Another classic Slater/Lusk own goal

Written By: - Date published: 7:08 am, April 12th, 2012 - 170 comments
Categories: Unions - Tags: , , , , ,

Slater/Lusk have been running a series of posts on the finances of the unions. Pretty weak stuff. All Slater/Lusk have proven is that they don’t understand the corporate structure of unions, they can’t read accounts, and they can’t do research. Still, you knew they were seeding something. And then came the Talleys’ complaint to the SFO about the Meatworkers’ Union.

The complaint has been mercilessly shot down by the Meatworkers who have made a mockery of the ability of Talleys’ Randian superheroes and their paid lackeys to read a simple annual report. The SFO will give the complaint short shrift, just as the same complaint to the Accounting Society six months ago was.

See, Talleys allege that there were discrepancies in the Meatworkers’ books. Not a few percent here or there missing – the stuff that might credibly point to some kind of fraud. They alleged that about 80% of the union dues were missing.

They got to that point by saying ‘the union has about 18,000 members (according to the DoL 2010 union membership report), Meatworkers’ union dues are $5.95 a week – that’s about $5.5m a year, but the annual report of the New Zealand Meat Workers and Allied Trades Union Inc shows only $700,000 of income.’

‘Where’, they ask, ‘is the other $4.8m?’

At this point, any sensible person (and especially, you would have thought, any experienced business person) would have said ‘shit, I guess there’s something about the corporate structure of the union I don’t understand’. But Talleys, I’m guessing, on the advice of Lusk/Slater, cried ‘fraud!’ and complained to the Serious Fraud Office.

In fact, the answer to where the members’ dues goes is right in front of you when you look at the annual report (and, if you don’t get it there, it’s all explained on the Union’s ‘about us‘ page). The Union is divided into four autonomous regional bodies that collect the members’ dues and basically run their own affairs, employ and pay their own staff, administer their own strike funds, handle their own disputes, etc. The incorporated society is just there to run the national office and receives about a buck per week per members from the regional branches to fund its activities (there’s actually a nice history page on the Meatworkers’ website explaining the history behind why it is set up this way). Meat Workers Inc doesn’t include the regional branches.

So, when you look at the Meat Workers Inc annual report, you’re not seeing the whole union. You’re just seeing the 3-person national office that the regional branches each chip in a little to pay for. It’s all laid out with the capitation payments from each regional branch and exactly what the money is spent on (for the record, the Secretary of the Union gets $80K a year, and the other staff in the $40K range). Any fool could see that, but apparently not Slater/Lusk, or they wouldn’t have advised Talleys to try to smear the Union in such a blatantly stupid manner.

It took the media about 30 minutes to turn this from a story of ‘discrepancies in union books?’ to ‘Talleys tries to smear union’. All Slater/Lusk have succeeded in doing is turning the media off Talleys’ spin (which is why we so love having these two chumps in the game and playing for the other team). The couple of outlets that did just run the Talleys line at first will be the most pissed off for being made to look stupid and no journo will risk looking like a moron again by running Talleys lines.

Ok. I’m just about finished taking the piss out of our favourite useless tories for now but I can’t let these two points slide.

  1. In a post, Slater/Lusk alleged that proof of the fraud at the Meatworkers’ Union was that the books say the President is only paid $4,000 a year. Slater/Lusk claim he must be getting more under the table for all the work he does. This displays a basic misunderstanding of how unions work, and how much $4,000 is to most people. The President of the Union is an elected position a lot like the chairman of a board. It is not a full-time role. The President will be a full-time meatworker who does union business a few times a month. For that extra service, he gets a $4,000 a year honorarium. Now, that might not seem like much to Slater/Lusk, who are no doubt charging Talleys a fortune for their ‘expertise’, but it’s plenty to someone earning about $50K a year at the top end, a month’s pay. And, being a union man, he probably wouldn’t take too much more anyway when that money can go to helping his comrades.
  2. In the same post, Slater/Lusk said that the Union’s books have a laptop from 1998 registered with a book value of $3708, which is clearly outrageous. Again, a sign of something ‘whiffy’, they claim. It would be, if it were true. But Slater/Lusk, incompetent tools that they are, have read the wrong column in the bloody table. $3708 isn’t the book value of the laptop; it’s how much it has been depreciated by since it was bought for $3709 (that’s what laptops cost back in 98, remember). The book value today is $1. How do you two expect to smear unions on their financials when you can’t even read a table right?

I love that corporates are still hiring Slater/Lusk. First, they cocked up the PoAL dispute (and are now slagging off the board of that company in their posts). Now, they’re cocking up their smears of the Meatworkers and turning the media off Talleys. These two are some of the best weapons the workers have.

Keep it up, lads.

[PS Slater/Lusk’s smears haven’t been confined to the Meatworkers. For instance, they also allege that the holiday homes owned by the PSA are only accessed by the ‘union bosses’ (whoever they are). In fact, as any PSA member knows, you can book one of these holiday homes at reasonable rates, although demand is strong. The Police Association and the Army, among other organisations, also have holiday homes for members to rent. They’re a bit of an anachronism these days but they’ve long paid for themselves and it’s nice that some members can get a cheaper rent for a holiday and just cover maintainence etc.] [PPS. You might ask where the regional branches’ accounts are. Well, they’re not legally required to be Incs like the national office is, and they aren’t. So, they have no public reporting requirement. Just like a private company. Just like Talleys, in fact. Which is a pity because because I would love to see Talleys’ line for smear merchants.]

170 comments on “Another classic Slater/Lusk own goal ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    12 April 2012 at 7:29 am

    Cameron, the gift that keeps on giving …

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    12 April 2012 at 7:39 am

    RWNJs proving their financial and business competence…

  3. tc 3
    12 April 2012 at 7:50 am

    Whale oil, ensuring that truth never gets in the way of a good smear campaign. What a well oiled machine the right is you gotta admire the lengths and effort the junior machiavalliens go to though.

  4. Deer Hunter 4
    12 April 2012 at 8:08 am

    I see what you’re doing here. You have decided that every time you’re going to attack the blubbery one, your going to attack Lusk as well. So immature.

    [we have a rule here about not speculating on commenters IDs. So, I won’t, despite the rather big clues. Eddie]

    • IrishBill 4.1
      12 April 2012 at 8:22 am

      When they write as the same author it’s pretty hard to avoid any analysis of one that doesn’t include the other. Also, this AFFCO play has Lusk written all over it.

      • Deer Hunter 4.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 8:28 am

        You can’t attack him for having anonymous authors though surely Bill.

        • IrishBill 4.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 8:43 am

          wtf are you on about?

          • Deer Hunter 4.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 11:02 am

            So what if Luskie writes for blubber, why is that news and why would you complain when your a multiauthor site with anon writers too?

            [lprent: There aren’t any anonymous authors except for some of the guest posters (and at least one of the editors knows who they are). We do have some pseudonymous authors, but they are definitely not anonymous. You simply don’t know who they are in real life and have to come through The Standard Trust’s trustees to communicate with them.

            Of course that makes it a lot harder to attack authors in real life like that stupid gutless waffler Cameron (and probably you) likes to do. You have to deal with me or Mike Smith instead. For some reason people don’t seem to want to do that.

            Read the About and the policy. Because that particular topic has been extensively covered by pathetic whiners like yourself over the years I have a tendency to warn one then ban fast an long when we get the usual critics with the same old assertions. ]

            • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 11:03 am

              Of course its news, part of the paid tory wrecker and hater machine.

              • Deer Hunter …
                12 April 2012 at 11:06 am

                You dont know its a paid machine, blubber and luskie probably wreck and hate for free.

                • bbfloyd …
                  12 April 2012 at 11:26 am

                  i see that you’ve been given up as a bad joke little fawn…… not surprising considering the juvenile, uninformed pap you seem to think passes for “grown up” debate….

                  keep up with the pills and ointments young one…. you may reach adulthood yet…. we all need people like you to remind us just how unfit modern tories are to govern a bar fight, let alone anything more challenging…

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  12 April 2012 at 11:37 am

                  1) Writers at the standard have separate pseudonyms, so even though they’re anonymous, you know who’s writing what.

                  2) Hasn’t Cameron himself confirmed he sometimes gets paid for his nonsense?

                  • lprent …
                    12 April 2012 at 11:49 am

                    Not to mention that you can usually tell who is writing by the style of writing.

                    I notice this when I’m punch the recommend button on the posts to send them to facebook with my usual pithy comments, I seldom go up and have a look at the author at the top of the page before I say Ben or Eddie or Anthony, or whoever says… I can usually tell by style of the post. I usually do wander up for a peek before I hit the send – but that is just to make absolutely sure. Maybe one time out of 20 I get a surprise.

        • Carol 4.1.1.2
          12 April 2012 at 11:15 am

          There’s a difference between being anonymous online or 2 people using the same handle, and one person consistently using the same handle/pseudonym. One person consistently using the same pseudonym/handle is not the same as being anonymous.

      • King Kong 4.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 9:17 am

        Classic. Speculation of Whale being paid to smear unions by someone speculated to be employed in union coms.

        The handbags are out.

        IrishBill: I think you’re trying to allude to an author here but it’s hard to tell as you appear to be incapable of writing a sentence that makes sense. I guess you better take a couple of days off just in case.

        • higherstandard 4.1.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 9:47 am

          I think the point trying to be made is that ‘deer hunter’ is speculated as being Simon Lusk whilst the authors here are speculated as being PR employees of the EPMU.

          • IrishBill 4.1.2.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 10:21 am

            Oh I see. Just as well I gave him a couple of days off then, don’t you think?

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.2
      12 April 2012 at 9:03 am

      “we have a rule here about not speculating on commenters IDs. So, I won’t, despite the rather big clues. Eddie”

      Ahh, sweet apophasis.

      • bbfloyd 4.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:59 am

        for a second there, i thought you may have said something clever….. been given a school dictionary for your coming of age biscuit boy? or is that a word you found in your english as a second language course?

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4.2.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 5:21 pm

          You seem very angry, bbfloyd. You need to take some time, just for you. You deserve it, girlfriend.

  5. Hilary 5
    12 April 2012 at 8:14 am

    $4000 as annual honorarium for a Chairperson of an NGO in the community and voluntary sector sounds about right, although possibly on the high side. It’s about a day’s work for a director in the private sector. I don’t think people such as the two people who are subject of this thread have any understanding that people are motivated by things like public good, altruism, community service etc.

    • fender 5.1
      12 April 2012 at 10:57 pm

      Exactly!
      Parasites like these just dont understand that people can do things for others without taking advantage of the situation and lining their pockets. Their brain cant comprehend such a situation unfortunately.

  6. vidiot 6
    12 April 2012 at 8:22 am

    Somethings not ringing 100% true. The Trade Unions Act dictates that all unions need to on the Registrar of Incorporated Societies – but when you look there you see:

    http://www.societies.govt.nz/
    Name: MEAT AND RELATED TRADES WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED
    Number: 614657
    Current Status: Struck Off

    Add in that – http://www.meatunion.org.nz/ is claiming that it’s still an incorporated society – someones house aint in order.

    Very sloppy.

    [do try to keep up, idiot. The Meat Union Aotearoa was its own union until recently, then became a branch of the Meatworkers. The law doesn’t require branches to be Incs. Eddie]

    • rosy 6.1
      12 April 2012 at 8:37 am

      I think you forgot the “New Zealand” bit at the front of the name when you entered your search term…. just sayin’ …

      • vidiot 6.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 9:01 am

        Edward – you might like to read the rules of ‘508904 – NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION INCORPORATED’ – branches are part of the same legal entity and as such all financial activity should be reported by the parent.

        Listening to the interview with the Affco guy last night – he indicated that all union fees were being paid to the same bank account, and that there was not one for each branch. If income is being received by MWUNZ and then being distributed to the branches, it needs to be reported on the financial statements.

        And picking up on the Aotearoa mugs – yes, the were struck off, yes, they fall under the other entity now – but why FFS are they still passing themselves off on their website as an INC SOC when they are clearly not ?

        btw – very original personal attack, did you come up with that or did you have to google it ?

        • ghostwhowalksnz 6.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 9:14 am

          You should make it your lifes work, the check all errors on web sites. Only 1 billion web sites left to go

        • Adele 6.1.1.2
          12 April 2012 at 5:48 pm

          The rules of the society govern how it collects and distributes its income. The capitation fees are a levy that each branch is required to pay to the Union based on the number of members belonging to the branch. This is the income being reported on in the Union’s annual accounts.

          The rest of the pūtea (money) collected by way of union dues belongs to the branch. There is no requirement within the rules of the Union for this income to be reported via the Union’s financial statements nor does it appear to be a matter of law for them to do so. The fact that the Union received an unqualified audit with their 2010 financial statements speaks to their financial integrity.

  7. Uturn 7
    12 April 2012 at 8:33 am

    So to sum up, Talleys and others have discovered that it costs money to run stuff and concluded that spending money to run stuff = fraud.

    I think NZ has a need for a Serious Morons Office. Then people who have swallowed their own gobshite could have their stomachs pumped and be placed in safe preventative care until their wits return.

    • Tiger Mountain 7.1
      12 April 2012 at 8:38 am

      Talley’s donations to the National Party and other tory slush funds are of way more interest to some of us than the financial affairs of a smallish union they are trying to bust.

  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    12 April 2012 at 8:34 am

    Excellent piece Eddie.

    Plus POAL have now revealed in a letter that they did supply the ‘dynamic duo’ with the private info on one member who dared to publicly criticise POAL.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10798285

  9. Rob 9
    12 April 2012 at 9:02 am

    Well this is obviously a very simple thing to explain.

    Lets see the P&L and balance sheets of the 4 regional offices. If that is where the lion share of the funds are , and they are transparent communinty based organisations then I am sure someone could probably post them up some time today.

    [how about I accuse you and your family of fraud? You can prove your innocence by opening up your private books. No? What have you got to hide?]

    • mickysavage 9.1
      12 April 2012 at 9:05 am

      And while we are at it let’s see Tally Group’s accounts and the credit card details for the owners.

      Typical Slater behavior, misunderstand reality and then get his minions to keep jumping up and down and say the same thing to create the illusion of a scandal.

      • Rob 9.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 9:26 am

        Obviously if you want to see Talley’s financial details then you need to ask them. 
        However the thrust of this post is that the financial management of the wider union organisation is all above board and that the confusion is due to a central head office recieving a small income from the branch offices which directly receives the members fees.  If the estimates of quite a few millions are correct then the branches should at least have some type of record.

        The easiest way to prove it is as you say it , all clean and above board, is to show the financials of the branches. 

        • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 10:50 am

          Talleys should prove that its not paying Lusk and Slater as hatchet men. Time for them all to open their books.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 9.2
      12 April 2012 at 9:07 am

      Wrong , they are PRIVATE organisations, just like National Party Inc.

    • Colonial Viper 9.3
      12 April 2012 at 9:25 am

      Wow Rob really doesn’t get how any of this works. He must be a high up Right Winger.

      • Rob 9.3.1
        12 April 2012 at 9:27 am

        No I actually dont get it CV, please explain it to me.

        • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 10:02 am

          My usual advisory rate is $600/hr, reductions for major engagements of up to 20%. Let me know how you want to pay.

          • insider 9.3.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 10:17 am

            Will a freshly skimmed credit card do?

            • ghostwhowalksnz 9.3.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 10:35 am

              Hes talking nonsense, if there was a market for his services at such exalted rates it would ‘per diem’.

              But the amount of time giving his pearls of wisdom here for free means there is more carpe and not much diem

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 April 2012 at 10:53 am

                Per diem rates are available for engagements of longer than 1 month duration. I assumed that Rob would be smart enough to pick up the basics in less than that time though.

                But the amount of time giving his pearls of wisdom here for free means there is more carpe and not much diem

                Come now, I am a socialist at heart, by my calculations I’ve already donated eight hundred thousand dollars of value to The Standard 🙂

    • Rob 9.4
      12 April 2012 at 12:32 pm

      I am not in the business of taking membership fees off 1,000’s of people every week.

      Accuse away, whoever you are.

      [lprent: It looks like it was Eddie being sloppy in responding to you on his post.

      But I suspect that you are simply being dim in not understanding the point that he made – which I notice that you didn’t address. He was talking about you opening up your accounts whenever a stupid idiot like Whale (or yourself) accuses you of a fantasy.

      But we can extend this out further following your ‘principles’. You obviously have syphilis because your brain appears to not work. I demand that you come and see my ‘independent’ doctor. Do it NOW! If you don’t then you’re obviously guilty of trying to infect innocent people by breathing on them….

      Ummm does sound like you. 😈 ]

      • Te Reo Putake 9.4.1
        12 April 2012 at 12:54 pm

        Neither is the MWU; they’re not a business.

        • felix 9.4.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 1:33 pm

          Sure does suck how those dastardly unions just “take” money off people though.

          How do they get away with it? If someone was reaching into my pocket and taking money every week against my will, I’d call the police.

  10. ghostwhowalksnz 10
    12 April 2012 at 9:05 am

    What about the Retail Meat Industry Training Organisation, previously known as the Retail meat Employers Organisation. Their financial statements are only updated to 2010.
    Not only that but they receive heaps of government money, most of which sits in the bank

  11. tsmithfield 11
    12 April 2012 at 9:06 am

    Eddie,

    I assume that if the fees have been collected by the governing body and then dispersed out, then there should be entries in the books disclosing the amounts transferred to the subsidiaries. If that is the case, then I don’t think the complaint will go very far. But if not, I would be asking some questions.

    Sorry, missed your point about the fees being collected by each branch individually, which would offer a complete explanation.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1
      12 April 2012 at 9:20 am

      What makes you think the fees are collected into one national account ?
      Ever heard of account suffixes ?

      • DavidW 11.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 9:45 am

        Can’t have it both ways ghostie. Either the “branches” are autonomous organisations which operate independantly of each other and of the national body, or they are effectively subdiivisions of a single organisation which is divisionalised for administrative purposes. If the former, it is unlikely that they would have a master bank account with different suffixes for each division/branch as but if it was the latter it is feasible and indeed likely as banks do group closely related bank accounts within an entity but generally won’t group entities under a single account.
        If it is the latter though, then there would naturally be consolidated accounts prepared in accordance with the financial reporting conventions in operation and indeed would be required to under the Incorporated Societies legislation.
        I still need to be convinced that there is no registration requirement for a union which undertakes the functions of a union and collects fees in return for representing the interests of its members. This is where the ghostie-preferred description of the structure naturally takes you. “Protest much too you methinks” rearrange to suit yourself.

  13. DavidW 13
    12 April 2012 at 10:15 am

    Surely there must be a lawyer here who can point us to that bit of the rules that exempts union branches from any accounting, registration or reporting requirements.

    Mickey, you listening?

    • Dave G 13.1
      12 April 2012 at 11:14 am

      Why would you need a lawyer, its simple, the unions have always made up their own rules.

      You see, under political donation rules, a political party need not declare donations under $1500…..

      So if a union has 20 branches, and each branch donates $1499, thats $29,980 the Labour party gets, from just one union that they DONT need to disclose, as they consider them separate entities.

      So, take 30 unions, all doing this from their (20) branch slush funds, thats $899,400 of potential donations to the labour party, and all under the radar and all undeclared.

      Perhaps this is why the “standard” and the unions are SO defensive. Time to call a mate at the electoral commission I think.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:29 am

        What about the National party and its branches, is the money raised by the branches included in the money raised by the head office?
        No, they only include money paid to the head office

        The local candidate returns show the head office address for money raised by the branch.

        And then there are the various ‘trusts’ controlled by National regional branches/covens/, what about them

      • mickysavage 13.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 11:58 am

        Over in RWNJ land the trade unions are all powerful and have money dripping from every orifice.  They fund the Labour Party so that it never has any financial needs and can continue in its work of creating a new communist nirvana where dissent is not tolerated and free speech is forbidden.

        Meanwhile the National party never receives any secret donations and has to get by with the profit of thousands of cake stalls run daily and supplied by MP’s grandmothers baking nonstop.

        This may be the reality in that dimension that is RWNJ land but it is no reality that I have ever seen. 

  14. Rosie 14
    12 April 2012 at 10:43 am

    Thanks to Eddie for a nice clear piece on Union structure and funds allocation. I hope Whaleoil reads it. I hope he also reads Anne’s wonderful repost on the daily mail article on the scientific proof of the link between Tories and intellectual retardation.So true! Lol.

  15. Dave G 15
    12 April 2012 at 11:00 am

    Whilst i don’t agree with your overly defensive view of the union finances and structures, you obviously believe, there is nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

    So, the unions, and their leaders will have NO PROBLEMS opening their doors, and their books to the government and the auditors.

    Suggest, when its all above board, the government and others apologize.

    But, if not, if there is found to be dodgy dealings, deceit, incorrect of fraudulent accounting, not following any rules, then I would expect, the union officials, leaders and their like, will all apologize and resign.

    I know that is unlikely to happen, as you say, they are all squeaky clean and this is a complete beat up.

    Come clean then – you have nothing to fear from an independent audit at all.

    PS: If the branches accounts are not incorporated, and therefore not REPORTED, then since you know what happens, tell us and all what does happen to the members money at the branches, is it treated like the funds in the HSU in aussie……. DO tell.

    • Colonial Viper 15.1
      12 April 2012 at 11:31 am

      Come clean then – you have nothing to fear from an independent audit at all.

      Hey as long as Talley’s and their Directors open their business and personal books up to scrutiny first, I’m sure it can be arranged.

      Fairs fair, right? 😀

      • DavidW 15.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 12:22 pm

        Holy shit Viper, you must have been a riot behind the bike sheds. You show me yours and I’ll …. Were they queueing up to get a peek?

    • Blue 15.2
      12 April 2012 at 11:43 am

      Seriously, get a life and move on. It is obvious to anyone with even half a brain at this point that Whaleoil has made an embarrassing mistake. Admit it, accept it, and get over it.

      Continually carping on just makes you look desperate, stupid and sad.

      Unions are private entities. They do not have any obligation to make their finances public just because some moron with a blog makes completely fabricated claims about them.

      I know it’s hard, and you might feel the need to cry into your pillow tonight about how unfair it all is, but that’s life, sunshine.

      You’re just going to have to find some other lies to tell this time.

      • Rob 15.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:54 am

        Then there is nothing to see here, move on…….until the members starting asking where has it all gone.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 15.2.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 12:25 pm

          Jeez, Rob, perhaps they could even, I dunno, elect the management by democratic vote or something. What part of “so ignorant and myopic you can’t even see the great big holes in your own world view” don’t you understand?

      • Jackal 15.2.2
        12 April 2012 at 12:06 pm

        +1 Even if an independent audit was required (which it isn’t) who is going to pay for it? You need to prove that there’s some fraud going on before government auditors are called in. All Slater has proven is that he’s an idiot who doesn’t understand basic things like depreciation.

    • McFlock 15.3
      12 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

      the “nothing to hide” argument is bunk, but now is used to justify nudey pics or intimate groping for everyone who wants to get on a plane in the US. 
         
      The fact that this is the best our local tories can come up with bodes well for the meatworkers. Just out of interest, does wasting the SFO’s time with bullshit complaints carry a penalty like wasting police time? 

      • Jackal 15.3.1
        12 April 2012 at 12:35 pm

        It’s not covered by the Serious Fraud Office Act 1990 and there isn’t any info on their website. It’s likely to be viewed as a civil matter between the Union and the complainant. Private litigation would only be worthwhile if some harm to the Union can be proven, which is unlikely being that only a very small minority of idiots will believe the muckraking.

    • lprent 15.4
      12 April 2012 at 12:21 pm

      Come clean then – you have nothing to fear from an independent audit at all.

      Perhaps you haven’t bothered to look at auditors on the accounts. Organisations including unions that receive and expend money have to have audited accounts. If no-one else (like members, shareholders, and the like) requires it, then the IRD does because they have to deal with the tax issues including the ubiquitous GST.

      By definition those auditors are independent.

      I guess that you are far more interested in having blind faith in your own personal myths than you are looking at the real world in NZ.

      You really are a bit of an idiot.

  16. Darien Fenton 16
    12 April 2012 at 11:28 am

    “Meanwhile, in a letter to the Maritime Union, the port has admitted leaking personal employment details of a wharfie who spoke to the media about the industrial dispute.

    The right-wing blog Whale Oil last month published details of Cecil Walker who was given nearly 21 weeks off work in 2007 and 2008 on full pay because his wife was terminally ill.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6729532/Union-says-Port-intimidating-wharfies

    • DavidW 16.1
      12 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

      And this relates to a discussion on union structure and finances exactly how Ms Fenton?

      • McFlock 16.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 12:51 pm

        It certainly goes towards the relationships between a certain cetacean and some larger employers…

      • Colonial Viper 16.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 2:33 pm

        Oh nothing much, it just makes the POAL, Whaleoil and co. look bad. and full of bad faith.

    • Balanced View 16.2
      12 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

      Very poor. POAL definitely stepped well over the line on this.
      In saying that, once in possession, I do not blame Whale for posting it’s details.

      • felix 16.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 1:50 pm

        Oh are we pretending it was a one-off, one-sided “leak” and not part of the ongoing work Slater was doing for the PoAl until they stiffed him on the last payment after his services failed to meet their expectations?

        Neat!

      • Colonial Viper 16.2.2
        12 April 2012 at 2:34 pm

        In saying that, once in possession, I do not blame Whale for posting it’s details.

        Yeah can’t blame him can you, he’s only the ‘trigger man’ after all.

        • Balanced View 16.2.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 2:50 pm

          He had information that debunked Walkers assertions that POAL didn’t look after it’s staff. Why shouldn’t he use it?
          But the real point is that he should NEVER have had the information.

          • Colonial Viper 16.2.2.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 3:12 pm

            yes because once someone puts the gun in your hands, its no problem to just pull the trigger.

            • Balanced View 16.2.2.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 3:22 pm

              Try to keep your analogies relevant. This is not even close to the same circumstances.

              • Te Reo Putake …
                12 April 2012 at 3:29 pm

                It’s a perfect anology, BV. POAL paid Slater to do their dirty work in the same way crims pay other crims to do theirs. POAL and Slater both willfully invaded the man’s privacy. And dragged his poor dead wife into as well. How low does Slater have to go before you’ll complain about him, fanboi?

                • Balanced View …
                  12 April 2012 at 3:37 pm

                  One is illegal, and one is not (so far). You can’t compare death to the release of a couple of annual leave stats. A bit of perspective please.
                  And as for fanboi, clearly you spend no time over there (not that I blame you). Whale is as blind and biased as most of the commentators and commenters here.

                  • felix …
                    12 April 2012 at 4:37 pm

                    “You can’t compare death to the release of a couple of annual leave stats.”

                    Of course you can, that’s how analogies work. You compare two very different situations (often the more apparently divergent the better), and you show that in spite of the bleeding obvious differences, the same logical analysis can be applied to both.

                    If you can get agreement on (a) and demonstrate a logical consistency between (a) and (b) then (a) can no longer be disputed on the basis of logic.

                    Of course that mightn’t stop you disputing it on some other basis.

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 5:01 pm

                      “the same logical analysis can be applied to both.”
                      Precisely. In the example above you couldn’t reasonably do so.

                    • felix …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:05 pm

                      Sure you can. One party is responsible for supplying something to a second party who uses it to inflict damage.

                      The argument is about who is responsible for the resulting damage.

                      That’s the analogy.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 10:01 am

                      lprent, your fury has impaired your ability to interpret my post. I was merely calculating the income of the “mythical worker” that Rosy had suggested Pearson had mentioned. And BTW, my calculations are right on the mark.

                      MUNZ missed an opportunity. Instead of originally calling the $91k figure “misinformation”, they should have placed some context around it. They should have pointed out that the figure includes benefits like superannuation and medical and they should have released what they thought was the median income. With well under half (122) earning above $80k I’m sure the median would be something around $70k.
                      Instead, they called it misinformation and attempted to pass off $56k as the wharfs income. As a result, a majority of the public believed the independent audit, and lost faith in what the union was saying.

                      But anyway, as I’ve stated above, individuals income is NOT what this is about, and clouds an already complex issue. Both parties are reasonably happy with the current wage. It’s also not about the workforce being poor workers, both parties recognize that the workers are good and skilled. This dispute is about flexible shifts, and it’s difficult to see how any amount of negotiation will find common ground on this.

                  • Te Reo Putake …
                    12 April 2012 at 5:06 pm

                    Both are illegal. One is a crime, the other is a civil matter. Try and get your head around the fact that this was a planned attack on a employee of POAL and the circumstances of his wife’s unfortunate death. It was a disgusting thing to do and you seem fine with Slater’s part in it, which gives the lie to your pretending you don’t approve of his site.

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 5:26 pm

                      Sorry, I will find it difficult to accept that this was disgusting. If you’re going to stand up to be a pillar of your cause, you must accept pot shots to come back at you. Cecil did go some way towards putting himself in this position. Whale, or anyone else, could have quite easily made the same assertions whether they had specific details or not. There were several other individuals who were aware and communicated (although not specifically) of the steps POAL had taken to look after Cecil and his wife through that awful time.
                      I personally have spoken to a MUNZ member who at the time expressed doubt over the wiseness of using Cecil in that way for this very reason.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      12 April 2012 at 5:48 pm

                      Well, yeah, I’m sure you don’t find it disgusting. Would never have doubted it, pal, empathy wouldn’t be your strong suit, after all.
                       
                      But this? This I doubt!
                       
                      “I personally have spoken to a MUNZ member who at the time expressed doubt over the wiseness of using Cecil in that way for this very reason.”
                       
                      Care to expand on this marvellous scene? A wharfie had a chat about tactics with you without spotting which side you’re on?

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:01 pm

                      And maybe this just proves that you’re as bigoted as those you castigate for the same thing.
                      His family are friends of ours. I am open about my views, he is open about his. It may even surprise you to know that our conversations on all things (aside from Rugby) are civilized. We understand each others views. Times have been immensely tough on him and his family, he is NOT one of the fortunate ones to be earning over $91k, and like most people, they are too proud to be accepting too much financial help and assistance from us and others. He resents that this has become a public affair, although understands why.
                      He also shares my view that new negotiation teams from both parties should take over.
                      And like I said, it was common knowledge that Cecil was well supported by POAL, thus why members of MUNZ were uneasy at him speaking publicly like he was asked to.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:21 pm

                      Nah, the bullshit detector is twitching again. If he’s your mate and you talked about the dispute, how come you still think $91k is an honest figure?
                       
                      And why would he need your charity? MUNZ had the finances well sussed, as he would have told you. If he existed.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:27 pm

                      He also shares my view that new negotiation teams from both parties should take over.

                      Wrong priorities; its executive management and the Board at POAL who need to be fired first.

                      Only then might it actually be helpful to bring on new negotiators.

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:30 pm

                      Te Reo Bigot
                      The $91k is an honest figure – as an average. Even Garry Parsloe admitted it TV.
                      Actually we haven’t spoken about the extent of union financial support. But based on what he’s said, and the worry written all over her face, I would suggest that they haven’t received any where near what they would have been getting had he been working the entire time.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      12 April 2012 at 6:57 pm

                      Oh go on, do supply the link to Parsloe saying that.
                       
                      And I’m guessing the ‘worried look on her face’ was Mrs Wharfie wondering how to exit your presence. If she existed, that is.

                    • felix …
                      14 April 2012 at 11:49 pm

                      Err no, you’re lying.

                      He said some people can earn that much but only if they work 16 hours a day.

                      Nothing to do with “average”. Pretty much the opposite of what you said. You really suck at this.

                    • Balanced View …
                      14 April 2012 at 11:58 pm

                      “I’m not saying the figure is incorrect, what some people are getting”
                      Garry Parsloe

                      How else do you interpret this?

                      What he was disagreeing with was the amount of hours worked to earn it.
                      Maybe it’s your ears that suck?

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:02 am

                      Ah I see, if you ignore the rest of the sentence where he says “but they’d be working 16 hour days”…

                      and pretend that he said something about that being the “average”…

                      then you could just about get to what you said. But it didn’t happen that way so it would be bullshit.

                      Are you so fucking thick you think no-one is going to bother watching the video so you can post the link and then just blatantly lie about it?

                    • McFlock …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:03 am

                      “some people” != “workforce average”.
                            
                      Unless you think the “average” wharfie works 16hr shifts.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:20 am

                      Felix – actually I hope everyone watches it (although I’m sure most have already). And there is no lie, it’s a direct quote.

                      What POAL sneakily did was to make the public believe that all wharfies were on at least 91k. Less than half earn that. But when you have individuals earning $120k it will push the average up.
                      MUNZ should have worked with it’s members to provide a median income out to the public if they wanted to provide context to those of us that believe the E&Y report.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:24 am

                      McFlock – by their own numbers, if a wharfie was working 16hour shifts 5 days a week he would be earning about $110k pa in wages alone

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:27 am

                      This is what you said:

                      “The $91k is an honest figure – as an average. Even Garry Parsloe admitted it TV.”

                      Where? He doesn’t say anything of the sort in the video you linked to.

                      Answer the fucking question. No more changing the subject. No more hypotheticals.

                      Quote or retraction.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:31 am

                      Debates are so much easier if I copy your style.
                        
                      Here’s a direct quote of what you said when you admitted being illiterate:

                      I hadn’t, and still haven’t read anything

                      And here’s where you admitted making self-contradictory statements

                      my comment was […] self-contradictory

                         
                      Nah, your rules suck. Although you said those things, it’s unfair to remove half a sentence or substitute it with fantasy.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:34 am

                      He asserted it by saying “I’m not saying the figure is incorrect, what some people are getting”

                      But don’t let yourself or anyone else be distracted by the amounts individuals get. This issue is NOT about that. Neither side had an issue with the hourly rate.

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:37 am

                      lolz McF.

                      The sad part is he thinks he’s getting away with some super clever moves. I don’t think he has any idea how transparent he is.

                      Oh and any minute now he’ll remember that this new character is supposed to be a bit “balanced” (oops) and he’ll get all conciliatory for a bit.

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:38 am

                      O my god, you’re still trying that?

                      Quote the whole sentence, dickhead.

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:45 am

                      Remember the thread the other night where BV said it doesn’t count as lying if you never admit to it?

                      What a tool.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:45 am

                      Sure Felix
                      “I’m not saying the figure is incorrect, what some people are getting, what I’m saying is that they’re having to work 16 hour shifts to get it”
                      See, doesn’t change anything

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:47 am

                      Did I really say that Felix?

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:48 am

                      “See, doesn’t change anything”

                      Yeah it does.

                      It makes a complete lie of everything you said about having a video of him admitting that 91k was the average.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 1:01 am

                      I comfortably stand by my assertion that Pearson “not saying the figure is incorrect” is actually accepting that $91k is the average.

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 1:04 am

                      …in spite of him definitely not saying it, and in fact indicating that it would not be the norm.

                      Got it.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 1:10 am

                      No-one suggested it was the norm. It is the average.
                      Got it yet?

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 1:14 am

                      Nah, that’s what you said.

                      And now you’re saying that anyone who doesn’t categorically deny that must be in total agreement with you.

                      You’re full of shit and terrible at hiding it.

                    • rosy …
                      15 April 2012 at 3:56 am

                      “The $91k is an honest figure – as an average. Even Garry Parsloe admitted it TV”
                      Nah BV, to paraphrase, he said a very few people, if they worked 16hrs days for 5 days a week, can earn a maximum [not average, or norm] of 91k.

                      He also said the negotiations to date has already reached agreement on ways to prevent this situation occurring.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 8:18 am

                      Rosy, if Garry was saying that then (and I don’t think he was) he would be lying. 16 hour days 5 days a week is about $110 k per year in salary only.

                    • lprent []
                      15 April 2012 at 8:51 am

                      What you are referring to is a mythical worker. Because taking your idiotic figures then what you are referring to is someone working for 52 weeks without holidays. They are doing this in one of the more dangerous jobs around NZ with heavy machinery flying everywhere.

                      Now even in my worst days as a workaholic I couldn’t do 16 hour days for more than a few weeks at a time, and that was sitting down writing code – hardly life threatening. In an industry like a port, you’d have OSH, ACC, the union, and even the EMA down on managers scheduling people for a year of 80 hour weeks because it is just too frigging dangerous.

                      Pasloe just said that it was possible that someone could earn large amounts of money doing back to back shifts. He didn’t say that anyone had done it. Exactly the same thing applies to workers in McDonalds if they are prepared to not sleep.

                      You really are a complete dork who clearly hasn’t ever worked extensive hours. You are trying to lie with numbers but clearly you are incompetent even at that. Your earlier comment stating that the mean was the max is pathetic.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      15 April 2012 at 8:35 am

                      Mate, its a bit rich you putting Parsloe and liar in the same sentence when the only liar here is you. What a shabby attempt at defending your BS this exchange has been. Why didn’t you just give up when you were behind? It would have been a little more dignified.

                    • Balanced View …
                      15 April 2012 at 10:04 am

                      lprent, your fury has impaired your ability to interpret my post. I was merely calculating the income of the “mythical worker” that Rosy had suggested Pearson had mentioned. And BTW, my calculations are right on the mark.

                      MUNZ missed an opportunity. Instead of originally calling the $91k figure “misinformation”, they should have placed some context around it. They should have pointed out that the figure includes benefits like superannuation and medical and they should have released what they thought was the median income. With well under half (122) earning above $80k I’m sure the median would be something around $70k.
                      Instead, they called it misinformation and attempted to pass off $56k as the wharfs income. As a result, a majority of the public believed the independent audit, and lost faith in what the union was saying.

                      But anyway, as I’ve stated above, individuals income is NOT what this is about, and clouds an already complex issue. Both parties are reasonably happy with the current wage. It’s also not about the workforce being poor workers, both parties recognize that the workers are good and skilled. This dispute is about flexible shifts, and it’s difficult to see how any amount of negotiation will find common ground on this.

                    • felix …
                      15 April 2012 at 12:38 pm

                      Oh ffs you idiot, you spent all night arguing that the 91k figure was an accurate honest example of a real average wage at the port.

                      You said it was so honest and accurate that the union agreed with it.

                      You even said you had a video of Parsloe agreeing that the figure was honest.

                      You’ve been found out lying about all of those things, and now you’re trying to pretend you were only talking hypothetically?

                      Keep digging, you’re putting on a good show.

                    • rosy …
                      15 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

                      “if Garry was saying that then (and I don’t think he was)
                      I think you didn’t look at your own link – and didn’t expect anyone else would either.

          • felix 16.2.2.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 3:15 pm

            Correct, they never should have hired him to disseminate their leaks.

  17. Kotahi Tane Huna 17
    12 April 2012 at 11:28 am

    Dave G, I’ve got a better idea – how about you take your whining and piss off, you fraudulent drug dealing criminal thug. What? You’re none of those things? Prove it by posting your last three months daily itinerary and all your bank statements and an accountant’s report on your finances. Now. What are you hiding?

    Or on the other hand, you dimwit loser, you could come to the understanding that other peoples’ private business is none of yours.

  18. DavidW 18
    12 April 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Interesting reading this thread through and looking at the source of the personal abuse and ad homs. Without doing a count-up the impression is that the ability to argue a point rather than play the man is a trait not common abong those defending the proposition.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 18.1
      12 April 2012 at 12:42 pm

      “Argue the point”? What “point”? There’s no point to be argued, the post at the top of the page makes that perfectly clear – Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater look like fools, an impression entirely and completely of their own making. Some sections of the media look like bigger fools for entertaining their witless garbage, and a few commenters here look like even more spectacular fools for digging an even bigger hole to mess themselves in.

      Perhaps there is an argument to be had about whether Slater/Lusks idiocy comes from malice or low intelligence or both, but really, who cares – they’re idiots and so is anyone who associates with or defends them.

      PS: or perhaps a discussion about how it is that right-wingers think they can promote hateful revolting destructive policies and still be well-liked.

    • Jackal 18.2
      12 April 2012 at 12:50 pm

      A repeat offender, who has misrepresented the facts again made the obviously bullshit “proposition”. The post itself outlines succinctly why the propaganda is false and a bit of ad hominem is par for the course when people display such stupidity in the blogosphere.

  19. Balanced View 19
    12 April 2012 at 12:36 pm

    I’m still uneasy about this, I feel something isn’t right here.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 19.1
      12 April 2012 at 12:48 pm

      I hope it gives you a stomach ache.

    • Vicky32 19.2
      12 April 2012 at 6:15 pm

      I’m still uneasy about this, I feel something isn’t right here.

      Nah, it’s too easy… You dropped yourself right in it, don’t you see? 😀

  20. Pascal's bookie 20
    12 April 2012 at 12:56 pm

    SFO has a fairly brief statement here:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1204/S00376/sfo-not-pursuing-complaint-against-meat-workers-union.htm

    For “brief”, read “terse”

    basically: “Oi Talleys, fuck off and stop wasting our time”.

    • Te Reo Putake 20.1
      12 April 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Hilarious! The SFO joins the MWU in the boning room to work on a rancid whale carcass. I hope that twit from AFFCO does the decent thing and resigns. What a farce!

    • McFlock 20.2
      12 April 2012 at 1:15 pm

      interesting that the SFO can evaluate a financial case so quickly, whereas the police take months over a recording where pretty much all the facts and witnesses are immediately known.

      • Balanced View 20.2.1
        12 April 2012 at 2:03 pm

        Completely different.
        And be careful in determining from this report that everything must be above board.

        • Te Reo Putake 20.2.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 2:15 pm

          Going on, do tell us why? After all, two organisations now have looked at the bogus claim and rejected it, but you’re still not satisfied. Love to know why 😉

          • Balanced View 20.2.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 3:48 pm

            Oh, I agree that the claim of fraud was bogus. Always was. But based on comments I’ve seen across several other sites by people that seem to know a whole lot more than I do, there seem to be some accounting and process anomalies.

            • McFlock 20.2.1.1.1.1
              12 April 2012 at 3:56 pm

              Well, that’s about as “balanced” as you can get – on the one hand admitting that the whale’s complaint was bogus, on the other hand casting innuendo about “anomalies”. 
                     
              Just goes to show how much of a moron the whale is, I guess – making bogus allegations when there are apparently perfectly good “anomalies” to make criminal complaints about.
                   
              What a load of crap. 

              • Balanced View …
                12 April 2012 at 4:04 pm

                Actually, I never saw the post that Whale referred to the union as being fraudulent. Can you link?
                And if I’m casting innuendo, I must be right at home in here.

                • McFlock …
                  12 April 2012 at 9:15 pm

                  That’s the sort of thing, chin up!
                  Show me where I used the word “fraudulent”. I merely regard the information in Eddie’s post as being consistent with prior verified behaviour. These days I avoid getting covered in – er – “oil”.

                  • Balanced View …
                    12 April 2012 at 9:34 pm

                    Yes, I generally walk away from there feeling icky also.
                    You may not have used the word fraudulent, but you did say he made allegations that were bogus. I don’t think I’ve read a post of his on this issue where he has made any allegations.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

                      Ahhhhhhhhhh.
                              
                      You’re working on the basis that, if Eddie’s post is accurate, that the WO comments about union discrepancies and the later Talleys complaint to SFO are completely coincidental and in no way causally related?
                          
                      I feel a duck analogy coming along…
                       
                       

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 10:13 pm

                      Causally? Eddie’s post clearly states that Whale advised Talleys to go to the SFO.
                      This is purely speculative.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2012 at 10:38 pm

                      So if there’s no allegation of “fraud” (maybe the Serious Fraud Office deal with things other than serious frauds and that is what the Talleys complaint was regarding), what “accounting and process anomalies” did you refer to?
                       

                    • Balanced View …
                      12 April 2012 at 10:47 pm

                      Tallies made the bogus fraud claims. Whale has merely been pointing out that the numbers don’t appear to be stacking up.
                      Others have noted that there could be possible reporting, structure, and tax anomalies.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 April 2012 at 10:54 pm

                      I haven’t seen any that stack up here. What specific allegations are you referring to? State them – and bear in mind I don’t do WO or KB without exceptional reason.
                          
                      Don’t hide behind “others” – you explicitly said “there seem to be some accounting and process anomalies”. Based on what others have said, yes, but you stated that there seem to be some anomalies. According to your balanced grasp of the issue, what anomalies seem to exist?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 April 2012 at 10:55 pm

                      Thanks for pointing out how the Tory Hater and Wrecker machinery works.

                    • Balanced View …
                      14 April 2012 at 12:26 am

                      Ummm, some of it detailed in this thread above. And this is another
                      http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/04/farrar-on-the-mwu-dodgy-books/
                      Unfortunately it is on WO so you”ll have to use or break your exceptional circumstance rule

                    • fender …
                      14 April 2012 at 12:52 am

                      Dont waste time posting adverts for your mate, with his never present credibility lost for ever, word has it WO is turning 100% gun porn.

                    • Balanced View …
                      14 April 2012 at 12:55 am

                      Actually, similar to here, most of the best content is in the comments

  21. Tiger Mountain 21
    12 April 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Well Eddie’s piece has certainly been effective judging by the mini torrent of tory turds appearing here today.

    The misinformation and bullyboy tactics used by would be union busters-Talley’s and POAL/ACIL are linked to Eddie’s factual report on the MWU because a common thread for months has been the use of ‘King o’ Sleaze’ Slaters blog as a conduit.

    • Te Reo Putake 21.1
      12 April 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Yep, just another failed divide and rule tactic. Funnily enough, I first heard this while on an MWU picket line yesterday. While some of the workers were concerned, most where asking what business it was of the company’s and why didn’t the boss understand the union structure? A couiple wanted to know how he got his job if he couldn’t read a balance sheet.
       
      The majority immediately recognised it as just another attack on them as workers and a few asked if it was actionable under the good faith provisions of the Act. Which I strongly suspect it is, as neither party is allowed to do things that undermine the authority or standing of the other party in the eyes of those they represent.

  22. Observer 22
    12 April 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Not being able to read numbers in a report is a bit of …. well, a handicap.

    Our poor old Treasurer has an appalling time with numbers – doesn’t he?

    Could it be that people with number difficulties tend to cluster? Should we reccommend group therapy for them?

    Whatever, we don’t need to smear them. They are putting the runny stuff all over themselves – more effectively than anyone else could possibly aspire towards.

  23. taylor 23
    12 April 2012 at 2:32 pm

    This is so funny. Whaleblubber truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

  24. sushi123 24
    12 April 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Beats me how Slater can walk around with all those bullet holes in his feet, or is he in a wheelchair.

  25. shorts 25
    12 April 2012 at 6:20 pm

    Slightly off topic: why are the holiday homes referred to as an “anachronism these days”

    I think them a wonderful thing for their members

    • Balanced View 25.1
      12 April 2012 at 6:25 pm

      True, members in need maybe? Whale ran some numbers off their own website which established that if shared evenly, they would only get one night every 21 years.
      And I don’t see why they should be “cheap”, they should be free seeing as they are paid for already by the members.

      • Te Reo Putake 25.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 6:30 pm

        Upkeep. Maintenance. Rates. Insurance. Idiot.
         
        ps, I thought you don’t hang with Cam? Did you get there by accident?

        • Balanced View 25.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 10:30 pm

          Ongoing dues should cover that.
          I bounce between both sites, amongst others. It’s how I get my balance 😉

          • Colonial Viper 25.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 10:41 pm

            It’s how I get my balance

            That word does not mean what you think it does.

          • McFlock 25.1.1.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 10:44 pm

            So you think that the folk who spend one night every 21 years should pay for the ongoing costs? Just to clarify.
                
            They’re a union, not c*mmunists – why shouldn’t folk who book ahead pay at cost the upkeep of a holiday home?
             
             

            • Balanced View 25.1.1.1.2.1
              12 April 2012 at 10:54 pm

              I’m not phased either way, but I figured that these assets would most likely, and quite rightly be used as “pick me ups” for members and their families that are going through tough times personally. With this in mind, I thought it might be nice for costs to be covered, just like the original purchase must have been.

              • McFlock …
                12 April 2012 at 11:01 pm

                Ah, so you were saying someone else “should” do something based on a pretty specific assumption for which you have no evidence whatsoever. Fair enough.
                     
                 

              • Colonial Viper …
                12 April 2012 at 11:01 pm

                What a sweet kind soul you have, moving really.

                • Balanced View …
                  12 April 2012 at 11:18 pm

                  Thanks Viper!
                  To be honest I’m very surprised you didn’t finish your sentence off with “moron” “dumbass” or “idiot”

                  • fender …
                    13 April 2012 at 12:50 am

                    You earnt those titles over your conference centre adverts.

                    You’re not a pimp are you? I heard they were rubbing their hands (and other things) together over the SkyCity Taxpayer Funded Conference Centre.

                  • felix …
                    13 April 2012 at 1:04 am

                    No need, you’ve demonstrated that yourself.

  26. fatty 26
    12 April 2012 at 6:32 pm

    cam is a fat sack of shit…his family must regret his existence

    IrishBill: Add to the debate or take a week off. Final warning

  27. Georgecom 27
    12 April 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Hoping the Whaleoils will run the Nats 2014 election campaign.

    Whaleoil goal keeper