Ports of Auckland and casualisation

11 comments on “Ports of Auckland and casualisation ”

• Comments are now closed

1. beachbum 1

   27 January 2012 at 1:13 pm

   Helen is incorrect about who is responsible for saftey. She says that POAL are not responsible for employees of contractors.

   POAL as the “landlord” is still liable for all contractors who come on site including service companies such as courier companies or cleaning contractors etc.

   [lprent: Incorrect – she did not say that the port is not responsible. What she said was that they had no interest in the workers health and safety because it doesn’t have the obligations that their direct employer has. That is quite different from liabilities, a legal term which largely does not exist under a ACC work environment in anything like the same way you are using it. See at 2:27. Her language was extraordinarily precise – however you appear to have not listened very closely. ]
   

   Helen must know this??? Everyone else does. It is unlikely that contractors will be chopped and changed. There has been no shuffling of contractors at POT. There has been 1 or 2 additional contractors over the years but thats it.

   [lprent: A warning one week ban for trying to reframe what an author said. I’m being generous because it is amongst my most disliked commentator traits, but I haven’t noticed you before as a moderator. It is a trait that irritates authors and I stomp on it hard because it also tends to be used by people using diversion tactics.. ]
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     27 January 2012 at 1:33 pm

     Ummmm its a bit more subtle than that with contractors because you have an intermediary that you can blame if work practices are not up to spec or if safety training of subcontracted workers is inadequate: the contracting company.

     Further Pike River used a large number of junior contractors and the deleterious effect was undeniable.
   • beachbum 1.2

     27 January 2012 at 4:56 pm

     So her opinion is not allowed to be challenged? I don’t disagree with her entirely, but I think there is more to it….I was not referring to ACC. I was referring to the fact that POAL are still responsible for providing a safe work environment for their contractors so their responsibility does not diminish.

     Isn’t this why property owners are being hauled in front of the Earthquake Commission in ChCH?

     Same Principle.

     [lprent: Challenge all you like – but do it on what she said, not some bullshit you made up. Don’t put words into her mouth because it makes for really dumb and boring debates.

     For stupidly wasting my time… Added you to auto antispam (so other moderators stop releasing your comments). Extended to 9 weeks (two weeks per comment I have dealt with after the original plus the original week). You might not value my time, bu I do. Next message I see before then now starts at 4 weeks and doubles on subsequent ones. ]
   • Jenny 1.3

     28 January 2012 at 10:23 pm

     It is unlikely that contractors will be chopped and changed.

     beachbum

     What PoAL themselves say:
     Ports of Auckland Contracting Out Consultation Document, 20 January 2012

     • Multiple contractors could also introduce an element of competition to encourage contractors to keep improving services.
     • Use of multiple contractors could also introduce further flexibility by ensuring that we are not dependent on a single supplier if issues arise.

     What might the “issues” be for PoAL to replace one contractor with another?

     As Helen Kelly points out, Napier port contractor workers in a union were replaced with a non-union contractor.

     Ports of Auckland will not go to all the expense of paying out all their unionised workforce to have them continue their union membership under a contractor.
2. james 111 2

   27 January 2012 at 3:05 pm

   Reading the POT annual report they had a good health and safety record for 2011. Wheres the problem more scare mongering I believe
   • mickysavage 2.1

     27 January 2012 at 3:25 pm

     You are an idiot.  There have been three deaths at Tauranga in the past 18 months.  There has not been a death at Auckland for many years.
   • Luigi 2.2

     27 January 2012 at 3:41 pm

     Allied Workforce’s record however isn’t so good because of the August 2011 death when one of their contract workers at POT was hit by a grader and killed. POT don’t have to write about in their report because they didn’t hire him, the contract company did, which I think was Helen’s point.
3. randal 3

   27 January 2012 at 3:12 pm

   that last sentence makes no sense.
4. beachbum 4

   28 January 2012 at 4:51 pm

   wonderful…people who preach freedom of speech – go figure

   [lprent: There you go again – repeating the same mistake.

   1. I don’t preach freedom of speech. Talk is cheap and I am far more into doing. I help to provide a forum for reasonably free speech where both we and the people using the site understand their obligations. That is why we have a policy that users of the site are expected to read and comply with. It is clear that you have never done so. Most of the policy is about how we do not tolerate fools and defining what one looks like.

   2. The other side of ‘freedom’ on the net is the ‘right’ of owners to set the rules on their own site – in other words property rights. I don’t talk much about that either. I just do by helping to educate fools with warnings, bans and sarcasm. There are commentators that we do take notice of. They are the ones, unlike you, who do work at making this a operational community and who actively promote productive discussion. But I guess you don’t respect other peoples work or ‘rights’ or your own obligations when using the property of others.

   3. In my opinion, you are just a self indulgent fool who is so full of your sense of self importance that it completely overcomes your common sense. You are also too arrogant to heed warnings, and too dumb to understand that you don’t set the rules without taking the obligations of doing the work. We have all seen rather too many similar spoilt brats on the net to be amused by your dick-waving.

   4. You just attempted to put words into my mouth. So another 4 weeks for the comment and 8 weeks for being really really stupid.

   So you can come back in mid year having learnt a bit more about how not to act on the net. Or just try for a permanent ban with another smartarse comment that I can use as an example of how to be stupid on the net. ]
5. Jenny 5

   28 January 2012 at 6:32 pm

   She is very good.

   Can we get a transcript?

Links to post

1. GPJA #411: Monday – Protest outside High Court / GPJA Forum “Drop the Charges!” « GPJA's Blog: posted on 8 February 2012 at 7:23 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS