The PoAL dispute and facilitation

Written By: - Date published: 6:43 pm, April 12th, 2012 - 114 comments
Categories: business - Tags: ,

Ports of Auckland management have called for facilitation, claiming the union won’t shift. By not shift they mean the union won’t sign up to a deal that allows the port to contract out whenever it likes.

This is an interesting situation. If it goes to facilitation an Employment Relations Authority member may be very reluctant to recommend a settlement with a no-contracting clause as that’ll be seen as interfering with management’s right to restructure their business. However if it looks like any settlement would be discarded for contracting immediately after it was signed there may be enough pressure on the authority to limit contracting in the settlement.

Of course a recommended settlement is non-binding but the next step is binding arbitration – that’s never been done under the Employment Relations Act. Usually what happens is the recommendation is accepted or a deal is struck before a settlement is recommended – that’s because a side that refuses a recommended settlement risks losing moral authority in the dispute. If I were MUNZ I’d accept facilitation but make it clear right from the start (and publicly) that they couldn’t accept a deal that didn’t exclude full-scale contracting as any such agreement wouldn’t be worth the paper it was printed on.

This is because if the union accepted a settlement with no contracting protections the company would then be free to contract out immediately and there would be no right to industrial action as such action is unlawful during the term of an agreement. Given the company’s recent behaviour I think it’s highly likely they’d sign and then restructure.

My instinct is that PoAL have been biding their time by pretending to bargain (known as surface bargaining) until they feel they can call for facilitation without being seen as the antagonising party. They’ll be betting on a weak authority recommendation in the hope that the union signs and they can then announce contracting out.

However I think that what will happen is either there will be a weak recommended settlement and the union members will refuse to sign (and why should they when such a deal would do them in?) or the authority member will put a no-contracting clause in the recommended settlement and the company will refuse to sign. I think the former is more likely than the latter.

If that happens and no deal is done outside of this process then the next step is arbitration (again, for the first time ever). I think it’ll go this way because while union members can’t afford to lose their jobs, the port management don’t care how much damage they do to the port so they’ve got no incentive to not let this play out all the way to the end.

If anything this dispute points to a flaw in the ERA in that the legislation relies on two parties to be restrained by self interest – workers don’t want to lose their jobs and employers don’t want to lose their business. Which means no matter how rough it gets there is always mutual self interest pushing the parties toward good faith bargaining. In this dispute the board and management don’t appear to have any care for the business whatsoever – which leaves them without any firm incentive to act in good faith. This would never have happened under the old arbitrated award system or alternately if the law included the right to take industrial action in response to contracting out.

114 comments on “The PoAL dispute and facilitation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Zetetic 1
    12 April 2012 at 7:07 pm

    Cheers for the hugely informative post. It’s interesting what you say about bargaining working basically on a version of the Mutuality Assured Destruction principle. And that only works as long as both sides have something to lose.

    Problem is, the port bosses have nothing to lose. If they continue to drive the port into the ground to the point where the council finally acts and sacks them, they’re already rich enough to survive the rest of their lives. And, anyway, it has been seen time and again that capitalism doesn’t weed out bad bosses -they will just get work elsewhere.

    So, it’s really up to the port owners, the ones who face the consequences of the dispute on the port side, to bring management into line and force an agreement the workers can support.

    • Tom Gould 1.1
      13 April 2012 at 9:15 am

      I would like to know why the people of Auckland are paying huge salaries to a bunch of commercial anachists to destroy the port company? Surely they are failing in their duties, as is the Board? This is far beyond the issue of ‘good faith bargaining’ or even industrial relations. These people appear to be on an ideological crusade involving comtempt for the law. They are completely out of control.

  2. Jenny 2
    12 April 2012 at 7:51 pm

    The Ports have a linked two part strategy

    1) Sign a collective agreement with the union.

    2) Lay off all the union members and replace them with contractors.

    This two part strategy is not unique, and the union have been informed by the experience of others about how this goes down.

    Mercury Energy, (previously Auckland Electric Power Board) used this exact strategy to de-unionise this once strongly unionised and well paid permanent workforce and transforming this workforce into low paid casuals, employed by sub contractors.

    In 1996 Mercury Energy signed a Collective agreement with their unionised workforce and then a week later laid them all off and replaced them with contractors.

    Which meant that they never needed to honour the collective agreement they had just signed.

    All perfectly legal. The kicker was that the union could do nothing about it, because once the collective is signed, under the Employment Relations Act their is no legal recourse and all industrial action is illegal.

    Of course in that case the power board workers had no idea of what their employer was up to.

    The Maritime Union on the other hand is well aware of the Port’s Plan to first tie their hands and them sack them all.

    This is why they will never agree to an agreement that allows the employer to get rid of the union.

    The Energy Workers Union no longer exists.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1
      12 April 2012 at 8:16 pm

      And in 1998 Auckland had its ‘big blackout’.
      Along with getting rid of the line workers they would have got rid of back office staff who planned the maintenance/ rebuilding of lines and cables.
      Enevitable result

      • Jenny 2.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 8:33 pm

        As you have guessed the two events were directly related. Many of the laid off unionists went to Australia, leaving Mercury Energy short of the experienced workers needed to upgrade and/or maintain the ageing system.

    • deuto 2.2
      12 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

      Jenny, thanks for that background on Mercury Energy – my current provider. I was not aware of this, but am pretty disgusted. While I have been reasonably satisfied with them over the last 16 months I have been with them, a high priority is now to find another provider.

    • marsman 2.3
      13 April 2012 at 10:17 am

      Jenny. I heard that the Auckland Electric Power Board had built up a reserve of funds in order to put all electricity lines underground, this fund was ‘disappeared’ with privatisation.

    • joe90 2.4
      13 April 2012 at 10:19 am

      The long time head of the Electrical Workers Union Tony Leary passed away in, I think, 1995 and and the union was left leaderless. The employers took their opportunity and went ahead with the mass redundancies of the mid 90’s with little or no resistance from the defunct union.

      • Jenny 2.4.1
        14 April 2012 at 8:23 am

        Joe 90, the ECA also had a lot to do the lack of resistance from the Union. The tactic employed by Mercury Energy was also applied by Telecom and other power boards, who represented most of this “defunct” union’s membership. For the union to take action after a collective agreement had been signed meant huge fines and even possible imprisonment for workers and union officials. (Strictures that were actually increased under the ERA)

        The echo of this industrial terror was referred to recently be Joe Fleetwood, who when workers at the Port of Wellington refused to work a ship loaded by scabs in Auckland as an act of solidarity, ordered them back to work saying that, “We are not in the business of seeing our members arrested.” The Wellington watersiders of course were still in a collective with the Port of Wellington.

        It is quite clear that the MUNZ would be better off having no collective with POAL, rather than agreeing to a collective that allows the Port to bind their hands while they sack them all.

        This means that while POAL keep to their demand to sack all MUNZ members and replace them with contractors, there will be no collective agreement and no end to industrial disruption at the Port of Auckland any time soon.

        • KJT 2.4.1.1
          14 April 2012 at 8:55 am

          People forget that since the ECA, almost all industrial action is illegal.

          Made illegal by the same people who carp on about individual freedom. Of course that only applies to THEIR freedom to steal from the majority.

          Samul Parnell and the carpenters withdrawal of labour/collusion for a 40 hour week would be illegal today.

    • aspasia 2.5
      14 April 2012 at 3:25 pm

      In 1996 any union was unable to do anything about it under the Employment Contracts Act. Under the current Employment Relations Act the parties to a collective agreement have good faith duties. MUNZ have already successfully challenged this type of bad faith behaviour by the employer. In 2009 a collective agreement was concluded incorporating changes in workplace practices to give the employer greater flexibility. Shortly after this the Port Company tried to spring changes on the workforce about the way it used fixed term employees. Presumably the employer thought it was safe to do so because industrial action was not possible. The Employment Court ruled that the particular individual fixed term agreements were incompatible with the collective and therefore illegal. It also held that the employer had breached its good faith duties by not bringing up these proposed changes in negotiating the collective and then not consulting the union about the changes when it did try to implement them. So now in 2012 the employer is trying to make the changes during negotiations for the collective agreement.

      The link to the decision is below and the part of the judgment relevant to good faith starts at paragraph 72.

      Maritime Union of New Zealand Inc v Ports of Auckland Limited [2010] NZ EmpC 32
      http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/employment-court/documents/2010-%20NZEmpC%2032%20MUNZ%20v%20Ports%20of%20Auckland.pdf/view?searchterm=ports%20of%20auckland

  3. Robert Winter 3
    12 April 2012 at 8:20 pm

    The relevant section covering the fixing of provisions by the Authority requires evidence of a serious and sustained breach of good faith, which remains to be established (even if it looks to be obvious). 50J3 must also be met. It is not clear to me that a move to fixing will automatically follow.

    • IrishBill 3.1
      12 April 2012 at 9:01 pm

      I don’t think there will be any problem reaching the threshold.

      • burt 3.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:05 pm

        IrishBill

        It’s lawyer v lawyer now… fantastic position the union has managed to get the workers into eh.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 11:07 pm

          An inch from slicing open the Board and the Executive Management of POAL.

          • burt 3.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 11:12 pm

            Sure CV, that’s your take. Perhaps you are right.

            What are you going to be saying if it comes down to bad luck union, POAL played the game squarely enough and now 300 people are applying for jobs after no pay for 7+ weeks ?

            What sort of collective responsibility (political agenda) risks so much hardship for so many?

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2012 at 12:11 am

              Smash the Board. One goes, they all go. That’s ‘collective responsibility’. Replace them with a Workers’ Council. Would save many millions a year too.

              • burt …
                13 April 2012 at 7:47 pm

                That’s the spirit CV, tell us again about good faith bargaining and how important it is.

  4. fender 4
    12 April 2012 at 9:46 pm

    Disgusting to see PoAL imply Union members need the standover “security” guards and camera surveillance as if they are some kind of danger. Intimidating tactics from this out of control management.

    With a management trying so hard to lose so much money, it makes no sence that they havnt been fired.

    Good to see Garry Parsloe name the tyrant that inspired these hollow parasites.

    • burt 4.1
      12 April 2012 at 11:04 pm

      Disgusting to see PoAL imply Union members need the standover “security” guards and camera surveillance as if they are some kind of danger.

      For sure, everyone who has gone up against the picket line in the last few months are just wimps ! What fools they were being scared of the thugs that determine who should and who should not be allowed to earn a living and what the terms must be to do so.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        12 April 2012 at 11:12 pm

        What fools they were being scared of the thugs that determine who should and who should not be allowed to earn a living and what the terms must be to do so.

        Why are you talking about the POAL CEO and Board like that? I thought you were on their side.

        • burt 4.1.1.1
          12 April 2012 at 11:17 pm

          If you though I had a side at all then you are wrong. In my world the parasite nature of unions puts them in the wrong but the reality is that apparently 300 people have voted to take no job over the job offered by POAL. Good luck to them in standing on their principles – they are brave people that are prepared to be out of work to keep the union representatives employed.

          • fender 4.1.1.1.1
            12 April 2012 at 11:31 pm

            Without their Union to back them up these workers would have already been shat on. The workers are the Union and they fund the people they need to protect them from assholes. Do you get it Burt? Ernie understands these simple ideas.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.2
            12 April 2012 at 11:35 pm

            but the reality is that apparently 300 people have voted to take no job over the demeaning, insulting crumbs offered by POAL.

            Yeah and it burns your ass that workers stood up for themselves. Get used to the rash.

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.1.3
            13 April 2012 at 12:54 am

            If you though I had a side at all then you are wrong.

            You have a side that you’re on – it’s the side of the parasitical rich pricks that would have 99% of the population in poverty just as they did 500 years ago. The side that the board of PoAL represent.

          • sushi123 4.1.1.1.4
            13 April 2012 at 10:39 am

            This statement you have made just shows you have taken sides. Grow up

            • burt 4.1.1.1.4.1
              13 April 2012 at 7:55 pm

              I disagree, I don’t agree with union tactics or the way they donate hard earned workers money to political parties.

              More specifically, In my world the parasite nature of political party affiliated unions puts them in the wrong.

              I strongly disagree with unconditional support for political parties in any worker funded employment agent/advocate. I guess simplistically I don’t want my donations to a political party dictated by either formal affiliation or the tyranny of the majority.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 April 2012 at 9:24 pm

                Fuck, you’re an idiot. The unions don’t support political parties without the say so of the workers.

                I don’t agree with union tactics…

                But you’re fine with the aggressive tactics of the PoAL board.

                There is no such thing as tyranny of the majority. You can only ever have the tyranny of the minority and they’re always the people who think that they’ve been born to rule – the rich.

          • muzza 4.1.1.1.5
            13 April 2012 at 11:00 am

            What industry do you work in Burt? You seem to have a view which indicates some previous damage to your psyche, and your attitude towards other workers is poor!

            • burt 4.1.1.1.5.1
              13 April 2012 at 6:32 pm

              Nothing wrong with my attitude to workers muzza. If they don’t want the job under the terms on offer then they have every right to say ‘fuck you’ to the company and walk out. Good on them for doing that.

              I think anyone who’s prepared to walk away from a job when they can’t dictate the terms they work under is entitled to do so. Being able to withdraw your labour is a basic human right.

              Why do you think I have a poor attitude towards workers? Is it because I don’t condemn POAL for wanting to change the terms?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 April 2012 at 9:26 pm

                Being able to withdraw your labour is a basic human right.

                So, would you be happy to pay enough taxes to ensure that those workers who do withdraw their work because they’re not getting decent wages/work conditions still have a decent living standard?

                • burt …
                  13 April 2012 at 11:25 pm

                  Do I seem like someone who wants to pretend socialism works even when it’s always failed everywhere it has ever been tried.

                  • KJT …
                    14 April 2012 at 8:07 am

                    Hey Dipshit.

                    Countries where socialism has worked.

                    The USA, before 1970.
                    NZ before 1984.
                    Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, France, Denmark, Finland etc.

                    More recently.

                    Argentina, Brazil.

                    Countries that have gone downhill by all indicators, including the capitalists own ones such as GDP and credit ratings, since heading towards Neo-Liberalism.
                    NZ, USA, Ireland, Greece, Italy, The UK. etc..

                    Countries where neo-Liberal capitalism has worked.

                    ——-

                    • burt …
                      14 April 2012 at 11:48 am

                      The accuracy of your answer is told by this;

                      NZ before 1984.

                      The changes made by the Labour government in 1984 were because the NZ economy was totally rooted. Import tariffs were protecting local industry and NZ was paying ridiculous prices for good just to pretend local manufacturers were efficient.

                      You are so full of shit if you think NZ had a strong economy in 1984.

                    • KJT …
                      14 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

                      Fucked by Muldoon borrowing for election bribes, for farmers, in a few short years.

                      Sound like deja-vue at the moment.

                      Not as totally fucked as we have been since by the first ACT Government and their successors.

                      Your alternative delusional universe where Neo-Liberalism works. Because it certainly does not in this one.

                      Funny how delusional fuckwits like you seem to able able to ignore all the evidence that your worldview is crap without tripping over your own cognitive dissonance.

                      Mind you, It has now been proven that you twits suffer from low intelligence and inability to comprehend reality.

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/conservative-politics-low-effort-thinking_n_1410448.html?ref=mostpopular.

                    • burt …
                      14 April 2012 at 12:34 pm

                      Fucked by Muldoon borrowing for election bribes

                      Yes socialism under a blue flag fails just as badly as socialism under a red flag.

                    • KJT …
                      14 April 2012 at 1:00 pm

                      Capitalism had to be bailed out by the socialists yet again. Fixed it for you!

                    • burt …
                      14 April 2012 at 1:01 pm

                      Funny how delusional fuckwits like you seem to able able to ignore all the evidence that your worldview is crap

                      Coming from someone who said NZ was in good shape going into 1984 – this is priceless.

                      Did you forget that Muldoon was more socialist than Labour are today ?

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    14 April 2012 at 1:24 pm

                    Ah, right, so when you say “Being able to withdraw your labour is a basic human right” what you actually mean is that people don’t have that right because if you meant what you said then you would be willing to support it.

              • muzza …
                14 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

                Burt it reads like you have a bad attitude towards workers because your words indicate you are happy with the way they have been treated by PoAL management, when you have little if any idea of the governing documents which PoAL board are meant to play by. So alongg with your implied support of PoAL to simply change the conditions, which not only looks to have broken various employment laws (leave that to the courts though), but the so called governing documents which are dicatetd to by the Auckland COuncil who 100% owns the Port of behalf of all Aucklanders..

                Oh and capitalism has clearly failed in every country is now been tried in, so what happens next Burt?

                What will happen when the cities and country we live in start to suffer even more so then currently due to the increased negative effects of the system your words indicate you are in favour of!

                It is the right of people to have a job, which allows them to survive under this shit capitalist model, even though the capitalists believe otherwise, and if the private sector has failed to protect it, the public sector bloody well should!

                • burt …
                  14 April 2012 at 1:09 pm

                  muzza

                  So a job is for life and the company needs to just keep everything the same for ever because it’s not fair when the world changes….

                  Is that the crux of what you think defines a good attitude to workers ?

                  • muzza …
                    14 April 2012 at 1:19 pm

                    Burt, The Port is a Public Benefit Entity (PBE) as defined by the classification of the ACIL, in which PoAL resides…

                    The Port is NOT a private or listed company it is 100% owned by Aucklanders, not just ratepayers, all Aucklanders. The Auckland Council (apparantly) works for all aucklanders, not just ratepayers..Although the agendas inside the councillors are obvious from communications, as is the ACIL/PoAL boards formations thanks to The National Government, via fall guy idiot Rodney Hyde!

                    Do you see the difference from your argument yet? Please dont come back with some lame dialogue about rates, and overpaid warfies, and duty to Aucklanders to keep the costs down to provide a “better” return for the city, or talk about productivity which is 100% not relevant, because the clue I gave you was PBE!

                    And yeah actually , jobs for life with some long term security would be a fantastic thing for societies well being….Sadly the monetisation of every commodity going, and the totally rigged gaming systems, courtesy of the capitalist play book, has removed this by pitting every one of us against eachother for the resources which we all intrinsically owned, by virtue of being here!
                    This very battle is deliberate to make sure we are not looking at the crooks who run the system, well mate, that is changing rapidly!

                    You might think you are comfortably out of harms way, but I can assure you , you are not any more safely positioned than the rest of us!

                    Your thinking is limited isn’t it!

                    • burt …
                      14 April 2012 at 2:59 pm

                      And yeah actually , jobs for life with some long term security would be a fantastic thing for societies well being….

                      Yeah, work today isn’t like the good old days eh muzza.

      • fender 4.1.2
        12 April 2012 at 11:22 pm

        Oh yeah all those violent incidents, remind us again will you, didnt someone get yelled at, was it ernie or did he get his car blown up.

        All these guys want is their job ffs. They are not terrorists, that would be the management; commiting financial terrorism on the Auck ratepayers and bussiness community.

        • burt 4.1.2.1
          12 April 2012 at 11:25 pm

          OK so now the unions supporters want to define what is and what isn’t a valid security concern for non union workers. Keep it up fender – remind us how you set the terms while you tell us what they are.

        • burt 4.1.2.2
          12 April 2012 at 11:29 pm

          commiting financial terrorism on the Auck ratepayers and bussiness community.

          Right… tell us again how its enshrined validly in law that the union can use that cost in negotiations but that it’s wrong wrong wrong when POAL do the same… Oh yes we get it – it’s OK when your team do it.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.2.1
            12 April 2012 at 11:33 pm

            Oh yes we get it – it’s OK when your team do it.

            Yep. Get used to it.

          • fender 4.1.2.2.2
            12 April 2012 at 11:40 pm

            As a last resort when there is no other option. But PoAL want to drag this out, waste money on Urewera style spying, and treat skilled workers like criminals.

            • burt 4.1.2.2.2.1
              13 April 2012 at 7:42 pm

              fender

              As a last resort when there is no other option.

              Can you please clarify what you are saying here?

              I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of days the port has been shutdown over say the last 20 years to get a ratio of strike days v lockout days?

              For the record, I don’t think it’s a valid negotiation chip to use but I understand it’s very effective in extreme situations. Unfortunately though, even if employment law is well tipped in favour of the unions I don’t think it is reasonable to remove the right of companies to ‘lockout’ while unions have the ‘strike’ card.

              Counting the costs and throwing it into the media when the company is causing the downtime seems like a stupid thing to do as my perspective is that strikes are a lot more common than lockouts.

              • fender …
                13 April 2012 at 7:57 pm

                Im saying its not an action taken lightly, but when a power crazed management treat their staff like shit the workers withdraw their labor in protest.

                “employment law is well tipped in favour of the unions” explains your distaste for workers who say no to being fucked over by over-paid parasites who swim in money they dont really deserve.

  5. Balanced View 5
    12 April 2012 at 11:38 pm

    I wonder if there’s a camera near the BBQ?

    • fender 5.1
      12 April 2012 at 11:43 pm

      Oh theres bound to be, so Gibson can sit in his office drinking his own urine waiting for his fantasy to be realised, so he can watch it over and over on the screen.

      • Rodel 5.1.1
        13 April 2012 at 10:55 am

        fender
        If it’s true that Gibson gets $750,000 a year for say 60 hours a week for 50 weeks a year, at the same time he sits in his office he’d be able to enjoy his $250 an hour watching his workers on basic $27 an hour.

    • felix 5.2
      13 April 2012 at 1:05 am

      Why don’t you ask your imaginary friend who works there?

  6. Balanced View 6
    12 April 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Hard to argue that facilitation isn’t the right course of action and isn’t long overdue.
    This is a true stalemate, no point in fluffing around going through the motions. This needs to be progressed.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      13 April 2012 at 12:09 am

      A false peace offering from POAL

      Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes – I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts.

  7. Jenny 7
    13 April 2012 at 6:32 am

    Cameras in the cabs of straddles?

    What’s this about other than intimidation?

    Straddles already have computers and touch screens in their cabs that monitor every operation and set the tasks for the operators. Not only this but the wharves are already videoed, so the control room can see the location of the straddles at any time.

    • james 111 7.1
      13 April 2012 at 7:11 am

      Jenny if you can’t work them and don’t look pretty maybe you shouldnt be in the cab then. I wouldn’t think evil employer straight away as you do. I believe it’s all to do with work place safety something the union is obviously very concerned about . As it released those very libelous accusations about POT which were proved to be slanted lies to the max

  8. james 111 8
    13 April 2012 at 7:07 am

    What would be a good move for POAL is to win the right to keep contracting as an option. This means they can restructure as they please.
    They then can move some of the Full time workers into part time postions ,and start building up their contracting base.

    This would be a slower way to intergrate their new systems to obtain productivity parity with Tauranga. However the Public may see a better return to Auckland rate payers than 2.2% which is simply appalling when compared with POT return to its rate payers of 18%. Auckland rate payers are being ripped off on a huge assett that is under performing in economic terms

    • framu 8.1
      13 April 2012 at 7:30 am

      youve been told, and shown that your figures on this are wrong.

      why are you repeating them?

      • james 111 8.1.1
        13 April 2012 at 7:34 am

        Framu those are the figures posted by Gaynor they are correct on a return basis to the rate payers of each city. There is no hiding from the poor performance of POAL profit doesnt even cover the cost of funds employed to run the business

        • framu 8.1.1.1
          13 April 2012 at 7:43 am

          feck james – i cant be arsed finding the relevant thread – but this was hashed out at some length a while back.

          you were shown that 1) your couldnt add very well and 2) you were missing a few key points.

          remember the bit from gaynor about contractor cost not being included?

          • james 111 8.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2012 at 8:05 am

            Framu
            The profit has benn published by POAL the cost of funds employed in the buisness has been published in the annual report , and as Gaynor quite correctly points out the cost of financing the funds employed in the business isnt covered by the pityful porofit result. There is no disputing those figures they are published in the annual report.

    • Zetetic 8.2
      13 April 2012 at 7:33 am

      “what would be a good move would be to win”. – great strategic insight there, james.

      Considering management has already spent over 6 times the annual savings it optimistically hopes to realise from contracting out, and has incurred permanent losses too, it’ll be a cold day in hell before this exercise turns out to have been a moneywinner for the Port.

  9. Matthew Hooton 9
    13 April 2012 at 7:27 am

    “In this dispute the board and management don’t appear to have any care for the business whatsoever – which leaves them without any firm incentive to act in good faith.”

    There’s something in what you say. If this company was still listed on the sharemarket, with even 10-15% of the shares owned by funds and other investors (as it was before Mike Lee decided to waste ratepayers money buying out the minority interests), with a falling shareprice every day as the dispute dragged on, I bet it would have been resolved by now. As it is, the board are political appointments, don’t own any shares themselves, and therefore act more like politicians themselves – and don’t even have to answer to anyone in public, especially given the Labour Party mayor seems to be in their pocket.

    • james 111 9.1
      13 April 2012 at 7:32 am

      Mathew totally agree this company starting going to the dogs under the watch of Mike Lee. Another clear case where people who have very open and clear political agenda, should have no control of the strategic direction of a company ,because in this case they obviously arent going in the same direction . What we have is a basket case now and a underperfoming assett for all Auckland rate payers.

      • framu 9.1.1
        13 April 2012 at 7:46 am

        “people who have very open and clear political agenda, should have no control of the strategic direction of a company”

        you mean the POAL board, rodney hide, act and national dont you?

    • Zetetic 9.2
      13 April 2012 at 7:34 am

      I see what you did there, Matthew.

      Or, or, the council and ACIL could do their fucken jobs as guardians of public assets and sack the PoAL board for incompetence.

      • james 111 9.2.1
        13 April 2012 at 7:39 am

        Zetic
        Or you could say its just another case that has been proven all over the world where Governments or Local Governments can’t run companies. They have no idea of cost control, and can’t compete against companies that don’t have any political agenda ,but are focussed only on delivering a good product or service for the minimum cost and returning a good dividend to the shareholders

        • mickysavage 9.2.1.1
          13 April 2012 at 7:52 am

          Yep in NZ the public sector have never built or run anything properly.

          Although I guess there are the schools, and there is the health system and a number of hospitals, and there is the power grid and most of the hydro dams were built by the Ministry of Works and I guess the Government runs and controls the motorways, and there are libraries and pools and there is the telecommunications system most of which was built when Telecom was a public entity and there are the water and sewerage systems and … and … and … and …

          • framu 9.2.1.1.1
            13 April 2012 at 7:55 am

            and lets not forget BNZ and AIR NZ which had to be bailed out.

            • james 111 9.2.1.1.1.1
              13 April 2012 at 8:11 am

              BNZ bailed out with 1.8 billion form the taxy payer as they were going down the gurgler. Air nz bail was similar just reinforces my point thanks for those examples

          • james 111 9.2.1.1.2
            13 April 2012 at 8:09 am

            Micky
            Yes all social services that generally blow out on their budgets at a cost to the tax payer, and they aren’t competing with other companies on a level playing field. It’s that horrible word competition when government-run companies find they can’t foot it with private sector companies on a level playing field that is where they come undone

            • framu 9.2.1.1.2.1
              13 April 2012 at 8:11 am

              “when government-run companies find they can’t foot it with private sector ”

              like ACC?

            • mickysavage 9.2.1.1.2.2
              13 April 2012 at 8:16 am

              So tell me about the dams james, and while you are at it the ports and the airports, all constructed by public entities.  

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 April 2012 at 9:48 am

                james is delusional. Listen up james, you’re just a tool to your corporate masters, do you enjoy being a tool?

              • james 111 …
                13 April 2012 at 10:00 am

                Micky
                Dams such as Manapouri and other dams were built at the time because New Zealand obviously needed power. Only the Government could raise the funds because they were taking a long term view at that stage. They have never directly competed with a privately owned dam right next door to them. With a guaranteed customer base. So hardly a worthwhile comparison is it. Where is the competitor airport to Auckland airport in Auckland, hardly a worthwhile comparison they have a captive customer. POAL well that’s a basket case on return to investors ,and cant foot it with its nearest competitor. So what you are saying to me is these companies can only compete where they have no direct competitor (like POT) or a totally captive customer base other wise they don’t compete to well with private sector companies I agree with that

                • framu …
                  13 April 2012 at 10:05 am

                  you keep shifting the goal posts of your argument james

                  • james 111 …
                    13 April 2012 at 10:07 am

                    No just addressing his points with facts

                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …
                      13 April 2012 at 10:13 am

                      No. Your entire bullshit argument has been shot down in flames, again. You’ve been shown up as ignorant and deluded so many times we’ve all lost count.

                      You must be getting to the point where your fingers are starting to feel humiliated at having to type this crap.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  13 April 2012 at 10:30 am

                  Competition increases costs by forcing duplication of infrastructure and overheads.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 9.3
      13 April 2012 at 9:14 am

      Gee all those privately owned finance companies that failed.

      Lord Montrose famous last words were – It was nothing to do with me”, even though he was the Chairman

      And how many billions has Telecom lost in bad investments in Australia and XT here. Or the Warehouse , or Pumpkin Patch.

      • Colonial Viper 9.3.1
        13 April 2012 at 9:34 am

        NZers suck at business across the tasman. But just look at Just Jeans, JB Hi Fi and Supre. They all seem to do just fine over here.

        The level of business acumen in this country is pathetic.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      13 April 2012 at 9:32 pm

      Ah, the totally fictitious BS about owners caring. Look up the Love Canal and get back to me about that.

  10. joe90 10
    13 April 2012 at 10:25 am

    Can wee Jimmy remind us how many power stations his beloved market has planned, financed and constructed.

    • james 111 10.1
      13 April 2012 at 10:57 am

      Joe most of the private attempts to build power stations have been stopped dead in their tracks by the snail loving greens. Who want us to revert to wind power. Which is being proven as one of the most costly ways to generate power aside from the visual pollution it creates.

      • mickysavage 10.1.1
        13 April 2012 at 11:28 am

        Um James you did not answer the question.  How many of NZ’s power companies were built by private enterprize and not the Government?

        • james 111 10.1.1.1
          13 April 2012 at 11:39 am

          Mickey answer is below they cant build them because the Socialists try to stop them every step of the way through the environment court. They have no mandate for private companies to be successful. I am a firm advocate that if a protestor lodges a complaint with the environment court ,and it found to be fictious as many of them are they should pay money to the company trying to get it through . This would halt a lot of the Green party apologists laying these complaints in the first place.

          • framu 10.1.1.1.1
            13 April 2012 at 11:43 am

            “the Socialists try to stop them”

            before it was greenies – do you even know what youve got a problem with?

          • mickysavage 10.1.1.1.2
            13 April 2012 at 12:04 pm

            Um the answer I think james3 is “all of them”.
             
            Tell me do you really believe the tosh you are saying or are you just trying to stir?

    • joe90 10.2
      13 April 2012 at 11:03 am

      Which attempts?.

      • james 111 10.2.1
        13 April 2012 at 11:17 am

        Joe
        Try this link probably all of your mates Forest & Bird Green Party . The oppose everything that is put up they are natural protestors and want to halt progress in the country. If you want more can give it to you. They are also opposing tide power in the Kaipara Harbour etc

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/593654/Groups-vow-to-halt-dam

        • framu 10.2.1.1
          13 April 2012 at 11:40 am

          communists – you forgot communists. probably lesbians too

          also it would help that when making efforts to prove that you dont know what your talking about you could use a literate sentence structure

        • joe90 10.2.1.2
          13 April 2012 at 11:49 am

          Mickey answer is below they cant build them because the Socialists try to stop them every step of the way through the environment court.

          Sigh, another half witted statement fresh off the interwebs parroted by a stupid prick who’s never had a thought of his own.

      • joe90 10.2.2
        13 April 2012 at 11:41 am

        .One four year old article about one proposal, is that the best you can do?.
        And how the fuck can West Coast Whitebaiters’ Association, the New Zealand Rafting Association and the New Zealand Recreational Canoeing Association, among others, be snail loving greens.

        But if you had a clue you’d know that every power plant capable of generating more than ½ a megawatt has been planned, financed and constructed by either taxpayers or, in the case of power board assets, consumers.

        • james 111 10.2.2.1
          13 April 2012 at 11:47 am

          Joe do you realise how much works goes into lodging an environment application .It cost Merdian over $30 million dollars for the Waitaki scheme. Only to be stopped by your mates. Of course none have been built by private companies yet.

          As Labour and the Greens have no mandate to let them succeed. That is why the state has to build them and put them into partial private partnerships in the fututre so we can get them built. Then let them be run effectively. Otherwise we wil lrun out of power as your lot try to stop everything

          • Uturn 10.2.2.1.1
            13 April 2012 at 12:01 pm

            “Only to be stopped by your mates. ”

            It’s getting so bad that a man with $30m can’t be sure of getting his way anymore! What with all the power generation companies being closed down by Labour and the Greens, it’ll be total blackout by Saturday!

          • hateatea 10.2.2.1.2
            13 April 2012 at 4:30 pm

            James 111, why do we need more hydro electric stations at all? If all houses were retrofitted with solar heating and solar power while all new commercial buildings were also required to be as energy efficient as possible, more electricity would be released for manufacturing and other commercial enterprises. Will it happen? Not if nitwits like you get to make all the decisions anyway.

          • Colonial Viper 10.2.2.1.3
            13 April 2012 at 4:52 pm

            It cost Merdian over $30 million dollars for the Waitaki scheme.

            Cost of doing business buddy.

            And that money circulates in Govt. So whats the problem? Its not like you’re a profit hungry fucking private shareholder of Meridian now, are you so what do you care?

          • Draco T Bastard 10.2.2.1.4
            13 April 2012 at 9:47 pm

            Oh noes, an unsustainable hydro project got stopped.

            /sarc

        • joe90 10.2.2.2
          13 April 2012 at 1:20 pm

          Lots of bluster about how the (k)nobles plans are stymied but still no examples of the private sector investing in new generation.

        • joe90 10.2.2.3
          13 April 2012 at 3:04 pm

          They certainly would if they were allowed

          Who wasn’t allowed?.

          And apart from a four year old news article, an assertion that the environment court ruled against a project just because and your would have could have clairvoyant insight you have absolutely no evidence that the market has contributed anything to the generation capacity of the nation.

          So I’ll double down on my earlier observation, that you have a thing about rich peoples bottoms, and say that you’re another dumb as a post shill who religiously laps up the daily dose that spills over your knuckles.

  11. hateatea 11
    13 April 2012 at 4:22 pm

    Name the private dams that existed at the time Manapouri was built, James 111? You don’t know? What a surprise. There has only ever been a small number, mostly very small, private ones for local communities or private homes / farms.

    I really think that you need to better inform yourself before spewing your malformed opinions in public. Of course, as I am amongst the perceived enemy, you will doubtless ignore my advice

  12. Jenny 12
    16 April 2012 at 6:47 pm

    Talk about a Freudian Slip:

    Ports of Auckland sought the move to urgent facilitation after the company’s 10th offer since negations began last September was rejected in mediation last week.

    Ports of Auckland Media Release Sunday, 15 April 2012

    (Makes you wonder if the unionists have some friends in the typist pool.)

  13. John72 13
    29 April 2012 at 2:26 pm

    TV ONE WX features a beautiful photo of Auckland harbour, with the cranes on one wharf in the center. How many kids can skite “My Dad drives that crane”?
    Do kids still skite about Dad?