and cream off the profits for themselves.
    and we all know who “THEY” are.

  13. tsmithfield 13
    10 January 2012 at 10:33 am

    The POA may elect to contract the work out to another unrelated company on a as needed basis, thus overcoming the objections raised in the employment act.

    Reading the example given in the act, it appears that the points made in Jame’s post relate to the situation where an owner owns a number of companies rather than a situation where a company decides to contract to another completely unrelated company. In that case I suspect the workers could be made redundant because the employer was no longer performing the work. In that case, though, the employees would be entitled to their redundancy entitlements.

    Therefore, any savings in terms of efficiency would need to be enough to outweigh the cost of redundancy.

    • RedLogix 13.1
      10 January 2012 at 10:38 am

      mmm … aprox 300 workers @ about $80k redundancy each. Call it $24m. Now of course that comes out of the profits of the publically owned PoAL, which hits the pockets of the Auckland City ratepayers.

      Meanwhile the profits of the new arrangement now flow to the contracting companies. Capitalism… socialise the losses, privatise the profits`.

      • Bed Rater 13.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 2:10 pm

        The usual parties can eternally prattle on back and forth to each for no good reason, but I’ll say this:

        $80k redundancy.. really? That’s pretty sweet.

        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 2:21 pm

          Why would you give up an ongoing $60K pa income stream from your career as a wharfie, in exchange for a once off never to be repeated $80K redundancy pay out.

          If you think that is “sweet” you have serious intellectual problems.

          Its almost as dumb as selling off high earning state assets for an upfront payment of a few billion, meaning that we will lose money every year into infinity starting from year 8 or 9.

          • higherstandard 13.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 2:24 pm

            “Why would you give up an ongoing $60K pa income stream from your career as a wharfie, in exchange for a once off never to be repeated $80K redundancy pay out.”

            To come back on board as a contractor ? Feck I’ve seen it happen repeatedly throughout the public and private sector.

            • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 5:30 pm

              To come back as a contractor with no employment protections, no paid leave or breaks, less/no training, etc? Yeah that’s the capitalist’s version of sweet! (for themselves)

              Now tell the CEO to fuck off, and we’ll outsource the job to a contractor for 50% less.

              • higherstandard …
                10 January 2012 at 5:39 pm

                No No you diddle.

                Come back as a contractor with one of the companies that wins what now appears an inevitable tender for the ports business.

                • McFlock …
                  10 January 2012 at 5:43 pm

                  Yup – it really helped the coal mining industry cut costs. No problems there.

                  • higherstandard …
                    10 January 2012 at 5:50 pm

                    You see McFlock you can’t seem to get past ideological hatred of change.

                    Now if the public was presented with the cold facts by POAL and MUNZ in relation to what the current situation is and what each party is wanting rather than spin and half truths everyone could form a more informed opinion -hopefully that will occur at some stage as I suggested to Lynn as below.

                    http://thestandard.org.nz/whats-really-going-on-at-ports-of-auckland/#comment-423510

                    Until that time I maintain that MUNZ is losing the PR war badly and hence serving its members poorly.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 5:55 pm

                      “you can’t seem to get past ideological hatred of change” actually means “prior experience suggest this change is not for the better”

                • mickysavage …
                  10 January 2012 at 8:49 pm

                  But they will get rid of all of the trade unionists.  The rest will be picked off one by one and played against each other in a race to the bottom …

        • mik e 13.1.1.2
          10 January 2012 at 2:54 pm

          Not by the time you pay tax on it. then find another job nothing like the golden parachutes management get.
          The tax on redundancy is very high as its that years income ie $160,000 .

  14. confused 14
    10 January 2012 at 10:33 am

    This article is confusing. I thought the union was offered a 10% increase? So why is there this questioning of dividends and whether the company can afford to pay it. Didn’t the union agree to accept a reduced increase (2.5%). Affordabiity is not the issue.

    The union wants to hang on to conditions that are not conducive to the port making a decent return on the ratepayers money that is invested.

    The dividend return is crap to the ratepayers.

    Does James Henderson hold a NZ passport? Whats the issue with John Key having a holiday in Hawaii. I recall Helen Clark spending holidays overseas in countries such as Argentina (further away) to explore the mountains etc.

    Hundreds of thousands of Kiwis travel overseas every year for a holiday. Are you saying that the PM is not allowed to do such a thing?

    • lprent 14.1
      10 January 2012 at 10:46 am

      A 10% increase on a reduced number of casual hours would result in a significant drop in wages… The wage packets would become far more risky – so 10% was the least that they could have offered.

      Wages aren’t the problem. Trying to force the workers and the union to accept casualization of their working conditions is.

      Until the management and board screwed up their industrial relations with this nonsense. The PoA was already making a excellent return on investment. In the current environment, it’d be hard to find a better one. Perhaps you should investigate the real world rather than getting answers from your navel fluff.

      Whats the issue with John Key having a holiday…

      Perhaps you should read the post again. It is amazing how much information you can get when you do things like that. You may even be able to answer your own question.

      Not “confused”, just a dickhead troll would be my guess.

      • confused 14.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 10:56 am

        Thanks for the judgement. Actually I have just had a couple of weeks holiday and started to look at some of the blogs.

        Why is it that if you offer a differing opinion you get called names. I did not criticise you, just asked some questions.

        So take a hike – at least I now have some understanding of your level of intelligence and insight. Goodluck with being a twat.

        • infused 14.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 4:32 pm

          lprent is always a retard. He preaches about not calling people names, yet does it in almost all of his replies.

          • lprent 14.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 4:39 pm

            The preaching is about pointless abuse.

            Just going and calling people names is fine, provided that you can explain why in your opinion they are – in other words make a case to justify your usage.

            For instance… In this case you are a unobservant fuckwit for never bothering to actually read the policy despite the number of times you have been banned for violating the policies.

    • RedLogix 14.2
      10 January 2012 at 10:49 am

      Hundreds of thousands of Kiwis travel overseas every year for a holiday.

      Actually only because Unions fought for and won the right to paid annual leave. Just saying.

      • confused 14.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 11:01 am

        If you say so….no point in having an alternative view on this sight or you just get personal attacks.

        [Plenty of people post alternate views on this site. But what you’ve done is the equivalent of wandering into a pub were no-one has seen you before; carry on in a loud and somewhat obnoxious manner, then when you are called on it by the pub owner (lprent is the SysAdmin here at The Standard BTW) you come back with something along the lines of “who do you think you are?”. And I’m one of a number of moderators, just in case you were wondering.

        Most new posters get scrutinised fairly closely to see if they are going to contribute constructively to the debate .. or not. And until you have some ‘runs on the board’ you don’t get much rope as it were.

        So far you’re off to a bumpy start. That’s probably just a bit of a mismatch between what you were expecting and how the site is run. Make sure you read the site Policy and otherwise relax and get to know the other debaters here. As I said, alternate views are welcome; but we expect some level of evidence to back them, and reasoned argument to go with it. At least on a consistent basis.

        Making work for otherwise lazy moderators is not smart. We tend to overreact. RedLogix]

        [I didn’t even write a note on his comment – I answered with a comment on the rope principle. His comment was interesting because it was confused in a troll like fashion of not actually thinking about what they’d said. :twisted:. But confused really does need to read the policy, especially the bits about “robust” and “abuse”. lprent ]

        • Barnsley Bill 14.2.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

          “but we expect some level of evidence to back them, and reasoned argument to go with it”.
          Any evidence to back up the 10k lie about Slate

          • Lanthanide 14.2.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 12:46 pm

            I thought it was a curious and specious inclusion in the post, as well.

          • Inventory2 14.2.1.1.2
            10 January 2012 at 3:10 pm

            About time there was a juicy defamation case Barnsley…

            [lprent: Bring it on. It’d be kind of interesting being able to force a disclosure on Slater. I’ve always been puzzled about his recent sources of income and if he is still on a sickness benefit. He seems to spend all of his time on his blog and there isn’t a lot of advertising on there to even maintain his server(s).

            It is interesting to speculate how he gets his income. Presumably James knows something. ]

            • higherstandard 14.2.1.1.2.1
              10 January 2012 at 3:45 pm

              That’d be good sport, almost as much fun as I’ve had recuperating and baiting today.

        • confused 14.2.1.2
          10 January 2012 at 1:03 pm

          Point taken….

          But I would suggest that most of the posts are opinonated rather than factual. Maybe interpretation of facts will differ. Good point by another person – where did the $10k thing come from, and the last paragraph in the article is purely speculation.

          But give me credit – until an outburst, I certainly have not done any “school yard” name calling!!

          [And I have. Trust me, actual trolls don’t last here long at all. But as moderators go around here, I’m the ‘good cop’, there are others whom you haven’t met yet and they tend to be more randomly reactive than me. Best wishes…. RL]

    • Colonial Viper 14.3
      10 January 2012 at 2:25 pm

      The dividend return is crap to the ratepayers.

      What a narrow minded neoliberal financialised viewpoint.

      Assuming that you can liquidate the entire capital value of POAL and invest the resulting money in say, Greek bonds yielding 7%, is the stuff of impossible neoliberal fantasy.

      Plus you have deliberately and conveniently excluded the economic value that POAL brings to the city and its ratepayers as a whole, by looking from a narrow financial viewpoint.

      • confused 14.3.1
        10 January 2012 at 6:03 pm

        If you want to invest in bonds go for it!! But you need to have a return that is a premium above putting it into a safe haven bank investment etc etc. It is economics 101.

        Sell the port then and invest elsewhere. It gets rid of the hassle of negotiating wage packets etc etc. Let POT and Marsden point do everything. No more trucks in town – its not all bad

        • Colonial Viper 14.3.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 6:17 pm

          You really don’t understand the difference between a financialised economy and a real economy.

          • Rob 14.3.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 6:26 pm

            and you are forgetting that POAL has competition. Due to the industrial dispute we have had a number of shipments diverted to Tauranga, and guess what,they arrived at the same freaking time. We were really concerned that key raw materials were going to be delayed, which would have had a massive impact on our business, but our shiping provider diverted through to Tauranga and they handled what must have been a huge increase in container traffic through that port Flexibility eh, its a wonderful thing.

            Guys I think this wagon has moved on from you now. The dogs will keep barking now doubt, but its over.

          • confused 14.3.1.1.2
            10 January 2012 at 7:33 pm

            by your reasoning it is OK for POAL to actually run at losses because you can add back the economic value that is brought into the region before you come to the overall benefit.

            That is a bit hard to agree with!!!

            • Frank Macskasy 14.3.1.1.2.1
              10 January 2012 at 10:42 pm

              “…by your reasoning it is OK for POAL to actually run at losses because you can add back the economic value that is brought into the region before you come to the overall benefit…”

              That sounds like using the fear of possibile insolvency to justify all manner of abuses against workers.

              Taking your supposition to it’s logical conclusion, wages should be fully determined by a neo-liberal , free market, with no consideration for the well-being of the workforce or fairness?

    • Frank Macskasy 14.4
      10 January 2012 at 10:39 pm

      “Whats the issue with John Key having a holiday in Hawaii. I recall Helen Clark spending holidays overseas in countries such as Argentina (further away) to explore the mountains etc.”

      1. Helen Clark wasn’t Minister of Tourism.

      2. Helen Clark spent many of her holidays tramping in NZ’s backblocks.

      3. John Key is supposed to be Minister of Tourism. As such, don’t you think it’d be more appropriate if he holidayed locally?

      If he wants to go overseas for his holidays – fine. I have no problem with that.

      In which case it would be the right thing for him to pass on the portfolio to someone else, and he can take on another role. Minister for Wine & Cheese or somesuch… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/john-key-minister-for-tourism-mia/

      Nek bit…

      “I thought the union was offered a 10% increase? So why is there this questioning of dividends and whether the company can afford to pay it. Didn’t the union agree to accept a reduced increase (2.5%). Affordabiity is not the issue. “

      Correct; affordability is not the issue. It’s the casualisation of their jobs that is at stake. How’d you like to finish the working week on a 40 hour job – only to turn up on Monday morning to find you’re now a “casual”, and your hours can vary from zero to ???

      If waterside workers can be treated like that – not one single employee in this country is safe.

      Not only is that just wrong – but that would really ramp up the stream of New Zealanders leaving for Australia, into a torrent.

      Funny how the West hailed Polish workers as heroes, back into 1980… http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/at-gunpoint-maybe/

  15. jen 15
    10 January 2012 at 10:57 am

    Hi James, I think the section of the ERA that you have quoted applies to specified vulnerable workers, namely cleaners and those in the catering industry. Only those workers are entitled to transfer to a new employer on the same terms and conditions. My understanding is that the POAL would be obliged to negotiate with the new employer but if that company did not want to retain existing pay and conditions they would not obliged to offer them to the transferring workers. The law is quite a bit on an ass in this respect. Depending on the collective agreement those port workers who did not transfer would be entitled to redundancy. Thanks heaps for your postings it is great to get a clearer picture of the real issue. Shame on Len Brown for siding with the Port management on this.

  16. confused 16
    10 January 2012 at 11:03 am

    No stevedore gets that kind of windfall gain at the end of their working life.

    Thats because they never ventured out and took some risks. So what do they do with all their money? They are in a high earner bracket.

    • Psycho Milt 16.1
      10 January 2012 at 11:26 am

      I think you’ll find you keep getting personal attacks because you’re an obnoxious cretin. Hope this helps.

      • DavidW 16.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 11:34 am

        Lyn seems to be a bit slow on his moderation today so I will help him out.

        “Unhelpful Psycho, read the rules, this looks like blatant trolling to me. Personal attacks without debating the issue are not allowed here – I’ll be watching you carefully”

        Ooops, gthat should read “knuckledragging dickhead trolling”

    • RedLogix 16.2
      10 January 2012 at 12:28 pm

      Thats because they never ventured out and took some risks.

      But someone has to do the work on the wharves. The vast majority of businesses, like the ‘risk-taker’ farmers you so admire, also depend on reliable and capable workers for their investment to pay off.

      No ‘risk-taker’ does it on his/her own. No-one here begrudges them a pay-off for taking the risk and getting their fair reward; but treating the same workers who made that pay-off possible like shit, screwing them out of their share of any productivity gain at every opportunity and grabbing as much of the pie for yourself… is greedy, ugly … and ultimately dangerous to the entire fabric of our society.

      • confused 16.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 12:51 pm

        I have never said I admired farmers – but the point is that wharfies do not have it all bad. There are waiting lists longer than my arm to get a job on the wharf. Some people actually like shift work. I know of wharfies who only want the night shift as it suits them.

        Anyone earning the money they earn is not getting screwed.

        Your last comment in my opinion is scaremongering and without substance. There is previous reference on this site to productivity bonuses already in place.

        • RedLogix 16.2.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 1:01 pm

          No-one has said the stevedores ‘have it all bad’. It’s good work if it suits.

          And yes they’ve been earning productivity bonuses, because contrary to what that lying arse Tony Gibson says, PoAL is actually a reasonably productive port and workers don’t sit around on their arses all day being paid $90k pa for 26 hrs work a week.

          Your last comment in my opinion is scaremongering and without substance.

          You are the one who was telling us how farmer (and entrenpeneurs in general I suppose) are the ‘risk-takers’ and are the ones who deserve the rewards. And by implication how the rest of us can suck up whatever we’re offered.

          • confused 16.2.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 2:05 pm

            There is an element to risk and reward – but you have read way too much into the comment. So your implied interpretation is way off the mark.

            • felix 16.2.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 2:27 pm

              Bullshit.

              First you said farmers don’t make as much as wharfies and they don’t complain about it.

              Then when it was pointed out that farmers are working for the big capital gain on their property you said

              No stevedore gets that kind of windfall gain at the end of their working life.

              Thats because they never ventured out and took some risks.

              You are unambiguously stating exactly what RL said you were, but you’re either arrogant or stupid enough to think no-one is able to scroll up and read your comments in context.

              You’re going to have a pretty rough time here if you carry on that way.

              • higherstandard …
                10 January 2012 at 3:11 pm

                no no You’re going to have a pretty rough time here if you don’t parrot the standard line………… get it right/left.

                • felix …
                  10 January 2012 at 3:17 pm

                  Of course you could just do what hs does:

                  Make up any old shit you like, then when called on it change the subject/refer to a 1980s sitcom/say “ah well I’m not even interested in politics” then disappear for a few hours and come back with a magically clean slate and start all over again as if nothing happened.

                  Repeat on a daily basis for several years under various aliases until no-one takes anything you say seriously and sit alone drinking yourself to sleep every night.

                  • higherstandard …
                    10 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

                    Or you could do what Felix does and claim to be a committed greenie and then spend all your waking hours defending the great and good of the NZ labour party as the one of the resident tame trolls at the standard.

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2012 at 4:00 pm

                      Don’t think you’ll find me defending the Labour party much hs.

                      Don’t think I’ve had much nice to say about the Greens for the last couple of years either.

                      There’s 99 accusations you could easily level at me but being a tame supporter of anything isn’t one.

                    • mickysavage …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:54 pm

                      I agree with Felix.  Much as I enjoy his comments I am certain he is not one of ours …

    • Lanthanide 16.3
      10 January 2012 at 12:48 pm

      I don’t think $57k annual wage is particularly ‘high earner’.

    • Shona 16.4
      10 January 2012 at 1:06 pm

      Confused, the waterfront is one of the riskiest work environments going. Are you a ticketed Rigger, Crane op, Dogman by any chance? These are not easy skills to acquire. Farming is no more dangerous than the waterfront, I know this from personal experience having worked in both environments. You display a complete lack of understanding of the POrt work environment the skills required and an old fashioned pig ignorant country kiwi prejudice against waterside workers. Ever worked on a large ship of any type, got the pre requiste training ? maybe an offshore oil rig? No. I thought not. Most farm workers these days while skilled are barely literate and devoid of any real understanding of natural systems so destroy the soil ,poison the waterways abuse the stock and cut down trees unless they’re pines.

      • Lanthanide 16.4.1
        10 January 2012 at 4:19 pm

        +1 if ever there was a comment that deserved it.

      • confused 16.4.2
        10 January 2012 at 7:02 pm

        I have worked in both environments. You seem to think that by stating your credentials that you can validate an opinion more than someone else. Do you really think the union boys would vote 100% in a secret ballot??? Keep up with the name calling – it undermines any logic you display.

        • mickysavage 16.4.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 8:57 pm

          Um Confused, Shona’s comment were very good and you changed the subject.  Why bring up the secret ballot diversion?

          • confused 16.4.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 9:09 pm

            And I responded to her comments – those worth responding to. At least you did not call me names. this place is making progress…

            no harm in expanding the conversation is there?

            [lprent: OMG so much whining.

            Have you read the policy yet? Figured out what robust debate is yet?

            Getting upset about being called on bullshit and being described in terms that offend you doesn’t impress anyone. ]

    • Frank Macskasy 16.5
      10 January 2012 at 10:47 pm

      Thats because they never ventured out and took some risks.

      Yeah. Like certain Finance Companies directors took “risks”. Some are in prison now. Others are awaiting trial. That’s what happens when you take “risks” with other peoples’ money.

      At least the Waterside workers didn’t destroy the livelihood of thousands of real Mum & Dad, Grandma & Grand-dad investors…

  17. james 111 17
    10 January 2012 at 11:05 am

    I wish I could get these conditions when the average rate for New Zealand has gone up by only 4%. Yet still the union wants to gouge out more from the Companies that use the Wharf, and The Port Company that has to pass on the costs to its Customers.

    Without getting any more productive relative to other ports. Sound like a cot case probably is one. Mallard is involved now cant see that helping.

    “I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with MUNZ when mediation resumes on Thursday. However, we’ve run out of time. Without rapid changes towards substantially more efficient labour practices, more customers and more jobs will be lost in the coming weeks.

    “We’ve worked now for 11 months to achieve the changes needed, but the Union does not appear to be taking the issues seriously,” he said.

    Gibson says the Port’s last offer remains its best and final offer. It includes a generous 10 per cent rise on hourly rates, performance bonuses of up to 20% on hourly rates, and the retention of existing benefits and entitlements in return for a new roster system that will provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance.

    The union have acted and appeared completely inflexible and now they will reap what they have sown. Instead of accepting a 10% pay increase and keeping their jobs they face losing all their jobs to outside contractors.

    • Sanctuary 17.1
      10 January 2012 at 11:46 am

      I don’t how bright you are (not very I fear) but throwing a non-negotiable offer on the table and threatening a nuclear war if you don’t agree is not, I suspect, what most of us would consider bargaining in good faith.

      Since the intemperate megalomania of Tony Gibson and the board is now putting the whole POAL at considerable legal risk, I think the mayor is now perfectly entitled to express his complete loss of confidence in the current board.

      • DavidW 17.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 12:12 pm

        I note that the “nuclear bomb” as you term it only came after a number of strikes which shut down the port and the rejection of 9 offers. Sounds like POAL have been extremely patient in this matter.

        “Good faith” it would appear is in the eye of the beholder.

        • RedLogix 17.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 12:18 pm

          Strikes on just 5 days. When CMP locked out workers for 65 days to try and force them to take a 20% pay cut…no-one said boo.

          And the ‘9 offers’ were just small variations that did not address the core issue of contention. In other words, not real good faith offers at all.

        • james 111 17.1.1.2
          10 January 2012 at 12:39 pm

          David
          Great point these bargaining rules were imposed on us by the Labour Government Good Faith became the buzz word. No one can define it accurately common sense has gone out the Window pragmatism has gone out the Window. The only ones that have gained are the Lawyers ,and the industrial relations advocates. As well as the Union representatives sitting on their chuff wondering when their next smoko break will be.
          Reading a very interesting book by Davey Hughes the Swazi man from Levin. You should read what he says about New Zealand industrial relations. When every other clothing factory has shut in Levin he is still going. All of the workers were made redundant because costs were to high compared with China. He had a bad worker he wanted to get rid off the union basically said he couldnt. He did they tried to sue him lost the case because he was well within his rights to do so. It cost him $60,000 in legal fees. The worker who was no good paid nothing. This is a man who is one of Levins best employers.To quote him do you really want to live in a country where you have to pay some off so they can go and bother others!
          He states the employment relations act treats New Zelanders like idiots. Here is a scheme based on good faith instead of good relationships, but you cant put a finger on good faith.There needs to be a contractual balance between employer ,and employeee one built on common sense. This episode at ports of Auckland is just another case of Davey being correct

          • RedLogix 17.1.1.2.1
            10 January 2012 at 12:47 pm

            Why doesn’t it surprise me that you don’t understand something as basic as ‘good faith’?

            Now when are you off to your employer demanding he give you a pay cut. Today or tommorrow?

          • McFlock 17.1.1.2.2
            10 January 2012 at 12:49 pm

            I love the way tories get all confused when normal people use words like “good faith”, “reasonable”, “humane”, “empathy”, “duty”, and so on.
                  
            Kind’ve demonstrates that they’re missing a little piece of the picture that the rest of the population can see. 

            • james 111 17.1.1.2.2.1
              10 January 2012 at 1:16 pm

              Mcflock
              Love the way you lable people as though they are some diseasee just because they present an alternative point of view to you (Is that good faith in operation)
              I was quoting Davey Hughes one of th ebiggest employers in Levin currently a man in his book who says he is more left wing than right wing. A man in his book who openly states he is a Green supporter.
              However he disagrees with the Employment relations act because he has seen how bad it is . He has put his ball on the line and invested in a company that isnt in the best area in New Zealand. He openly states that he could make more than a Million dollars more profit if he moved production over seas. But he doesnt want to because he loves his staff love to hear them singing.

              Mcflock when an employer as good as this says he has real problems with the Act you should be listening as a former Union Delegate.

              The Unions should be listening the Labour Party should be listening, because alot of employers wont give the warning they will just shut up shop ,and move overseas because its to hard doing business here.

              As many companies already have as a Labour supporter you should be worried about that as it adds more of your voters to the Dole queues or is that what you really want so the party can control them?

              • McFlock …
                10 January 2012 at 1:25 pm

                Love the way you lable people as though they are some diseasee just because they present an alternative point of view to you (Is that good faith in operation)

                Have a mental health condition, not are a disease. Claiming not to understand the meaning of “good faith” and similar statements is not “an alternative point of view”, but it is a clear inability to understand social norms and customs.
                  
                Similarly, assuming that someone is “more left wing than right wing”, Green supporting and loves to hear his staff singing (the rail-line scene from Blazing Saddles springs to mind) just because they say they do also implies a certain naive understanding of human nature. 
                  

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 January 2012 at 1:36 pm

                Davey Hughes is profiting plenty from the economic surplus that his employees produce. No need to kowtow to him mate.

                • james 111 …
                  10 January 2012 at 1:46 pm

                  [deleted]

                  [lprent: That was pure old style trolling circa 2008 and so full of key words that the automatic defences grabbed it on almost every line. Don’t waste my time and read the policy. Try again, and remember that moderating patience is pretty short. We usually decide that if people are incapable of learning then they shouldn’t be commenting here. ]

                  • james 111 …
                    10 January 2012 at 3:46 pm

                    Really interested you deleted this comment because it was all fact and in the book why is it you dont want the truth to come out. Gaz Guzzler also knows its true as can be seen by his reply to Viper

                    [lprent: Nope. But it is irrelevent it got caught in the troll trap which requires a moderator to exert effort to release it…

                    “rich pricks” is on the troll list because it is inevitably quoted out of context. “Russia” is as well because it is a favourite of trolls like names such as Putin, hitler, communism, North Korea, Stalin, Nazi, etc.

                    And you are evidently ignorant about the history of socialism because it certainly wasn’t developed in russia. You certainly appear to be ignorant.

                    And the whole comment was out of context for the discussion. It looked like it was an attempt at diversion – a classic troll tactic

                    etc….

                    Read the policy. Don’t come to my moderating attention again – you are wasting my time. ]

                • Gas Guzzler …
                  10 January 2012 at 3:23 pm

                  what an ignorant cunt you are CV, that man is one of the few people keeping our town alive. Without him Levin would be an even bigger cestpit of despair for even more people than it is now.

                  • thatguynz …
                    10 January 2012 at 4:22 pm

                    Wooah, chill out GG. I don’t think CV’s comment warranted that response! I have no doubt that Davey Hughes is doing tremendous things for Levin but I think CV’s message was that he isn’t solely doing it for benevolent reasons so there’s no need to thoroughly deify the guy. Appreciate yes, worship perhaps not.

                    Just my 2c.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 January 2012 at 5:44 pm

                    that man is one of the few people keeping our town alive. Without him Levin would be an even bigger cestpit of despair for even more people than it is now.

                    Forgive me if I don’t fall into your cult of kowtowing to the new feudal lords of our country.

                    I’ll give you a clue. Make working capital more accessible to a few more entrepreneurs and small business people and you might find that you don’t have to rely on drippings off a single Baron’s table.

                    Further I know Levin, and although I applaud and respect entrepreneurship wherever it lies (and also believe it must be well rewarded) this one guy is not the be all and end all of the Horowhenua.

                    But hey, feel free to start a facebook fan page mate.

              • Lanthanide …
                10 January 2012 at 4:22 pm

                There are definite problems with the employment relations act.

                Just because he’s a ‘greenie’ doesn’t somehow give him more credibility when he points out the problems with it. Anyone who backs up their statements with evidence has the same amount of credibility as anyone else.

            • mik e 17.1.1.2.2.2
              10 January 2012 at 3:02 pm

              Thats right Mcflock rationalization over humanity.
              Logic is more important than emotions .
              The union movement is the reason that wealth has spread amongst so many people now the capitalists are under mining that wealth spread at every opportunity.
              China has become the ultimate capitalist crony country no unions heavies who bash intimidate and jail union organizers.
              NZ is now getting its dose under National.
              back to the 1840’s thinking.

    • felix 17.2
      10 January 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Why do you keep saying “10%”?

      • McFlock 17.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 12:33 pm

        Because to get people to believe the lie you need to repeat it enough.

        • higherstandard 17.2.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 12:38 pm

          Didn’t work for Labour but did for National and the Greens to some extent so there must be more to it than that.

          • McFlock 17.2.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 12:50 pm

            Really? Labour said the unions weren’t happy with 10% pay rises on their $91k salary? When?

            • higherstandard 17.2.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 12:54 pm

              You implied that to get someone to believe a lie you need to just repeat it enough that clearly is not the case based on many examples.

              • McFlock …
                10 January 2012 at 1:07 pm

                “a” vs “the”?

                But let’s go beyond the specific reference – I’m assuming you’re referring to the last 3 years or so? Care to enlighten us as to labour’s “lies” in that period?

                • higherstandard …
                  10 January 2012 at 1:10 pm

                  Just search Trevor Mallard on google, it’s safe to expect that pretty much any comment or release he did will be a lie.

                  • McFlock …
                    10 January 2012 at 1:18 pm

                    Can’t think of any offhand, then? Thought not.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 1:38 pm

                      How is it a lie? What is the untruth stated in the letter?

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 2:22 pm

                      Just checking to see if were a deluded party political loyalist – now that I can tick you off as another CV clone I can report back to Crosby Textor.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2012 at 2:27 pm

                      where is the real hs?

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2012 at 2:30 pm

                      So still nothing, hs?

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 2:33 pm

                      Come on, the letter’s right in front of you – where’s the lie?

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 3:10 pm

                      Hurrah I’m being pack stalked by all the tame trolls.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 3:18 pm

                      Hurrah I’m being pack stalked by all the tame trolls.

                      Translation:

                      Oh noes mean lefties is asking me to actually state a fact and back it up with a source, help help I’m being oppressed, save me jebus save me from the commie stalkers!

                    • felix …
                      10 January 2012 at 3:18 pm

                      Another way of saying that is you’re being asked to back up what you said, and you can’t.

                      Come on hs, one lie.

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 3:44 pm

                      Why just one, Labour have a blogful at red alert.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 3:47 pm

                      Well, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to cite an example, then.

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 4:39 pm

                      Indeed it would be pretty easy.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 4:48 pm

                      And yet you can’t be bothered performing this exceptionally easy task .
                        
                      Is your argument so powerful you don’t need to provide any evidence to support it?

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 5:41 pm

                      Yes

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 5:53 pm

                      Liar.
                         
                      Your argument is shit.
                      It is so rank and fetid that you’d never get resource consent to place it within a mile of any waterway.
                      The smell alone scare dogs and kills babies.
                      Your argument such a pile of shit that it accelerates global warming.
                      Your argument is so shitty that the Royal Astronomical Society has officially declared it the first known substance to look like something from Uranus but be more corrosive than anything on Venus.
                       
                      You suck.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2012 at 5:57 pm

                      McFlock. You’re on fire mate.

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 5:59 pm

                      Is that some blog form of ”I know you are but what am I”.

                      I think you may have gone off the deep and old chap, although for someone who thinks there are no lies published on the Labour blog you must have gullibility issues bordering on a pathological condition which could be described under DSM IV criteria.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 6:13 pm

                      Well, when one is in a battle of wits with an opponent who refuses to arm himself, abuse is much more fun than casting more traditional logical methods upon stoney ground.
                       
                       
                      I never said the current labour leadership have never and never lie. I just don’t have any particular instance that springs to mind – certainly nothing on the scale of “whatever it takes” or “I had nothing to do with it oh I’m the minister in charge but it was handled within the department oh okay I signed off on it but I don’t recall doing so”. 
                       
                      You claim to know of many instances of the labour party telling lies in the last three years or so, and that these instances are easy to find. 
                        
                      I say okay then, give an example.
                         
                         
                       
                       
                      And got bored waiting. 
                         

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 6:38 pm

                      I provided you one and you denied that it contained any lies like a good little footsoldier, thereafter I played about trolling with you.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

                      I never “denied” there was a lie in the letter. I simply asked you to point out the untruth. It seemed a bit emotive, but no actual specific untruth was immediately evident.
                       
                      Oh, and next time could you give us some indication that you’ve started to troll? There didn’t seem to be much of a change in your debating style, so the transition was a bit unclear.
                        
                       

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:06 pm

                      Re-read the article about the supposedly “lying” letter.
                      Sorry, was bene-bashing not part of national’s campaign strategy? Getting mums off the DPB? So what was the untrue statement?
                       

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:10 pm

                      refer here for more of the same

                      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10344943

                      [I’m getting very bored with you playing at dickhead. You don’t do it very well…RL]

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:18 pm

                      refer here and here.
                       
                      What is the specific untruth in the letter? How is it a lie? Come on, try coming up with an actual fact.

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:30 pm

                      Gosh you two are such dullards.

                      How about the statement that under the Nats welfare policy beneficiaries who get pregnant will be forced to find work when their baby turns 1.

                      And let’s not get into the promises they make regarding what they are going to do if they get into power as I believe they knew that they had no show of getting back in so were promising all kinds of rubbish – although in their defense that’s standard fare for all political parties at such times.

                      Oh and Redlogix sorry about that, perhaps you’d like to give lessons you seem to be masterful at playing the dickhead at present.

                      [No I merely wanted you to get to the point. In which I suceeded it would seem. …RL]

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:54 pm

                      So under national’s policy as per the election, there is no possibility that a mother would be work-tested one year after giving birth?
                       
                      Try here.
                      Although according to you, they’re lying too.
                       
                      And when this person said “Parents who have an additional child while on a benefit will receive a temporary exemption from their existing work obligations, but that will only last for 12 months” they were also lying, I guess.

                    • McFlock …
                      10 January 2012 at 11:46 pm

                      Strangely quiet.
                       

                    • felix …
                      11 January 2012 at 1:20 am

                      Not to worry McF, he’ll be back tomorrow with more of the same and none of this will have ever happened.

  18. james 111 18
    10 January 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Sanctuary
    I suspect a little brighter about business than you are. When your port is 20 % less efficent than a competitor that you have lost about $100 millon dollars of business to. You dont have to much wiggle room as a CEO.
    You have even less bargaining power when you are the Union whos workers lack of productivity is causing the business to be lost go figure these are decisions based on a commercial basis emotion doesnt come into it. I know if I was a big company I would send my ship to the most productive port where it costs me less in berthage fees ,and the ship gets loaded and unloaded faster without industrial action. Simple decision really isnt it?

    • RedLogix 18.1
      10 January 2012 at 12:16 pm

      And that logic is called “race to the bottom”.

      You still haven’t responded to the obvious question. If you really believe in what you are saying then I you would be going to your boss today and demanding he contract out your job to someone else who will do it cheaper.

      Or if you are a contractor or business owner, you’ll be demanding your customers send their business off to your cheaper competitors.

      But it’ll a foggy day in hell before that happens…won’t it?

    • McFlock 18.2
      10 January 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Of course, your big assumption is that productivity differences are simply the result of differences in “flexibility” of employee hours. 
        
      It’s not, so your obsession with the productivity differences between the two ports is a bit light-headed.

      • Lanthanide 18.2.1
        10 January 2012 at 12:57 pm

        Making the employees flexible is probably the cheapest, quickest and easiest way to increase productivity (if you’re using the definition of work done per money paid, work done per time is possibly going to be less efficient).

        Pity it’s not the best for society at large.

        • Colonial Viper 18.2.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 5:48 pm

          Its lazy and unskilled management Lanth. “To make an extra dollars profit this year, I will take an extra dollar away from my workers”.

          I say fire the useless pricks who are on the Board and in executive management and hire in contractors at half the rate. You don’t need Einstein’s to do NZ style management and business ‘leadership’.

          • higherstandard 18.2.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 5:53 pm

            “I say fire the useless pricks who are on the Board and in executive management and hire in contractors at half the rate. You don’t need Einstein’s to do NZ style management and business ‘leadership’.”

            I’m happy to support that supposition, not only that there’s more than enough SOEs and CCOs that could be treated in a similar fashion – the only problem would be what to do with all the former politicians, party hacks and assorted felchers littering said boards and executive management ?

    • shorts 18.3
      10 January 2012 at 12:50 pm

      James – according to the McCarten piece:

      “The union says the port is the second most time-efficient in Australasia, next to Tauranga. The advantage Tauranga has is not its workforce, but the system it uses. The union has offered to assist implementing that system in Auckland.”

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10777330

    • lprent 18.4
      10 January 2012 at 3:01 pm

      Sanctuary
      I suspect a little brighter about business than you are.

      Unlikely based on your comment. Essentially you just dribbled a pile of knee-jerk bullshit that shows very little familiarity with how business works at all. You sound pig-ignorant about the whole process in my opinion. I’ve worked in private sector businesses my entire adult life except when I’ve been at university. And one of my degrees in a MBA from Otago in operations.

      Now the productivity at the port has been rising quite rapidly over the last decade or so – 4.1% in the last report. As in most businesses that aren’t sweat shops, most of that productivity increase comes from putting in capital expenditures that allow the productivity of workers to rise.

      Like most businesses these days outside of the IP industries and the sweat shops, labour is a minor component of the costs. This is quite apparent if you look at their reports.

      …without industrial action. Simple decision really isnt it?

      There has been exactly five days of stoppage at the port in the last decade. That have occurred because the management is attempting to push the union around for no apparent commercial reason. The amount of money that they would save on wages or the possible productivity gains from casualizing the workforce are small compared to the costs. So why are they doing it if it isn’t for a commercial or productivity reason?

      My guess is that it is ideological.

      BTW: You are a complete dork about business. It is quite apparent that you have the commercial sensitivities of a troll….

      • James 111 18.4.1
        10 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

        Iprent I see you are back into name calling mode again. I do know a little about Business having had over 140 Staff with a Revenue Budget in excess of $200 million.. I also attended IMD Business School in Vevey.
        So now that we have that clear quite willing to stack my commercial record up next to yours any time. I am not a troll but do like to put up comment that is thought provoking ,and not slanted totally one way. Just like you when you go onto other blogging sites. In regards to your comment about Labour being a very small component of the cost that may be true in some instances but not all. Combined with less productivity than your nearest competitor it has a double whammy affect on the bottom line

        • lprent 18.4.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 4:30 pm

          So why are you talking such crap? 20%! – go and pull on something else.

          Go and read the financials and you’ll see that the salary and wages costs are peanuts compared to the overall cost structure.

          To make such a basic basic mistake about a capital intensive industry makes me tend to feel that you are more into bullshit than fact.

  19. burt 19
    10 January 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Unions once again show us how self serving they are… Labour party policy agenda before workers jobs… No wonder union membership is fast becoming something only lovers of state control can tolerate.

    • felix 19.1
      10 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

      Decent working conditions.
      Pay to keep pace with inflation.

      Ooh that bloody “Labour party policy agenda” it makes my fucking blood boil.

    • lprent 19.2
      10 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

      burt – how many unions are affiliated with the Labour party? Not that many? I’d guess that these days the majority of the union members are from unions that are not affiliated with the Labour party.

      I guess you just like looking like a fool – you are so very good at it.

  20. randal 20
    10 January 2012 at 12:14 pm

    read the dompost this morning.
    nice article by naomi woolf about how the forces of capitlaism are mounting stronger and stronger attacks against all dissent but how the new media allows the workers to fight back.
    just as well.
    new zealand is run by demented accountants who have no concept of existence except rubbing out anything that disagrees with them including ledger items and people.

  21. Tom Gould 21
    10 January 2012 at 1:15 pm

    So just to clarify, the Port made $18m profit last year, $90m profit over the last 5 years, pays its CE $750k a year, gave its top managers a 20% rise last year, pays its directors $70k for turning up to a few meetings each year, and yet claims its workers on $60k are lazy greedy overpaid losers? Have I got that about right?

    • DavidW 21.1
      10 January 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Tom, why don’t you direct that comment to Lyn. He, I’m sure, will be delighted to give you chapter and verse on the responsibilities and personal liabilities of Directors based on his extensive real world management experience and academic studies.

      Trying to compare incomes on such idiotic measures is a demonstration more of your ignorance and idealogical bias that it is a contribution to the argument. On the same basis I could claim that watersiders could be replaced by minimum wage school leavers and ESL immigrants. Oh wait …..

      [lprent: Why would you want to direct that comment to my partner? She doesn’t have much business experience. ]

      • lprent 21.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 4:45 pm

        But for my part, I’d have to say that so far the actions of the managers and directors appear to only lose the PoA money. So far, they have had 5 days of industrial action for some purpose that the directors have not explained well.

        As an shareholder (via my city), I’m getting kind of pissed off with them because so far I haven’t heard an explanation why that makes any sense….

        About time to sack the directors.

        • Jenny 21.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 10:28 pm

          ….so far I haven’t heard an explanation why that makes any sense….

          lprent

          The difference to the sticker price, of a non-unionised worksite could be as much, as a $100,000,000 to the private investors prepared to pony up the billion or so to buy the ports.

          Getting rid of the union is a necessary precursor to the wholesale privatisation of the Port Of Auckland Ltd.

          Full scale lockout and/or redundancy of the union members is the next logical step in this process.

      • Frank Macskasy 21.1.2
        10 January 2012 at 10:53 pm

        So… it’s ok for the CEO to be paid $750,000 – but it seems to anger the right wing that workers want to keep their jobs and not be casualised into penury?

        Have I got that right?

  22. GLG 22
    10 January 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I listened to a RNZ interview with the CEO from Tauranga – and it was very telling that he said he was “very surprised” when Tony Gibson got appointed to Ports of Auckland. He had past dealings with Gibson and I got the impression he’s not the man for the job.

  23. Penny Bright 23
    10 January 2012 at 2:28 pm

    JUST DISCOVERED THIS INFORMATION!!!

    Six ‘double-dipping’ Ports of Auckland Directors get $163,166 each in Directors fees for the Ports of Auckland ‘Group’ and Ports of Auckland ‘Parent’!

    10 January 2012

    http://www.poal.co.nz/news_media/publications/POAL_financial%20_review_2011.pdf

    In the 2011 Ports of Auckland Ltd Financial Review, it states on Pg 18

    That the Directors’ fees for the POAL Group were $496,000 –

    That the Directors fees for the POAL Parent were $483,000 –

    WAYNE THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer Ports Of Auckland Ltd ( Ph 348 5358) confirmed this afternoon by telephone that the Directors fees for the POAL Group ( $496,000) , and the Directors fees for the POAL Parent ( $483,000) are going to the same six POAL Directors:

    THAT’S $979,000 BETWEEN SIX DIRECTORS FOR THE DIRTY, DANGEROUS WORK OF TRYING TO WRECKING THE MARITIME UNION OF NZ AND DESTROYING WORKERS’ LIVES THROUGH CASUALISATION?

    $163,166 PER DIRECTOR?

    Where’s this money going?

    http://www.poal.co.nz/about_us/board_of_directors.htm

    Board of Directors

    Piloting the company through the current challenging and changing times, Ports of Auckland’s Directors draw on in-depth knowledge developed during successful careers in shipping, logistics, transport, law and management in New Zealand and abroad, and extensive experience at both executive and board level.

    Richard Clive Pearson BCA
    Chairman

    Mr Pearson was appointed a Director in December 2010 and Chairman in 2011. He has extensive experience in port operations and investment around the world and has recently returned to New Zealand following a long career with Hutchison Port Holdings Group, most recently as Managing Director, Hong Kong International terminals Ltd (1996 – 1998) and Managing Director – Europe Division, President ECT Rotterdam (1998 – 2007).

    He is currently Chairman of Wellington Electricity Distribution Network Holdings Ltd.

    Graeme Scott Hawkins BSc, BCom
    Director and Audit Committee Chairman
    Mr Hawkins was appointed a Director in September 2009. He is a professional Director, with extensive experience in senior management roles in the private sector, including at Fletcher Challenge and as Chief Executive of Dominion Breweries in the late 1980s.

    Mr Hawkins is currently Chairman of Watercare Services and Southern Cross Healthcare, a Director of Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited and Cavalier Corporation. He has previously been a Director of a number of dairy industry organisations including Fonterra.

    Andrew Bonner BA (Hons)
    Director
    Mr Bonner became a Director in December 2009. He is also a Director of Marlborough Wines. Mr Bonner was formerly an executive with Fosters Group Limited where he ran the import arm of the Fosters business in Australia, was Managing Director of Fosters Group New Zealand and also Managing Director and Chairman of Fosters Group Pacific Limited in Fiji . He is currently a founding partner in an export focused wine business.

    Robert James Campbell (Rob) BA (Hons), M.Phil (Economics)
    Director
    Appointed a Director in December 2010, Mr Campbell is Director and Owner of Tutanekai Investments Limited. He is a Director of a number of New Zealand and international companies including the Accident Compensation Corporation, Aquasure Pty Limited (Australia), Guinness Peat Limited (UK), Serica Balanced Credit Fund (Hong Kong), Truescape Limited, CallPlus Limited and Murray and Co, as well as being a Trustee on the Auckland City Mission Foundation.

    Mr Campbell has been a Director and Investment Manager at Tappenden Holdings Limited, has lectured in the Economics Departments at Victoria and Massey Universities and has been a Union Advisor, acting as an advocate in the Arbitration and Appeal Courts. He has previously been on the Boards of NZ Post, Bank of New Zealand, Government Printing Office, Mitsubishi Motors (NZ) Limited and Netway Limited.

    Elizabeth Mary Coutts (Liz) BMS, CA
    Director
    Appointed a Director in December 2010, Ms Coutts is also a Director of EBOS Group Limited, Skellerup Holdings Limited, Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative Limited and Chair of Urwin and Co Limited.

    She has previously been Chief Executive of Caxton Group, Chairman of Meritec Group Limited, Industrial Research Limited and Life Pharmacy Limited, Deputy Chairman of Public Trust, and a Commissioner of both the Commerce Commission and Earthquake Commission. She has been a Director of the Health Funding Authority, PHARMAC, Air New Zealand, Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Trust Bank New Zealand, and a member of both the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

    Wayne Walden ONZM
    Director
    Wayne is an experienced Company Director, and was previously Managing Director and shareholder of Farmers/Deka Ltd. He has had more than 30 years senior management experience in the liquor, wholesale and retail trades in New Zealand.

    Wayne’s past directorships include, Director of Farmlands Co-Operative Society, Director of the Westpac Bank NZ Advisory Board, Deputy Chairman of Meat New Zealand, Director of Mighty River Power Limited, Chairman of Tranz Rail and Chair of Maori Television. Wayne was also a member of the Board of the Auckland Transition Agency. He is currently a Director of Television New Zealand Limited.

    SOLIDARITY WITH THE MARITIME WORKERS OF NZ !

    As a member of Occupy Auckland, I have recommended that we call for as many people as possible to get down to Fergusson Wharf and support the workers from NOW until 11pm tomorrow (Wednesday 11 January 2012) night when their 48 hour strike/picket stops.

    http://wikimapia.org/17806102/Fergusson-Wharf
    This is URGENT!

    In my considered opinion, this is a clear attack by those representing the interests of the wealthy corporate 1% against the 99%, and it is the CEO of Ports of Auckland who should be sacked forthwith, because Tony Gibson has clearly proven himself to be ‘unfit for duty’.

    (Check out the POAL ‘Statement of Intent’ 2011- 2014 , POAL ‘Code of Conduct’)

    Penny Bright

    [email deleted]

    • james 111 23.1
      10 January 2012 at 3:07 pm

      Wow Penny what a huge discovery Board of Directors get paid. They also get paid for ensuring that the Port runs effectively, and can match its competition this being the Tauranga Port. It clearly isnt because the companies have had enough of the low productivity (20 % below Tauranga),and the Unions taking action all the time.

      They are seeing major Customers move away from the Port so they have to make sure things improve to ensure that good governance is operating by the board.

      No big conspiracy Penny just simple commercial facts. If the Union pulled their finger got more productive they would save their jobs ,and stop their workers ending up on the dole queues.

      Same way the Maritime Unions alias Toby Hill and Mr Martin destroyed the Coast the Wharfies Union will destroy the jobs for their workers in Auckland

      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 3:09 pm

        Actually the current Board and CEO has been responsible for losing major customers and for destroying worker productivity and shareholder value.

        Not only are the directors not worth the $300/hr pay they give to themselves, they should be fired.

        • confused 23.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 7:10 pm

          There you are then. I also agree that is way too much for what they are doing. Not sure what the comparison is to POT. Walden was chairman of TranzRail (I am pretty sure he was) when Toll purchased it. To minimise the losses, they TRail had a policy to capitalise any item over $500.00 which is rubbish in such an organisation.

          It is too much when they are on a umber of boards – how can they fulfill their fiduciary duties in a competent manner??

      • RedLogix 23.1.2
        10 January 2012 at 7:07 pm

        Wow Penny what a huge discovery Board of Directors get paid.

        No it appears that the same six Directors are not only lying arses, they’re paying themselves TWICE for the same effective job.

        In other words, thieving lying arses. Contemptible.

        • Dan 23.1.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 8:35 pm

          Jesus Christ. This is the stupidest post I’ve ever read. It’s a consolidation statement. It shows all the expenses incurred in the group. They’re not being paid twice. The report shows that the Director Fees for the parent company are the only director fees incurred by the group. Didn’t it occur to you that there’s a whole bunch of numbers listed in both columns for a reason?

          • higherstandard 23.1.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 8:42 pm

            “Jesus Christ. This is the stupidest post I’ve ever read”

            Clearly you haven’t been to this blog often

    • Catherine Etheredge 23.2
      11 January 2012 at 11:50 am

      Penny, you have misread Ports of Auckland’s accounts and misunderstood our CFO. It is not correct that two sets of fees are paid. Only one set of fees is paid and the total in the 2010/11 year was $425,007.

      Best regards
      Catherine Etheredge, Ports of Auckland

      • Jum 23.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 3:43 pm

        Catherine Etheredge,

        That’s odd; Penny was assured that there were two sets of fees.

        Also, Catherine, given the deliberately misleading statements given out by Gibson, given the intention to casualise the New Zealand workforce, given the success of John Key to get to privatise everything in New Zealand that used to belong to all New Zealanders, given the fact that this government freed up Ports of Auckland to be sold off any time from July 2012, after removing our right of 75% public agreement before they could be sold off, I tend to believe Penny over you, Catherine.

        Also, Catherine, tell Gibson to face up here instead of sending some female (when are women like you going to realise that it is because you are female that you become the talking head of male treachery) to do his dirty work for him.

        PS What is your full title and working profile within the Ports of Auckland, Catherine?

        • Dan 23.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 3:49 pm

          Penny couldn’t understand how a comparative financial statement worked, so I have serious doubts about what she claims to have been told, or whether she understood what was said. She’s claiming the entire amount of sundry expenses are paid to directors, on top the actual amount which is disclosed. In short, she’s counting the fees and then the greater Sundry Expenses total which includes those fees in the total. That also includes Bad Debts and Donations.

          It’s the same amount, it’s just disclosed additionally in a separate note to the Financial Statements for legal and transparency reasons. This comment spells it out clearly in the Note:

          “The Group does not provide any non cash benefits to directors and key management personnel in addition to their directors fees or salaries.”

        • Marana 23.2.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 11:07 pm

          Catherine, known to us all as Dr. Catherine Goebbels, Head of of the Department of Propaganda and Mis-information.
          Anyone see her on TV, banging on about that terrible Union official who threatened the scabs.
          Well next day when he (the official)arrived, not knowing anything of this complaint, he was greeted by the HoS and 4 goons and handed a 2yr trespass notice. Trouble was , no one told him or asked for his side of things. They just acted on the advice of a scab.
          Then she has the gall to appear on National TV and talk about being “absolutely disgusted”.
          Yeah, so were we, at her behaviour.
          This is the same prat who who lodged a complaint about a Union delegate who wrote a satirical piece in our Union magazine about POA management, and caused him to loose his job. A guy with 3 young kids to bring up. A magazine that is for paying Union members, not prats like her.
          That fact was that most of what he said was true, (leaving out the extremes). POA have for some time favoured Pacific Is employees, particularly from Tuvalu, as they have a culture that recognizes authority, they are usually poorly educated and have never earned this type of money before, so when the boss say “jump”, they jump.
          They are great to counter any supposed “Union influence”, and therefore undermine the union.
          The fact that around 5 have been found to be overstayers doesn’t deter the POA, they have forked around 50k to pay for lawyers to get their visa’s in order.
          That is after paying for an English teacher to teach them English as we cannot understand them on our radio channels.
          In fact the joke in our messroom is that the new Auckland rail line from the Airport will run from the Air Tuvalu arrival gate direct to Ferguson terminal.

          This is the extent they are prepared to go to undermine the Union.
          Be under no illusion, this whole thing is being engineered to get rid of Unions on the waterfront.
          They never had any intention of settling this dispute, they are a bunch of feral mongrels.

  24. Hilary 24
    10 January 2012 at 3:00 pm

    $163,166 pa per director. For destroying workplace relationships and running down a productive public asset in preparation for privatisation. But I don’t expect this information will make it to any mainstream media news reports. I wonder how many hours a week they work for this, and how dangerous the work is?

    • confused 24.1
      10 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

      I dont agree that every occupation has to be judged on its danger level – what are you suggesting in that comment? Sure an office based job is not as dangerous, but nor is a crane driver, but a crane driver requires a differnt skill set to a rigger etc.

      • RedLogix 24.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 7:22 pm

        The point is that these guys are what you call ‘professional directors’. They are usually on the board of at least 5-10 companies of various sizes. It all adds up to quite a bit of ding for a job that isn’t usually very onerous.

        Now I do realise there is an element of liability involved, and a good director is a genuine asset to an organisation. But the overall track record of NZ business leadership and governance is pretty average, if not downright mediocre.

        Usually these guys (and most are men) are drawn from a very narrow range of backgrounds; they all know each other and the whole thing is a bit of a back-scratching circle. Certainly the case can be made that many of them walk off with a fair whack of renumeration without delivering much in the way of detectable value.

        And given that this particular board was appointed by Rodney Hide… it is entirely reasonable to question their motives and agenda.

        • confused 24.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 9:16 pm

          I mentioned previously about multiple directorships and have no quibbles that it is over the top. But the saftey aspect and its relation to every occupation becomes a bit irrelevant (without trying to trivialise that particular issue in ones workplace).

          Below is a previous post I placed

          “””I also agree that is way too much for what they are doing. Not sure what the comparison is to POT. Walden was chairman of TranzRail (I am pretty sure he was) when Toll purchased it. To minimise the losses, they TRail had a policy to capitalise any item over $500.00 which is rubbish in such an organisation.

          It is too much when they are on a umber of boards – how can they fulfill their fiduciary duties in a competent manner??”””

  25. james 111 25
    10 January 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Hilary depends what your consider productive 20% less than the Tauranga Port cant go on like that. No Business can operate that way when there is opposistion around

    • Colonial Viper 25.1
      10 January 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Hey james111, are you sure its a neat 20.0% less productive? Not 18.8% less productive, not 23.1% less productive, but a neat tidy goal-seeked 20.0% less productive?

      What fucking Tory PR bullshit.

    • DJL 25.2
      10 January 2012 at 5:21 pm

      The 20% has been explained to you, that is due to systems and nothing to do with workers productivity and yet you are still banging on about it. Then complain when you get called a fuckwit. ans a troll.

    • Hilary 25.3
      10 January 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Confused – I meant that there is probably more skill required to be a port worker than a director, and part of that skill is working safely as part of a team in a potentially dangerous environment. Anybody can be a director – governance is a lot easier than operations, and is easily learned. Look at school boards where anybody can be elected or appointed as a school board member, but to be a teacher requires a university degree. Yet these directors have an hourly rate several times the hourly rate of a port worker and probably also get a whole lot of other perks – when they are really just servants of the Auckland ratepayers.

      Productivity is a complex issue, but even if you go on the annual reports, Akld port has high productivity. Productivity is also dependent on good relationships and having a strong team, and this company campaign to destroy collectivity and impose casualised, individualised workplace will inevitably mean decreased productivity.

      • confused 25.3.1
        10 January 2012 at 9:24 pm

        People could argue till they are blue in the face as to which job is easier to do. Sometimes it is the people that make an environment more dangerous. I fully understand the complexities of productivity on the wharf as I have worked in that environment. I dont disagree with your sentiments but you would have to agree that the fault does not just lie with management….

        Lockouts and strikes are a symptom of a disfunctional relationship and they have reached a stand off.

        Good directors are worth their hourly rate and poor directors are not. A good wharfie is worth his rate and a poor one is not. – Pretty simple logic…

  26. Tom Gould 26
    10 January 2012 at 4:20 pm

    As part of the old dissembling tactic, the RWNJs are smashing the wharfies for having a ’40 minute meal break’. Yep, a whole 40 minutes. No wonder the Port is going broke. Oh, that’s right, it is highly profitable and highly productive. Still, 40 minutes. That’s just crazy, right?

    • DavidW 26.1
      10 January 2012 at 4:41 pm

      Tom, context is important. Without knowing the whole story it is a nonsense to froth at the mouth. If the AGREED break is 30 minutes and they are taking 40, it is a problem. If the AGREED break is 60 minutes, it is not a problem unless the employees are rushing back to work and creating safety hazards. Context is important

      • Blighty 26.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 4:52 pm

        I’m betting that you, and all New Zealanders, stick precisely to your contracted breaks and never do non-work activities (like comment on blogs) during work time.

      • Colonial Viper 26.1.2
        10 January 2012 at 5:01 pm

        Those fucking Tory Double Dipping Directors, how many breaks and how many meals out do they get on the Port, on top of their $163K pa renumeration. For what I bet is less than a weeks’ work a month.

        They are stealing from the economic surplus generated by the port workers who are there creating economic value every day working on the front line.

        • James 111 26.1.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 5:10 pm

          This is in the Ports of Auckland Statement on Intent July 2011
          Reading into it you can see they are sick of the Labour problems, they acknowledge they have to have a cultural shift with the Labour force ,and restructure if need be all has been declared up front. It would appear the Union were forewarned ,and want to try to take them. I would think a very dangerous game to play ,and there will only be one winner. It wont be the workers

          The near-term objectives and associated targets represent POAL’s concerted efforts to work
          towards enhanced long-term profitability and sustainability of its operations. To ensure our
          profitability and sustainability, POAL’s long-term strategy includes:
          • Improving returns, maximising the value of the business, enabling continued long-term
          capacity investment
          • Improving labour flexibility, organisation structure, culture and leadership
          • Managing capacity to delay major capital spend
          • Working with other participants in the supply chain and seeking value add services and
          investments
          • Preparing to participate in industry restructure if required.
          8.

          • DJL 26.1.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 5:28 pm

            Why does it have to be a cultural shift with labour, could it not be a problem with management and thier attitudes with the workers? Sounds like to me the people doing the actual work are doing a good job, after all the company isn’t losing money

            • James 111 26.1.2.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 5:33 pm

              DJL
              A port should never lose money it cant afford to with all the investing it has to do in up keep,and new machinery. A 19 million dollar profit isnt much for its turn over. They obviously have to invest in the future ,and need to make sure they are matching their competitors which is Tauranga. They arent their crane time is slower, Their load and unload time is slower. That is why companies are moving to Tauranga aside from the fact they are sick of the lack of certainty in loading ,and unloading due to the Union combatitive attitude

              • McFlock …
                10 January 2012 at 5:40 pm

                And is their crane time slower because the operator is on a permanent contract? 
                 
                Maybe it’s their portside cargo handling system – which (as has been previously and repeatedly pointed out to you) can be addressed in cooperation with the union. Indeed, it would probably be best addressed with the cooperation of the people who actually do the job, and will have to work with the new system.

                • confused …
                  10 January 2012 at 7:27 pm

                  And is their crane time slower because the operator is on a permanent contract?

                  You wuold hope they already know the answer to this question. Obviously cargo handling/marshalling has a dircet impact on load/discharge rates – but that is also done by the union?

                  • McFlock …
                    10 January 2012 at 7:34 pm

                    Really? I’m trying to imagine a circumstance in which the ability to operate a machine quickly is dependent on not being on a permanent contract.
                     

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

                A 19 million dollar profit isnt much for its turn over.

                Guess what I agree with you.

                POAL can increase their profit by $2M p.a. to $21M p.a. simply by firing their incompetent Board and their CEO.

                • James 111 …
                  10 January 2012 at 5:56 pm

                  Can Probabliy add 5 million to the bottom line by introducing worked placed contracts. Just as the cook and stewards ,and the seamans union pushed it to hard so to is the Watersiders union. Look forward to 350 Phillapino wharfies coming to Auckland soon they will love the pay and the conditions

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    10 January 2012 at 6:04 pm

                    Finally you’ve come out and explained what the Tories want from the conflict that they have engineered.

                    • James 111 …
                      10 January 2012 at 6:08 pm

                      Viper nothing organised by the tories just stupidity by the Union and Mr Pascoe. Have made the decision easy for POAL

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 January 2012 at 7:47 pm

                      Let’s get this absolutely straight James.

                      The union is asking for nothing more than it’s existing conditions and rosters, plus a 2.5% inflation adjustment. This is not greedy.

                      They have clearly engaged with a productivity improvement process and are keen to progress it. This demonstrates and intelligent understanding of the pressures and demands of the industry they are in.

                      And they have been achieving improvements.

                      Now exactly what do you think they should have been doing differently? Because from where I’m sitting it very much looks like the Board had made up it’s mind about what it wanted ages ago.

                    • higherstandard …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:09 pm

                      Well if the existing rosters and conditions are the sticking point between the parties why does one or both of the parties put them in the public domain so they can garner public support for their position ?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      10 January 2012 at 8:25 pm

                      Look forward to 350 Phillapino wharfies coming to Auckland soon they will love the pay and the conditions

                      Finally you’ve come out and explained what the Tories want from the conflict that they have engineered on the waterfront.

                      Lets see if Massey’s Cossacks are up to another round. This time the results will be different.

                  • Frank Macskasy …
                    11 January 2012 at 11:33 pm

                    “Look forward to 350 Phillapino wharfies coming to Auckland soon they will love the pay and the conditions”

                    James – what on Earth motivates you to hate your fellow New Zealanders so much that you take joy from them losing their jobs?

                    What is your connection with maritime workers, that you feel the need to judge them on what they earn?

                    I guess the question is; what business is it of yours? And how would you react if a bunch of people starting commenting about YOUR job and YOUR wages, and gleefully saying someone is going to replace you??

              • KJT …
                11 January 2012 at 11:55 am

                Their crane time is slower because of poor organisation, congestion and lack of moral.

                All management problems!

  27. James 111 27
    10 January 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Its a changing World GM is looking at shutting all Holden Factories in Australia you either change adapt or get made redundant there isnt another way

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      10 January 2012 at 6:11 pm

      “There Is No Other Way” (TINA) = neoliberal bullshit

      “There Are Real Alternatives” (TARA) = the way forwards

      Look to Germany’s well paid, highly profitable, highly unionised car industry for examples, not fucking loser GM/Chrysler.

      Australia should tell the Americans to fuck off, nationalise the Holden plants, form joint ventures with South American, Indian and Chinese car companies and create a successful car industry of its own.

      Oh yeah and introduce a 25% import tarriff on all foreign assembled cars for the next 10 years.

      • Populuxe1 27.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 7:30 pm

        I’m not sure the German institutionalised work ethic/culture is comparable to the Australians, they’re more like the Japanese in that regard, a product of having to massively restructure and rebuild an economy virtually from scratch, but yeah, I’d love to see a competitive Australasian electric car on the market. The US really needs a few more governments to tell it to back off.

  28. James 111 28
    10 January 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Love your forward thinking

    Oh yeah and introduce a 25% import tarriff on all foreign assembled cars for the next 10 years.

    Is that because only Rich Pricks drive them LOL What a visionary

    • RedLogix 28.1
      10 January 2012 at 7:35 pm

      It was Henry Ford who was smart enough to realise that he needed to pay his workers enough to be able to afford the cars he was selling.

      That was visionary.

      • higherstandard 28.1.1
        10 January 2012 at 7:47 pm

        Well certainly it was more praise worthy than his overt antisemitism.

        • RedLogix 28.1.1.1
          10 January 2012 at 7:51 pm

          Well more praiseworthy than your overt support of sociopathic liars.

          • higherstandard 28.1.1.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 8:06 pm

            I didn’t know I was on record as supporting Trevor Mallard.

            [But you’ve spent all day here supporting Tony Gibson. And he is a proven liar. But that’s beside the point. Right now you aren’t even trying and you’re reduced to playing childish games. No more warnings. RL]

            • higherstandard 28.1.1.1.1.1
              10 January 2012 at 8:46 pm

              no you fail again I am on record here slating Gibson and the board as well as MUNZ.

              Here

              http://thestandard.org.nz/whats-really-going-on-at-ports-of-auckland/#comment-423496

              and here

              http://thestandard.org.nz/whats-really-going-on-at-ports-of-auckland/#comment-423552

              • Colonial Viper …
                10 January 2012 at 8:51 pm

                slating Gibson but by happenchance supporting his positions, his management approach, his strategies and his actions, as well as those of the Board.

                You’re a shallow loser.

                • RedLogix …
                  10 January 2012 at 9:34 pm

                  The behaviour is familiar.

                  HS is playing a common sociopathic game where, as you say at every point he supports PoAL and Gibson’s actions, but then he throws in from time to time meaningless, non-commital comments like “in this instance I view them all as a bunch of useless self serving troughers on the rate payers back. in order to provide himself with an “out” when cornered.

                  That way he never has to stand for anything and can twist his position to suit whatever game he wants to play. It’s typical of his type.

                  • higherstandard …
                    10 January 2012 at 9:56 pm

                    I support the longtime hard done by Auckland ratepayer, you support anything Labour/Union regardless of its merit and accuse anyone who dares have a different view of various personality disorders, actually you appear to be going down the DTB route of “everyone to the perceived right of me is a RWNJ and a psychopath.’

                    It’s typical of you chardonnay swilling rentier self loathing liberal elites.

                    • RedLogix …
                      10 January 2012 at 10:11 pm

                      I support the longtime hard done by Auckland ratepayer,

                      Well you’ve left it real late in the day to tell us about that little revelation haven’t you? Or did you just come up with that when cornered again?

                      Nah… all I’m doing is naming the behaviour. I’ve seen it before usually in self-serving management suits who always, but always, have a rationalisation for every crappy move they make, and never stand for anything except themselves.

                      And when they’ve finally moved on … nothing but destruction behind them.

                      If you want to behave differently, sort of like an normal human being who understands things like decency, good faith, loyalty and commitment…. I’d treat you differently.

                    • ropata …
                      10 January 2012 at 11:32 pm

                      HS ratepayers have benefitted greatly from POA as it has been faithfully returning $9 mill every year to the Council. Of course the foreign fund managers are drooling over such a choice morsel

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      11 January 2012 at 11:35 pm

                      “I support the longtime hard done by Auckland ratepayer…”

                      ?!?!

                      What do ratepayers have to do with this? The Ports are profit-making and self-funding.

                • higherstandard …
                  10 January 2012 at 9:51 pm

                  Certainly if he was worth his salary he should have let the issue reach this head several months back – let’s face it MUNZ aren’t exactly the sharpest mob – they must be taking advice from Darien (i hate’s the bad mutcher) Fenton.

      • Dan 28.1.2
        10 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

        Yea, the $5 day is one thing on paper. But the actual merits of the way Ford paid it leaves a lot to be desired. Firstly, the $5 day wasn’t a $5 pay day – it was a $2.52 or something regular wage with a profit sharing portion that topped it up to $5. To get that, you had to live your social life in a manner that Henry Ford’s crack team of sociologists deemed to be acceptable.

        It also wasn’t a case ‘pay people so they can afford cars’. It was a way of reducing turnover and training times that was hampering production at the plants. They’d have thousands of people queuing up to work each day, but none of them stayed in their positions and new people were constantly have to be trained, only to leave not long after.

        • RedLogix 28.1.2.1
          10 January 2012 at 11:02 pm

          Fair enough. But I’m always suspicious of retrospectively making judgements about events almost 90 years ago… in the context of today’s sensibilities.

          In fact if you take almost ANY historic figure that is generally admired or respected, and dig a little deeper, you’ll also find things they said or did that seem downright weird or unacceptable by today’s standards.

          Specifically you’d really have to compare Ford’s idea’s about labour and productivity to his contemporaries… and that respect his ideas around building up a stable, capable workforce, that could hope to afford the cars he was making…was visonary. Pretty much prior to Ford, cars were seen as the sole playthings of the very, very wealthy.

          And that doesn’t mean that from my 2012 point of view I have to condone everything Ford said or did. Playing that card is just a pointless diversion.

          • Dan 28.1.2.1.1
            10 January 2012 at 11:46 pm

            Oh of course. But Ford is different, and it’s not so much a wider historical context, more that we know today what he was actually trying to achieve when he said and did those things. that we still view as noble today. Of course the business practices of the Rouge are well out of date, but even during his time, Ford demanded a level of intrusion into his workers’ private lives that he started entire newspapers to object to when the Government did something he thought was heavy-handed.

            I wasn’t saying you had to accept everything Ford ever did, and I would shudder to think that people who possibly could might exist in today’s day and age 😛 The point I was trying to make was that Ford’s motivation when making these sweeping grand gestures should be considered too. Sure, the workforce he built might have been more stable, but it was first and foremost an exercise in saving the company money, and wouldn’t have been done if it didn’t.

  29. Blue 29
    10 January 2012 at 7:32 pm

    James 111 Love your work. Your points are salient and utterly undeniable. All CV has left is his usual 1930’s shipyard approach to economics – “Nationalise it”. Indeed “what a visionary”. I would prefer to sack the fucking lot of them, and Privatise it.

  30. randal 30
    10 January 2012 at 9:12 pm

    back to POAL. whats going on is wealth redistribution.
    they taking money off the poor and giving it to the rich.

    • confused 30.1
      10 January 2012 at 9:27 pm

      I thought the profits went back to the ratepayers??? Some will be rich some will not be.??

  31. Jenny 31
    11 January 2012 at 12:01 am

    A, “How To”, on removing unions from the workplace.

    “Port pushes on with redundancy plan”

    It (the port) will start consultation on its contracting-out proposal this week, while continuing with collective bargaining.
    Gibson said the union believed it owned their jobs, but the port was ”exercising its right to contract out workers.”

    Stuff.co.nz, January 10, 2012

    Talk about bad faith.

    If there was ever a case of it, this is it.

    The Ports of Auckland Management are gleefully going full steam ahead in their plan to remove the union from their site, while maintaining the fiction of keeping within the law by going through the motions of bargaining with the union for a collective agreement.

    What a farce.

    If getting rid of the union workers – while organising their replacement with contractors – while attending “negotiations” for a union contract with the representatives of these same workers, is not deemed bad faith in law, – the question must be asked –

    What really, would an employer have to do, to be considered to be acting in bad faith?

    Will the Labour Court ignore this blatant example of bad faith?

    Is James Henderson correct in saying at the beginning of his post, that this proposed course of action by POAL, “is a breach of the law and wouldn’t work”?

    Or will the labour court turn a blind eye and let them get away with it?

    Time will tell.

  32. Danyl Mclauchlan 32
    11 January 2012 at 6:34 am

    Cameron Slater’s rate is $10,000 for an operation like this

    This seems awesomely unlikely. The Herald will publish an almost unlimited amount of anti-union stories and columns for free. Why would anyone pay Slater to perform the same service to a much smaller readership?

    • The Voice of Reason 32.1
      11 January 2012 at 7:32 am

      Agreed, Danyl. Far more likely that Slater fantasises that he can charge ten large for that kind of dubious service and the idle boasting has been reported as fact in the post.

  33. james 111 33
    11 January 2012 at 7:37 am

    An 8.2% return for all Auckland rate payers seems fair its not a huge ask.
    Utilisation rate of 65% obviously isnt good enough in todays competitive environment.

    provide a reasonable rate of return on the community’s investment with the company, setting a minimum rate-of-return target of 8.2 per cent.

    “Achieving this target in the present economic climate requires POAL to significantly improve its operational productivity and efficiency. To do this, the company must [lift] its current labour utilisation rate from 65 per cent to over 80 per cent, just to remain viable,” the handout said.

    Mr Gibson said the recent loss of business by Maersk and Fonterra could cut port revenue by $25 million a year with no perceived opportunity to replace this revenue.

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      11 January 2012 at 8:09 am

      A utilisation rate of 65% means that there is room for growth at the port; it is up to the Board and executive management to find new customers to fill that gap in capacity, not shrink the capabilities of the port because they are useless at finding (and retaining) large clients.

      Frankly the Board and the executive management are incompetent and should be fired immediately. No one would notice their absence and the profit of the port would lift from $19M pa to $21M pa instantly. That’s a 10.5% lift in profitability.

      Should Gibson protest at his firing on a picket line, the Maritime union would support him. If he joined first.

  34. JamesGeorge 34
    11 January 2012 at 10:40 am

    So sad, it is pretty obvious what is going on here. This is demostrated by posters’ selected ‘facts’ lining up directly to the political leanings revealed in the subtext of their arguments.
    No one is changing anyone’s opinion and a mob of conservative “kick ordinary kiwis in the guts” posts have proliferated here since the foreign owned NZ Herald published a link to Henderson’s pieces.

    Nobody is going to change any other poster’s mind here, the positions are entrenched. Worst of all the thread has become too long for any ‘floating voter’- someone who wants to hear the other side of the story, to try and develop a position for themselves on this issue.

    An outcome that is exactly what many of the sock puppet posters are aiming for.
    I suggest some really strong moderation is in order. It doesn’t even have to be balanced or objective, after all the Herald, or any of the Tory blogs that hang off that fish wrap never worry about objectivity, it wasn’t objectivity by the media that created the Key walks on water fable.
    Anyone who imagines that this manufactured ‘crisis’ occurred by chance right now doesn’t understand how the free market functions in an almost completely deregulated environment like NZ.
    There are no accidents; groups of people form quick alliances for mutual benefit when the time is right. It doesn’t take a conspiracy; all it takes is a lack of social control.

    The classic example is the so-called global financial meltdown of 2008 when many many completely different rorts and frauds hit the fan at once. From NZ’s finance company scams to amerika’s subprime scam and Credit Default Swap rort, to Iceland’s over-leveraged banking failure.

    These rips all occurred within a relatively short time frame which coincidentally just happened to be the period when the wealthiest and most prolific generation yet produced by ‘the west’ – the baby boomers, happened to be at the peak of their retirement savings accumulation. Pretty soon those accumulated funds would decrease as baby boomers movement into retirement accelerated. That was no conspiracy; just a natural outcome of the proliferation of a huge amount of seemingly ‘easy money’ with few controls on how it was managed.

    Every kiwi knows at least one hard working family who have lost their nest egg, yet we acquiesce to PR massaged sops to the masses such as mobs of fraud charges, the easy ones no one has heard of getting raced through while the biggies, the one’s the real con artists are likely to beat get delayed and delayed- until finally the real crooks walk.

    This is a play to the masses lacking in any real attempt to re-regulate the crooks. Most of us understand this at some level yet we say bugger all just let it go on until something affects us directly. Too late too late.

    How does this happen? Chiefly because so few NZers have any input into the way the media in this country is managed.
    There is no serendipity about the way this destruction of waterside workers industrial relations structure has happened right at this time – in the height of summer when many are distracted and Key is riding the crest of his ‘mandate’ before the inevitable winter of discontent that will follow the electricity price rises around the corner.
    There is no serendipity about shipping companies deciding to move ports right now.
    As someone said up thread this is shades of Hobbit all over again, with capitalists announcing business decisions months sometimes years in the making right at the time when the publicity is most likely to effect the perception of an industrial dispute.

    So with that in mind and in the certainty that if the Wharfies – one of the staunchest old school trade union organisations – is successfully dismantled, teachers and nurses will quickly follow, may I suggest that the moderators here stop pissing about and refuse to accept the posts of obvious trolls sock-puppets and stirrers from the right.

    If someone wants to allege one port is n% more efficient than another they should have to include peer reviewed data complete with primary sources, anything else is just more tory hot air and there is already enough of that just about everywhere else kiwi politics are mentioned.

  35. Frank Macskasy 35
    11 January 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Comments of support for the striking workers can be left here, on PoA’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/AKLPort

  36. Frank Macskasy 36
    11 January 2012 at 12:16 pm

    A post I left on the PoA Facebook page, regarding an odious ChenPalmer report (http://www.chenpalmer.com/news/publications-and-presentations/blunt-instrument-of-industrial-action-causes-blunt-force-trauma/);

    “It should be recognised that employees are only entitled to strike if the strike relates to bargaining for a collective agreement that will bind the striking employees. ” -Chenpalmer

    Nonsense! In a democracy workers must be free to with-hold their labour (strike) on any matter that directly indirectly affects their employment. If the PoA are offering non-union contracts to new employees, this is nothing less than a sneaky, back-door attempt to undermine the Union and eventually make it irrelevant.

    We all know what happens when a workforce is de-unionised, or the Union becomes weak; lower wages; casualisation; and reduced working conditions. Workers can lose their job security; http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/news/overseas-labour-concerns-union/1198634/

    Safety is also threatened, and the Pike River Mine shows the dire consequences of poor safety, after Unions are weakened.

    The Auckland workers have a right to strike. They also have a responsibility to protect their families, from losing their incomes. They are the ones, after all, putting food on the table of their families.

  37. randal 37
    11 January 2012 at 1:49 pm

    paid flunkey fran sullivan says in the herald this morning that the watersiders are threatening the long term viability of the POA.
    are they going to fill in the harbour?
    are they going to move it somewhere else?
    she is a first class drip.

  38. Jum 38
    11 January 2012 at 3:36 pm

    I recently received mail with a ‘Support MMP’ sticker on it.

    We can individually help by writing our own stickers and sticking them on anything and everything.

    Examples:

    I support job security – go the Waterside workers.

    We failed the Watersiders in 1951. Don’t repeat the mistake.

    No New Zealand assets sold on my watch.

    Ella Wheeler Wilcox said ” To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men.”

    I change the men to man; any greedy government like this one will harm women and children even more than the men.

    • Frank Macskasy 38.1
      11 January 2012 at 11:38 pm

      Well said, Jum.

      My own Blog has taken a pro-Union stance. Because any company that wants to break contracts and replace full-time jobs with casualisation is, in my ‘umble opinion, to be fought.

      I don’t care what the maritime workers earn. They have a right to job security as much as anyone else.

Links to post