Written By:
Eddie - Date published:
12:54 pm, March 23rd, 2012 - 5 comments
Categories: class war, wages -
Tags: editing the herald, ports of auckland
The Herald editorial says many “saw a more efficient and more flexible port emerging from” contracting out at PoAL. This is an oft-spouted fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. Contracting out would not reduce time or cost to move freight. It would just reduce the downtime the port pays for amounting to a simple transfer of wealth from wages to profits.
So the port is saying it wants to shift the risk of delays onto employees. Bad weather delays a ship until late and then the employees all get a call…
Sorry, but I’m still confused by the extension to the port that surely was a joke plan to get everyone up in arms. And then the inability of anyone to actually state clearly why employees, employers and ships cannot share the risk.
Shocked by many of the statements, like the port being more efficient when there is less work to do and so less clutter in the ports. Any business worth their value would not be making a claim like that, unless its position was already rather weak.
Look, all I can figure from the issue is that there must be other issues involved. The port is a heavy input hub for NZ and so having hot goods sitting on the dock isn’t good business, whereas Tauranga being more export orientated they maybe starting to see some of the burdens on employees now (as work has shifted to them).
So the Herald is more-or-less just running lines from Pearson.
Not so much – even granny is shocked by the way the management of PoAL has acted. Given teh Herald editorial is the voice of Auckland business I’d say that there are a lot of pissed-off port customers out there.
National are a far right party. They hate NZ unless your rich.
It is union busting pure and simple. Sack Pearson and the board.