A(nother) bad day for the dynamic duo

Written By: Eddie - Date published: 9:05 am, April 13th, 2012 - 40 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, national, workers' rights - Tags: cameron slater, maritime union, meatworkers union, National's civil war, ports of auckland, simon lusk, talleys, useful idiots

It was a bad day yesterday for the ‘heavy hitters’ of the Collins faction, Slater and Lusk. First, Ports of Auckland admitted supplying them with a workers’ private details. Then, the smear on the Meatworkers that they had orchestrated with Talley’s was shot down by the SFO in record time. Finally, Michelle Boag gave them a public serve on RNZ, fueling civil war talk.

The out of control Ports of Auckland management has undoubtedly committed a breach of the Privacy Act in releasing information that they hold in trust on a employee to Slater/Lusk’s scumblog as part of their anti-wharfie, anti-union crusade. The idiots running PoAL into the ground admitted without admitting that they gave the worker’s details to Slater/Lusk as a ‘direct response’ to the worker’s criticism of the bosses’ negotiating tactics. Yeah, because that’s how you provide a ‘direct response’ – by illegally leaking unrelated information to a scumblog. If this was Tony Gibson or Richard Pearson’s personal information being splattered all over the place by an illegal leak with the intention of humiliating, defaming, and cowering them, then PoAL would be looking at a million dollar payout. Why would it be any different for this worker? Slater/Lusk’s brilliant idea of smearing a worker who dared to speak up blew up immediately on the Port, actually, it was the turning point in the media war, and it’s still costing them.

In much the same vein, the genius idea of smearing the Meatworkers Union by calling for a Serious Fraud Office investigation based on elementary mis-interpretations of the Union’s annual reports, blew up on Talley’s and Slater/Lusk in less than a day. The SFO threw out the complaint and told Talley’s not to waste their time with this shit, which was a blatant attempt to influence the collective talks. This, too, is a turning point in the media narrative. Talley’s will find they can’t get any of their lines run and a whole lot more attention focused on their anti-worker, anti-union practices. And all because they ran a Slater/Lusk smear.

On RNZ, Boag trotted out the ‘nothing to see here’ line on the factional fighting before launching into Slater, who she says still can’t handle that she beat his dad in the 2002 National Party President election race and is pissed that she helped Pullar with her insurance dispute but wouldn’t help Slater with his. Is Boag telling the truth? Who gives a shit. The thing to remember in this whole Pullar-Slater-Boag-Smith-Collins-Joyce-Lusk-etc affair is they’re all Tory scum. But Boag’s outburst just confirms that the fight is ongoing. The order has been given to keep it out of the public eye, but they just can’t help themselves.

40 comments on “A(nother) bad day for the dynamic duo ”

Comments are now closed

bad12 1

13 April 2012 at 9:46 am

So,Auckland City Mayor Len Brown is reported at being furious that there has been an admission from Ports of Auckland that they leaked the information which allowed Blubber-boy to drag one of the Wharfies through the mud on Blubber-boy’s ‘Whale-oil’ blog site,

There’s talk of ‘finding’ the culprit and dishing out the appropriate punishment,(what about punishing Blubber-boy as number 1 in putting what is obviously illegal material into the public arena),

The ‘culprit’ Mr Mayor???,the culprit Mr Mayor if you havn’t fucking realized is the whole ISM under which the Ports of Auckland operates,

The ‘culprit’ Mr Mayor is the whole fucking culture of the present National Government operates where Ministers of the Crown happily go about releasing the personal details of those who dare to speak out against National Government policy, or annoy them in any way,

So, Mr Mayor,when Government Ministers, with impunity, are allowed to act in such an anti-democratic,underhand and (probably)illegal manner why would not the minions of the ISM take up the same behaviour themselves,

There is not Mr mayor, a single individual within the management of Ports of Auckland who need be concentrated upon vis a vis the leaking of the personal details of Wharfies in an attempt to sway public opinion during a industrial dispute,

You need Mr Mayor to concentrate your efforts open the management culture within the Ports of Auckland which allowed this disgusting act,(management terrorism),to occur,

You need Mr Mayor to simply remove the rotten core of management at the Ports of Auckland from the CEO to the Board of Directors and replace them Mr Mayor with those you ‘know’ will do a good job for the Ports of Auckland,the City of Auckland and just as, if not more importantly, the Wharfies who work at the ports of Auckland…
- Colonial Viper 1.1
  
  13 April 2012 at 9:51 am
  
  Bloody hell mate I daresay you are expecting too much from Mayor Len Brown.
- ianmac 1.2
  
  13 April 2012 at 9:55 am
  
  bad12.You ought to send your good advice to Mr Mayor. I wonder if he has the power to dismantle the POAL setup?
  - bad12 1.2.1
    
    13 April 2012 at 10:15 am
    
    We can well imagine Len’s lower jaw being set aquiver by our suggestion,nay,our demand that he first sack the Board of Directors of Ports of Auckland, appoint another Board, (preferably with worker participation),and,have the new Board inform the present CEO that He is no longer wanted,
    
    Len’s reportedly in China at the moment,but, as the ‘owners’ of Ports of Auckland the Auckland Council ‘should’ have the ability to say who the Board of Directors is…
    - ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.1.1
      
      13 April 2012 at 10:53 am
      
      You are being silly (again) bad12.
      You know quite well that Rodney Hide, did two things .
      Put PoAL out of reach of the Council and put his friends as directors on the board.
      
      Some things arent what they appear, and you appear to be a sock puppet of Cam Slater- lies about Boag and Brown- what is the chances an ordinary person goes on like they swallowed a bee only on these issues.
      - bad12 1.2.1.1.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 11:03 am
        
        Oooh look, We have attracted a stalker destined to spend and expend valuable energy upon bout how making baseless allegations about how We choose to interpret the ISM from which We operate,
        
        Feel free to enlighten us all wont you,a mere quisle of a few words of denigration about how We chose to post without being specific with such things as the part of the specific Legislation that puts the Ports of Auckland ”out of reach” of the Auckland City Mayor and any ‘lies’ you can actually identify in what We post would be a good start point in turning yor mere quisle of a post into something informative and take such out of the rrealm of the quisle and its author out of the realm of quisling,
        
        Go on,there’s whole web pages available for you to prove your point…
        
        [lprent: Talking about yourself in the royal third person tends to attracts my moderating attention. To my eye, it screams that I have a posturing fool commenting who tries to divert attention by meaningless flames. In other words a pyromaniac that I’d probably be better banning earlier rather than later.
        
        Read the policy and I’d suggest that you worry more about the ‘stalker’ you have now acquired and how to avoid my attentions than doing stupid posturing. ]
        
        bad12 1.2.1.1.1.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 12:45 pm
        
        with all due respect ‘We’ do not refer to ourselves with any Royal(spit),We,
        
        Does the individual union member or the representative of the collective union describe him/herself in terms of ‘I’ ???,
        
        It is not ‘I’ have taken action over workplace issues, it is ‘we’,
        
        ‘I’ in our opinion denotes the supposed individualism of the right whereas ‘we’ denotes the collective of family,of work-mates,of unions and of those political Party,s which support the ‘left’ as the collective of all those who are gathered there,
        
        If you and others can only ‘see’ the term ‘we’ in its use as the Royal(spit) ‘we’ then ‘we’ can only feel sorry that you have moved so far away from the notion as ‘we’ the collective,
        
        Banning us for our use of that collective ‘we’ is of course your perogative and ‘we’ dont propose here to advance the speed of such a ban by informing you of what ‘we’ would consider such a ban to be when it is imposed as an injunction over the use of the term ‘we’ as opposed to the term ‘I’…
        
        [lprent: You missed the point. And I think that you only read the first and last para’s. Go back and reread it. Then reread your comment in view of the policy and see how I see it with a moderators eye. Stop wasting my time wanking on this site. I tend to react to wasting my time in an unkind fashion. ]
        
        bad12 …
        
        13 April 2012 at 1:38 pm
        
        Yawn,Yes we know this is your personal little fiefdom which you control in your own petty little way,
        
        As it was in fact YOU who pissed down his own leg raving about what YOU see as the royal(spit) we, we have simply provided YOU with what we see as valid reason for our use of that we,
        
        WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE US DO,some dick-head,(a friend of yours by any chance) makes a pathetic accusation that we are simply the sock puppets of that other dickhead Whale-oil and we simply ask for the provision of the proof of this and the proof of the accusation that we are liars and we are dumped on from a great height by YOU,
        
        You actually Banned someone today for making such unfounded accusations about YOU,if you want to become an increasingly smaller band of posters with increasingly smaller comments to make about the issues of the day then sooner or later this site will simply become a small collection of dickheads chanting oppose oppose oppose,
        
        For you dump on us over our reply to that dickhead you appear to be protecting to have any relevance you would have had to have given him a serve for his original comments which sparked our reply,
        
        The fact that YOU didnt sez lots about you and this site,we dont give a shit if we are banned for standing firm where our beliefs lie and such a banning from YOU would simply bring YOU and this site a further step closer to being that increasingly smaller collection of dickheads sitting here chanting oppose oppose oppose…
        
        mickysavage …
        
        13 April 2012 at 1:46 pm
        
        Chill out bad12.
        
        This is lprent’s turf. He puts a huge amount of effort and energy and time into the site. He doesn’t need this sort of carp.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        13 April 2012 at 2:01 pm
        
        Angry lefties
        
        *Takes a look at self*
        
        Passionate lefties then, lololol
        
        Te Reo Putake …
        
        13 April 2012 at 2:00 pm
        
        Thanks for the explanation, Bad 12. I’ve been puzzling over the weird ‘we’ too. I thought there were only two explanations; there were more than one of you sharing the handle or that you were ill.
        
        Unfortunately, your explanation makes no sense at all. You do not speak for the collective. You express personal opinions and I is the personal pronoun. ‘We’ weakens your contributions, but I suspect that is going to be a moot point because you seem to be going all out to get flicked from the site for excessive pomposity.
        
        And just as an aside, losing you will not significantly weaken the Standard as you claim, because having you here hasn’t significantly strengthened the site, for the reasons I outlined above.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        13 April 2012 at 2:03 pm
        
        I believe the Queen uses the royal “We”. Perhaps bad is following Her Majesty’s example?
        
        bad12 …
        
        13 April 2012 at 3:36 pm
        
        Thanks for the critique,which collective do we not speak for,our family,our work-mates,our union???,
        
        We may not speak collectively as we with you in particular included in the collective of our family,workmates and union,that is obviously a given,
        
        We assume though that at points in the ongoing discussion the collective wee strand that is the we of our collective would inter-twine within the body politic of what is widely called the left???…
        
        McFlock …
        
        13 April 2012 at 4:05 pm
        
        lolwhut?
        
        Do you mean that there is a meeting of the various collectives to draft each comment you make, or is(are) the author(s) the recipient(s) of a democratically delegated authority from each of the separate collectives you claim to speak for?
    - ianmac 1.2.1.2
      
      13 April 2012 at 10:55 am
      
      bad11:”We can well imagine Len’s lower jaw being set aquiver by our suggestion,…”
      Let alone turn his bowels to porridge!
      I suspect that the setup of POAL was a setup from Rodney.
      
      Same same Micky
      - bad12 1.2.1.2.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 11:12 am
        
        Yes We couldnt agree more,the ACT oinker obviously set the whole ‘Super-City’ frame-work so as to facilitate the privatization of anything ‘they’ can squeeze a buck out of,
        
        What the ACT oink brigade and the National party cheerleaders didnt bank on at the time tho was that Auckland would reject a rightwing,(loony???)as its Mayor,
        
        Brown has to start behaving as the Mayor of a Super-City from the ‘left’, IF prior Legislation is tying Len Brown’s hands in any actions He wishes to take vis a vis the Ports of Auckland dispute and for that matter any of the frmework of Legislation surrounding the present City of Auckland then Brown should be hollering from the roof-tops about it,
        
        When the specifics are identified then these specifics can be publicly supported within the various ”left” Party,s in the Parliament,
        
        Len simply sitting there with His hands tied isn’t acceptable,it simpl,y sets the people of Auckland and those such as the Wharfies up for a kicking of a bigger magnitude once Lens done His time and has been put out to pasture…
        
        ianmac 1.2.1.2.1.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 11:29 am
        
        Trouble is who would replace Len in an Election? Rodney perhaps?
        
        bad12 …
        
        13 April 2012 at 11:34 am
        
        We fail to see the relevance of that particular question but would dare to suggest the ex-head oinker from ACT would be unelectable in Auckland as the Mayor,
        
        We think that a sizable slice of the ‘right’ vote in the City could not hold their noses long enough to cast a ballot in favor of Him…
        
        bad12 …
        
        13 April 2012 at 5:26 pm
        
        PS,we don’t see it as a given that Len Brown is or need be a 1 term Mayor of Auckland, Len could(Legislation permitting), secure a second term as the Auckland Mayor,(in our opinion),simply by as we suggest giving the Ports of Auckland and its CEO a loud and public serve in the form of ”see ya later”,
        
        Having said that, we dont think leaving the Ports of Auckland as any form of ”stand alone” company will do those working at the Ports any favors in the long term, and, a push for Legislation so as to enable the status of the Ports Company to be changed need be explored,
        
        Simply leaving the Ports of Auckland being run under the auspices of the present Ism only invites an even worse storm down upon the heads of the present workforce at some time in the future,
        
        We can also translate the above paragraph in national terms(not the party,the country),where if the next Government of the left simply Governs within the present Ism this simply allows for the next National Government to move the country even further to the right in terms of society,industry and economics…
mickysavage 2

13 April 2012 at 12:02 pm

What I would like to know is which one is Batman and which one is Robin?
- joe90 2.1
  
  13 April 2012 at 12:11 pm
  
  Given that Burt Ward swung some serious pipe, blubbers firearms obsession and the general rules surrounding the relationship between guns and pipes, the fat fuck has to be B-man. .
  - Te Reo Putake 2.1.1
    
    13 April 2012 at 12:16 pm
    
    And we know who’s playing the Penguin!
    - Hami Shearlie 2.1.1.1
      
      13 April 2012 at 6:23 pm
      
      Judith Collins as Catwoman definitely , now, who will be Riddler and Joker? Riddler could be that giant of an intellect, Jonathon Coleman, and……perhaps Brownlee as the Joker. And we just have to have Chris Finlayson as Mr Freeze! Now, one of the ones left would be Two-Face. Anyone got any thoughts? Key would be my choice! Of course Michelle Boag would be perfect as Poison Ivy too!Anyone know who would be Batgirl? Of course, it’s so obvious, Cactus Kate!!
      - felix 2.1.1.1.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 8:28 pm
        
        “Judith Collins as Catwoman definitely “
        
        I take great personal offense at that.
        
        fender 2.1.1.1.1.1
        
        13 April 2012 at 8:58 pm
        
        Yes the “dynamic duo” title is majorly over-generous too.
        
        Dumb and Dumber seems more appropriate.
        
        And Collins is more of an Oscar in a trash can, looking for an email perhaps.
        
        Hami Shearlie 2.1.1.1.1.2
        
        13 April 2012 at 11:24 pm
        
        Don’t worry Felix! Ferals like Collins bear no resemblance to you! Just watch their teeth! They’re swarming in harmful bacteria – Thats the Nats for you!
      - Jim Nald 2.1.1.1.2
        
        14 April 2012 at 12:36 pm
        
        @ Hami
        
        William Joyce – help required.
John72 3

13 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

This is a classical Industrial Dispute. Neither party is without fault, neither will admit fault. Is either side educated? In this exercise no one can justify a large income on the grounds of intelligence. All day, every day, we are served by people working to rosters. People providing Water, Sewerage, Electricity, Radio, Food, Health care, Transport,etc. Get real. No one here is being persecuted. Management can not justify their large income on the grounds of a job well done and the warfies can not claim hardship. This whole thing has taken the heat off Govt. Asset Sales. It is a farce. Debating the grammar of a post will not win a “Piggy stamp”. Do you understand the message being conveyed? Debating grammar changes the subject. Again and again, communication is where the dispute has failed.
Rosemary 4

13 April 2012 at 4:06 pm

Nobody could write a better comedy movie script if they tried.
Cactus Kate 5

13 April 2012 at 6:54 pm

Boag was doing ok talking about something her lawyer would have told her not to, up until she shot her credibility entirely by saying Whale was “pissed off” she didn’t help him with his insurance case.
Is the woman completely mad?

Whale would stand outside a Labour conference in a queue to join up as a member and sing Union solidarity songs before he would ask Boag for directions on how to get to the other side of a road.

To provide contrast, Brian Edwards was extremely professional keeping his gob shut about the issues as he conflicted him out through I understand a relative working for ACC. Boag wasn’t very happy about this until he stood him ground.

A peculiar performance from her.
- felix 5.1
  
  13 April 2012 at 8:33 pm
  
  I was impressed by Brian’s ethical display on that matter too, although I’ve got to say it did sound a bit like he was really enjoying looking down on Boag from the high ground…
  - Anne 5.1.1
    
    13 April 2012 at 8:47 pm
    
    it did sound a bit like he was really enjoying looking down on Boag from the high ground
    
    Yes, I picked up on that too. Boag has done it to him in the past, so I guess he was going to make the most of it.
- Anita 5.2
  
  13 April 2012 at 8:52 pm
  
  Cactus Kate writes,
  
  Boag was doing ok talking about something her lawyer would have told her not to, up until she shot her credibility entirely by saying Whale was “pissed off” she didn’t help him with his insurance case.
  Is the woman completely mad?
  
  Whale would stand outside a Labour conference in a queue to join up as a member and sing Union solidarity songs before he would ask Boag for directions on how to get to the other side of a road.
  
  Of course he might be so anti-Boag because she didn’t help him with his insurance case – that doesn’t seem an incompatible reading of it at all.
  
  Or are you saying Cameron Slater had something against he before the illness which triggered his insurance claim?
- Anita 5.3
  
  13 April 2012 at 8:54 pm
  
  Cactus Kate writes,
  
  Boag was doing ok talking about something her lawyer would have told her not to, up until she shot her credibility entirely by saying Whale was “pissed off” she didn’t help him with his insurance case.
  Is the woman completely mad?
  
  Whale would stand outside a Labour conference in a queue to join up as a member and sing Union solidarity songs before he would ask Boag for directions on how to get to the other side of a road.
  
  Of course he might be so anti-Boag because she didn’t help him with his insurance case – that doesn’t seem an incompatible reading of it at all.
instauration 6

13 April 2012 at 9:20 pm

The words (ad modernum) of Bad12 have a resonance in my head (plenty of space in there). That makes him more than one – and entitled to use the collective “we”.
Not a Port of Auckland worker 7

13 April 2012 at 10:56 pm

It is not as bizarre scenario as you suggest Cactus. I remember reading Slater blogs about being depressed, on meds, scraping with his insurance company and having no income….Who knows in his desperate, drugged out haze Boag may have appeared angelic & an answer his prayers;-)

My guess is Slater asked for Boags help. Boag said no. This would explain perfectly why Slater has been so vicious in attacking her.

The only person who was possibly mad was Slater…..for asking Boag for help thinking that she would!

I might not agree with Boags politics, but I’d believe her any day over Slater.
- bad12 7.1
  
  14 April 2012 at 12:39 am
  
  According to Boag tho, Blubber-boy has had it in for Her since She whipped daddy-Slater to be the
  Prez of the National party,
  
  So expecting much in the truth from either of them could be an exercise in futility…
Deer Hunter 8

14 April 2012 at 8:40 am

blubberboy and luskie are liars, put together a protection racquet and charge money to people not to dirttalk them, lowest of low, boag has more integrity in her little finger then those hoods
Not a Port of Auckland worker 9

14 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

I agree Deer Hunter. Boag would not go on National Radio and lie. Slater lies and we all know it. The guy has no integrity.

Whilst I don’t not agree with Boags politics she is always the consummate professional.

I suspect Blubberboy (and his close mate Cactus) knows Boag is stating the truth. It was logical he went to Boag if she’d successfully helped another. Slater never got his claim sorted did he? If not it’s been about 4 years he’s been waiting for his day in court with the insurer. Meanwhile the insurer has bleed him dry so he has no ability to fight them.

Boag was right in telling Slater to get lost. Imagine if she’d said yes to him. Imagine if she had offered to help and she wasn’t successful.

Slater/Lusk duo …. NZ’s answer to mafiablogging – piss us (or our mates off) and we’ll well and truly f**k you over. Take care of us …with juicy leaks, money etc and we’ll take care of you and slam your opponents reputations with lies and innuendos.

You certainly wouldn’t want to be beholden to the Slater/Lusk dynamic duo. I wonder how many are living fear and potentially compromised. Collins perhaps?
Bafacu 10

16 April 2012 at 5:24 pm

“with the intention of humiliating, defaming, and cowering them”

WTH – how could the dissemination of factual information in response to the “inaccuracies” spouted by the “worker” regarding the employer’s behaviour to workers be defamatory or designed to cower them. The fact that it was humiliating to him was caused solely by his parsimonious use of the truth originally.