Port’s paid propagandist says cut workers’ pay

Written By: - Date published: 7:24 am, January 11th, 2012 - 400 comments
Categories: spin, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

They say that the nice thing about Cameron Slater is he’ll believe whatever he’s paid to believe. Yesterday, I asked whether Slater is being paid to run dirt stories for Ports of Auckland. He didn’t deny it. So what is the Port’s propagandist up to? Yesterday, he was calling for the workers’ pay to be slashed while defending the directors’ massive fees.

In my previous post, I wrote:

Cameron Slater’s rate is $10,000 for an operation like this

Slater responded:

There is no way I’d do what I am doing for $10,000 as a fixed fee, for something like the Ports of Auckland I’d probably do it for $20,000 after a discount for the sheer fun of union bashing

He didn’t admit being paid but his failure to deny it when given the chance is evidence itself. Unless his “I’m not being paid by Ports of Auckland” keys were broken. Slater doesn’t run this kind of intense campaign for the hell of it – it’s his occupation. And why would he be running the Port’s lines for free? Who are they to him? It’s not like a shipping line or an exporter moving from one New Zealand port to another matters a jot in his life. Different when you’re getting paid though, eh?

Updated: Ports of Auckland deny paying Cameron Slater anything. ]

In the past, Slater has been quite open about charging $10,000 to run a media campaign for prospective National candidates where he posts dirty little attacks on rivals (fellow National Party members, remember) designed to be picked up in the media, while subtly promoting his client – usually as a ‘there’s no other qualified alternative’ candidate but, hey, it works. So, I assumed he would be charging a similar fee to Ports of Auckland. He, quite intentionally doesn’t deny getting money but likes to pretend its more. Exactly how much Slater is being paid by the Port is for Tony Gibson to answer.

But enough about how much the Port is paying Slater to try to plant anti-union angles in the media. What are the lines he’s running for them?

Well, to start, the mythical $90,000 a year came from Cactus Kate, one of Slater’s occasional sub-contractors, of whom Slater says “there is only two ways to get Cactus Kate to do anything…offers of money or sex with hot men”.

The piddling $2,000 donation that the Maritime Union gave to Len Brown, Slater used to suggest the Supercity mayor was in the wharfies’ pocket. That one didn’t really fly.

But it’s really started to unravel for Slater a bit in the past few days. He had the ground to himself before but now the journalists are back at work and not buying his crap. So, the Port’s propagandist has gone more extreme.

He’s been comparing the mythical $90,000 income of the stevedores to ‘real professions’. First, it was teachers – until the National research unit called and reminded him that the spin is that teachers are a bunch of lazy, unskilled overpaid pricks too. Then it was Police. Apparently, the fact that a stevedore working over 60 hours a week could theoretically earn $90,000 a year while a trainee cop gets $35,000 is reason to cut the wharfies’ pay. No thought of raising the cops’ pay, of course. But that’s the National way, isn’t it, workers who dare to stand up for themselves are spoiled and should have their wages cut, be fired, or worse.

But, hang about. I thought the Port was offering to increase the workers’ wages. Wasn’t there something about an offer from the Port of a 10% pay increase (which Slater called “very generous” in this “economic climate”) that the crazy union had turned down? How come, then, that the paid propagandist is trying to lay the case for their wages being cut? Could it be that, in fact, the union is right, that the Port’s aim of casualising and contracting out the workforce is all about cutting wages and the 10% hourly increase won’t make up for the lost hours.

Seems like the Port isn’t getting value for money when the propagandist is arguing that the wharfies’ deserve to have their wages cut. Rather undermines the spin that the Port is the good guys, eh?

But, if this is the test now – that anyone earning more than a cop should get a pay cut – why start with the wharfies?

Why not start with Cabinet ministers on quarter of a million a year? (they don’t even need to have any qualifications!)

Why not start with bloggers charging $10,000 to rig party selections? (or, at least stop claiming the sickness benefit, if you still are, Cameron)

Why not start with Tony Gibson, who is on $750,000? (although, to be fair, it is well known that Gibson has the strength of 10 stevedores and can unload 30 containers an hour with his bare hands)

Why not the Port’s directors, who get $83,000 a year each for doing two-fifths of bugger all?

Slater went off his rockee yesterday when one of our commenters miscalculated and said the Port’s directors get $160,000 a year. He devoted a long post to showing it is ‘only’ $83,000 a year.

Remember, being a company director isn’t a full-time job or even a part-time one, really. The directors of the Port typically hold 4-5 other directorships or the like, and a presumably similarly well remunerated in those roles. But Slater, trolling through our comments sections (well, there’s nothing happening in his to warrant attention), devotes a whole post to a commenter double counting the directors’ fees – It’s not $160,000 each for bugger all work! It’s $80,000 each for bugger all work!

The wheels are starting to come off this one a bit for Ports of Auckland. Their paid propagandist is misfiring, their spin is unraveling.

People are starting to ask why it is that the second-most productive port in Australasia is crying ‘productivity crisis’ when it paid an $18 million dividend last year, gave its senior managers a 20% pay rise, and paid staff bonuses for increasing productivity by 4.1%.

They’re starting to wonder: if the Port’s offer is really so generous, them why have the workers turned it down and, if the Port is such a wonderful employer, why won’t it agree to let the workers keep their conditions with an inflation-matching wage hike?

They’re starting to question who is really holding Auckland’s economy to ransom when the Port threatens to sack the second-most productive stevedore workforce in Australasia and then try to employ replacements for worse pay.

And they’re starting to see the buzzards circling – the Righties saying that privatisation is the solution, the other Righties saying that tearing up our work rights is the solution, the Righties attacking workers merely for having supposedly generous conditions in their contracts – and they’re getting the sense that there’s a bigger game afoot.

[lprent:

Catherine Etheredge says :-

Dear James

I am the Senior Communications Manager for Ports of Auckland and I can categorically confirm that we have not paid and will not pay Cameron Slater anything.

Best regards
Catherine

]

400 comments on “Port’s paid propagandist says cut workers’ pay ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. james 111 1
    11 January 2012 at 7:48 am

    James this isnt a right left fight this is just a company trying to improve its competitiveness versus its competitors. This is just about a Company giving a reasonable return to all Auckland Rate Payers.
    As stated in this article in the Herald today an 8.5% return is not an ask out of the question.
    The Labor utilisation rate is only 65% when you have more than a third wasted in this area clearly you have problems.

    The POAL has to have modern Labor agreements so it can be more porductive as most Port companies have all around the World. Mr Pascoe is not with the times as a Union negotiator, and is leading his faithful members to the Dole queues he wont be affected they will. See article from the Herald Today.

    provide a reasonable rate of return on the community’s investment with the company, setting a minimum rate-of-return target of 8.2 per cent.

    “Achieving this target in the present economic climate requires POAL to significantly improve its operational productivity and efficiency. To do this, the company must [lift] its current labour utilisation rate from 65 per cent to over 80 per cent, just to remain viable,” the handout said.

    Mr Gibson said the recent loss of business by Maersk and Fonterra could cut port revenue by $25 million a year with no perceived opportunity to replace this revenue.

    • Colonial Viper 1.1
      11 January 2012 at 8:05 am

      The CEO and Board should be fired for the ham fisted incompetent handling of this situation.

      Firing the Board and the CEO would lift company profits from $19M to $22M pa instantly, and no one would notice that they were missing.

      Volunteer worker councils with volunteers paid an honourarium of $2500 pa would fulfill the roles perfectly, and because they understand how ports work the best, would also increase profitability further.

      The Council has a responsibility to its rate payers and citizens. Well who the fuck do they think the workers at the port, their partners, children and extended family in Auckland are.

      • Bazar 1.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:06 pm

        You seem to be losing your grasp on reality.

        Are you honestly suggesting firing the head leadership and replacing it with volunteers who’d be paid sweet fuck all.

        I can’t even fathom such stupidity playing out.

        “The Council has a responsibility to its rate payers and citizens. Well who the fuck do they think the workers at the port, their partners, children and extended family in Auckland are.”

        I’d say that those dock workers and family are the 1%. Shoving their demands and greed onto the other 99%.

    • Zetetic 1.2
      11 January 2012 at 8:11 am

      Just repeating the management’s lines doesn’t make them true.

      The port is making a reasonable return and it doesn’t need to make a big one. Infrastructure shouldn’t be run for large profits – its job is to create opportunities for other businesses, not clip the ticket when they use the service, which impedes business.

      The ‘labour utilisation rate’ you talk about is the amount of paid time minus mandated breaks that ensure safety and productivity. Remove them and you get three deaths a year, like at Tauranga.

      Maersk and Fonterra didn’t leave because productivity isn’t high enough. They left because of the disruption to the port. Caused by the Port trying to cut its wage bill, rather than let the workers keep their conditions and the real value of their wages.

      Doesn’t your argument boil down to: the workers should accept less pay for the same work, so that the company can make more profit?

      • james 111 1.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:38 am

        So you think Productivity is good?

        The New Zealand coast closed down because Toby Hill, The Seamans Union, and the Officers guild all got greedy ,and tried to keep their conditions.Three crews for every rail ferry was never going to work. Funny how well they seem to work now Private contractors are doin g the catering. Funny how history repeats itself isnt it

        • KJT 1.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 9:11 am

          The NZ coast closed down because the farmers wanted cheaper freight. Along with the RWNJ delusion that “competition” would deliver it.
          No acknowledgment of the adverse effects on NZ’s balance of payments deficit, internal economy and jobs for our children.

          Now we get things like the Rena. Watchkeepers with 3 hours sleep in 24, And poorly lashed cargo falling off ships.
          The sad thing is that NZ ships have had to reduce standards of safety and conditions to compete also.

          The officers unions were not greedy. Wages and conditions for us were never that high.

          Ships going in and out of port several times 24 hours a day need three crews to operate safely. Or do you expect people to work 24 hours on the trot. Already have an increased number of accidents and incidents on the rail ferries due to the hours watchkeepers are now expected to work.

          I tell my family not to use the rail ferries because they are not safe. Tired watch keepers, not enough money spent on lifesaving equipment and cost cutting management are a disaster waiting to happen.

          Never had any time for the cooks and stewards either, many of the things they stuck for were a joke, but a lot of that was due to inflation outstripping wage rises, no matter what happened.

          Nothing to do with the present attack on one of the last remaining Unions with any power.

          It is obvious that the present situation is due to a RWNJ attack to break unions once and for all and bring us all back to the third world.

      • Inventory2 1.2.2
        11 January 2012 at 9:26 am

        Just repeating the management’s lines doesn’t make them true.

        Nor, by your own definition, does repeating the Maritime Union’s lines…

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 9:32 am

          Workers are getting fucked over by management and board. I think that’s pretty true, repetition or no.

          • Bazar 1.2.2.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 8:08 pm

            The port and Auckland are getting fucked over by unionists and strikes. I think that’s pretty true, repetition or no.

            • Jackal 1.2.2.1.1.1
              12 January 2012 at 2:33 pm

              Wrong Bazar… the Union has been trying to resolve the issue. The Port of Auckland’s senior management has been ignoring them in their idiotic quest to continue the crisis in order to have an excuse to privatize. Bloddy cronies the lot of em.

    • mickysavage 1.3
      11 January 2012 at 8:12 am

      Interesting double standard.  

      The directors are paid on average $80k a year.  For this they would have a monthly board meeting, papers to read, emails to handle and possibly sub committee work.  They would also be expected to show up to social occasions.

      Workers are expected to work all hours of the day or night in dangerous work.  Many workers have lost their lives over the past few decades.

      When complaints occur about the return it is, according to James 111, the fault of the workers and not of the directors.  Changes have to be made to the workers conditions of employment.  It seems that the only ability there is to save costs is to cut into job terms and conditions.

      It is an interesting world that we live in. 

    • ianmac 1.4
      11 January 2012 at 9:55 am

      James:”The POAL has to have modern Labor agreements”. Wonder why you use the American/Australian spelling of “Labour”? I wonder….

      [lprent: He is local and previously known here under various names for many years. He has previously managed to get numerous moderation warnings to change his behaviour – which (at present) it appears that he has largely heeded. As a moderator I have no real issues with him. ]

  2. mickysavage 2
    11 January 2012 at 7:59 am

    The $91k a year lie needs to be analyzed further because it speaks volumes on how the right operate.  It originally appeared in a Cactus Kate post.  It has since been used by Slater and Farrar continuously without embarrassment.  Even the Herald have been using this figure.

    I have had a go at looking through the POAL financials and trying to work out how the figure was arrived at.  All that I can think is that redundancies occurred and these payments were included in the total figures, thereby inflating the figures.

    Cactus Kate’s figures are unsourced but look like they came straight from the company.  If the MSM was any good it would be deconstructing the figures and highlighting the reality.  Because I get this sneaky feeling that the company has released dodgy figures in an attempt to win the propaganda war.

    • newsense 2.1
      11 January 2012 at 3:28 pm

      It was mentioned by Tony Gibson in an Op-ed then five or six times by Katherine Rich and Damien Grant, and has been repeated in other news reports.

      Tony Gibson said it was “(and let’s remember that average remuneration for a fulltime stevedore is $91,000).”

      As noted below it includes extra hours worked and not mentioned, probably productivity bonuses!

  3. John Dalley 3
    11 January 2012 at 8:09 am

    Shipping / Freight companies are not happy with what’s going on. Not the port dispute but the manipulation by Maersk and Fonterra. The number one reason that Fonterra went to Tauranga is Maersk, Maersk and Maersk.

    • Zetetic 3.1
      11 January 2012 at 8:14 am

      And where was it that Tony Gibson worked before Ports of Auckland?

      Fact is, these companies only left once the management’s brinksmanship meant it could no longer reliably keep the port open. Maersk and Fonterra seemed content with the productivity levels beforehand – and why wouldn’t they be, it’s the second most productive port in Australasia

      • Colonial Viper 3.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:23 am

        Too bad NZ didn’t upgrade its publicly owned coastal shipping infrastructure to free itself from these fucking logistics multinationals. Who don’t give a fuck about the people about this country, just their major shareholders in the northern hemisphere.

        See how fundamental these pillars of the real economy (like transport and power generation) are. And when they are taken away our sovereignty is taken away.

        • james 111 3.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 8:39 am

          They couldnt afford to pay the Seamans Union, The Cooks & Stewards and have a viable business model that is why the Coast was lost to NZ workers

          • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 8:43 am

            Yeah lets sell off our own workforce for cheap immigrants enabling higher corporate profits for overseas shareholders.

            • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 8:59 am

              Good morning James. Been to your boss demanding that pay cut yet?

              Seeing as you are so keen to see New Zealand become more competitive and prosperous by cutting wages and conditions for workers… we’re all waiting to see you lead the way.

          • mickysavage 3.1.1.1.2
            11 January 2012 at 8:49 am

            Yep why should New Zealand businesses not be able to compete with those of the third world?

          • KJT 3.1.1.1.3
            11 January 2012 at 9:19 am

            Bullshit.

            Do you know what proportion of total; costs, crew are?

            One shipping company had a monopoly between NZ and Australia and they worked on cost plus.

            Do you know how much shareholders took out? Ask why they still had a UK subsidiary which owned the ships?

          • KJT 3.1.1.1.4
            15 January 2012 at 2:10 pm

            Bullshit.

            The maritime Unions agreed to drastic manning cuts, (29 to 18 on the ship I was on at the time) changes to work practices (IR ships) and cuts to pay and conditions amounting in most cases to halving the crew costs on each ship.

            We lost the jobs anyway because the first ACT Government, Federated Farmers and other assorted idiots were determined to have underpriced substandard ships on the coast regardless.

            It actually wouldn’t have mattered what we did.

            The Rena is the direct responsibility of those buggers.
            The joke is on them because freight rates went up not down, and service levels down, without dedicated NZ ships to keep the overseas lines honest.

      • KJT 3.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 8:38 am

        Mearsk were shifting anyway.

        Attracting Mearsk by continually undercutting the last port is a losing sum game anyway.

        In the end you will be subsidising Mearsk.

        • Bazar 3.1.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 8:13 pm

          Its not a losing sum game.

          Its called supply and demand.
          If you lower the costs, you’ll increase demand.

          If shipping costs less, taht’ll mean importing goods, everyday things like tins of fruit will be cheaper to import, and exporting goods like milk will be cheaper.

          NZ is an isolated country, lowing the cost of doing business with us would greatly improve trade.

          • RedLogix 3.1.2.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 8:21 pm

            If shipping costs less, taht’ll mean importing goods, everyday things like tins of fruit will be cheaper to import, and exporting goods like milk will be cheaper.

            You could reduce port costs to zero and have almost no effect whatsoever on the total cost of most goods. ie the ‘demand effect’ you are thinking of has to be pretty damned weak.

            • Bazar 3.1.2.1.1.1
              12 January 2012 at 1:43 am

              “Almost no effect”, multiplied by 1.5 million people is a pretty damned big effect.

              But i guess you’re a big subscriber to the “Take care of the pounds and the pennies will look after themselves”

              How are you with carbon emissions?
              NZ has almost no effect to global carbon emissions, by that Logix of yours, we shouldn’t even bother with emission controls.

              • RedLogix …
                12 January 2012 at 6:45 am

                Your logic is still not improved.

                If every country reduced it’s carbon emmissions to zero the climate change problem would be solved.

                If every port reduced it’s costs to zero it would have almost no impact on prices anywhere.

    • james 111 3.2
      11 January 2012 at 8:24 am

      So John what is your point its a big decision for a shiiping company to move.
      I dont believe they would move because the Maersk CEO had an Auntie in Tauranga
      They would move though for more productivity less down time , and cheaper costs than Auckland

      • Colonial Viper 3.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:30 am

        Gibson was managing director of Maersk NZ for 3 years. That’s much better than an Auntie in Tauranga.

        This thing is a fucking set up, has been from the day Gibson started the CEO job last year.

        • Bazar 3.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 8:19 pm

          I love your thinking there Viper

          Because Gibson had ties with Maersk, he set things up.

          He pulled his connections to make Maersk pull a $20 million a year operation away from his company into an competing port, just to make the strikers look bad.

          In shorthand, you’re saying he royally screwed over his company, reputation, and performance bonuses just to make the strikers suffer….

          Or the reality is that Maersk got tired of dealing with interruptions that hurt its reputation and shipping deadlines and moved to elsewhere.

          The fact that fonterra has done the same probably was probably a convincing ploy as well to futher hammer the nail eh.

          And when other companies also stop using the port, its simply because it was a zero sum game and PoT was better (Which comes back in part to PoT operating better then PoA)

      • Zetetic 3.2.2
        11 January 2012 at 8:31 am

        if they would move over productivity, why hadn’t they moved already?

        They moved because the Port can’t reliably keep itself open.

        Besides, how does higher productivity help Maersk? The productivity’s all about making larger profits by cutting costs, you said. It would rather defeat the purpose if they cut prices too.

  4. KJT 4
    11 January 2012 at 8:34 am

    “”James this isnt a right left fight this is just a company trying to improve its competitiveness versus its competitors. This is just about a Company giving a reasonable return to all Auckland Rate Payers.
    As stated in this article in the Herald today an 8.5% return is not an ask out of the question.””

    Why should returns from a low risk monopoly equal those from speculation.
    That is only expected because speculation has become low, risk due to bailouts.

    “The Labor utilisation rate is only 65% when you have more than a third wasted in this area clearly you have problems.”

    This is a meaningless statistic unless you compare it with other ports or industries.
    Portainer crane drivers in Tauranga work 2 hours then 1 off. less tha 60% utilisation rate?

    My own observations of POAL working is that the organisation and communication between management is exceptionally poor. It cuts my “labour utilisation rate” when I have to have a whole ships crew standing around waiting for hours because POAL cannot get their shit together.
    Not to mention having to watch the casual, cheap labour, lashing gangs like a hawk because the islanders they ring in have no experience or training. Don’t really need half trained casual crane drivers and hatchmen as well.

    “”The POAL has to have modern Labor agreements so it can be more porductive as most Port companies have all around the World. Mr Pascoe is not with the times as a Union negotiator, and is leading his faithful members to the Dole queues he wont be affected they will. See article from the Herald Today.””

    “:Modern labour agreements” that mean being on call 24 hours a day 365 days a year without being paid for it. “Modern labour agreements” that allow for casual staff on minimum wages subsidised by tax payers. “Modern labour agreements” that have resulted in workers share of the money we produce go from 62% to 42% of GDP. Joke!!

    We will go back to the old ones, thanks, and keep the money in NZ.

    “provide a reasonable rate of return on the community’s investment with the company, setting a minimum rate-of-return target of 8.2 per cent.”

    With Mearsk and Fonterra, using the fake competition between ports to continually reduce rates. The only way is down. A race for the bottom. Just had an education on how well that works with the Rena and Pike River.

    ”Achieving this target in the present economic climate requires POAL to significantly improve its operational productivity and efficiency. To do this, the company must [lift] its current labour utilisation rate from 65 per cent to over 80 per cent, just to remain viable,” the handout said.”

    Easiest way to do that is sack the current management and board.

    “”Mr Gibson said the recent loss of business by Maersk and Fonterra could cut port revenue by $25 million a year with no perceived opportunity to replace this revenue.””

    Shouldn’t have decided to attack the union should he.

    When he first got in and the union members thought the constant attacks on their conditions would stop the box rate, the real criteria of port efficiency, went from 20 to 28 or more. In other words, if you treat your workforce with respect they will respond.

    The extra efficiencies are available under the present contract.

    • james 111 4.1
      11 January 2012 at 9:42 am

      KJT

      You say

      We will go back to the old ones, thanks, and keep the money in NZ.

      There is only one problem with this stance you and the workers keep nothing no conditions if you dont have jobs. Because of poor negotiation skills, and one track ideaology

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 9:46 am

        And the port shifts not a single tonne of cargo without labour.

        And since the very highly paid CEO and Board are proving themselves incompetent at team building the best port in NZ, they should be fired and replaced with workers councils fulfilling the same role.

        The savings in executive salaries and board fees would push port profitability up from $19M to $21M pa overnight. That is money which would help every single Auckland ratepayer.

        In fact, it also gives room for every port worker to receive a $1000 new years bonus.

        AND I am sure that worker productivity would also immediately increase 😀

      • KJT 4.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 9:56 am

        Bullshit again. We took an effective 40% pay cut, demanned (below safe levels I may add) and gave a lot of other concessions. And lost the jobs anyway because RWNJ’s were committed to giving away the jobs to substandard and dodgy overseas operators. Even if they cost NZ more than us. Which they do.

        It wasn’t our idealogy that lost the jobs.

      • spratwax 4.1.3
        11 January 2012 at 12:03 pm

        “There is only one problem with this stance you and the workers keep nothing no conditions if you dont have jobs. Because of poor negotiation skills, and one track ideaology”

        Well, at least James is now admitting that the right-wing ideology is reducing jobs and conditions! No reaction from James to ther suggestion that he should approach his boss and ask for a pay cut to improve productivity…mmm!! And he seems to think ‘Mr Gibson’ has a salary-$750,000- which does not require renegotiation to a level commensurate with reality.

  5. randal 5
    11 January 2012 at 8:51 am

    ipredict that whaleshit will choke on a sausage roll this year.
    but they will make a simulacra at weka workshops that will be worse.

  6. Tangled up in blue 6
    11 January 2012 at 8:53 am

    People are starting to ask why it is that the second-most productive port in Australasia is crying ‘productivity crisis’ when it paid an $18 million dividend last year, gave its senior managers a 20% pay rise, and paid staff bonuses for increasing productivity by 4.1%.

    Also it’s been mentioned a few times that the PoA workers salary and wage costs aren’t much in relation to overall costs. Imo this is also very damning. Does anyone have the relevant PoA report and page number showing this?

  7. Craig GlenEden 7
    11 January 2012 at 9:05 am

    Lets not forget Len Browns role in this people many of us campaigned for this guy and I for one are pretty pissed with his and the councils role in all of this. I think its about time some in Labour had a face to face with Mr Brown.

  8. John Dalley 8
    11 January 2012 at 9:19 am

    From my same source. If you want to see productivity or lack there of, look at the Oz ports. I am lead to understand that they are considerably less efficient tha the POAL and do not in fact work 24/7.
    One of the problems it seems to me is that the shipping (Maersk) company has just about a monopolistc position in New Zealand. i e. no major competition to the freight entering and exiting NZ. Could there be improvements in the POAL, probably but i suspect that the management of the POAL played a game with Maersk and lost and are now trying to cover their arses. Len Brown and co need to immediatly sack Tony Gibson and the board for total incompetence and instill a more experience management team.

    • Colonial Viper 8.1
      11 January 2012 at 9:26 am

      Gibson was executive director of Maersk NZ for 3 years. He hasn’t gone against the wishes of his old colleagues. This has all been a set up from when he was hired in 2011.

      • The Voice of Reason 8.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 9:35 am

        Exactly, CV. Maersk are playing the long game. They will move to TGA to help POAL break the union, then move back once the scab labour has been hired.

    • KJT 8.2
      11 January 2012 at 9:34 am

      Could be true.

      Lyttelton cut their rates for Mearsk to get their business off Timaru.

      Some of my contacts think they are not even breaking even on the contract.

      Mearsk get discounts because they now have an effective monopoly on NZ shipping.

      Mearsk are also noted for their hostility to Unions worldwide.

      Apart from being a potential buyer for POAL.

      • UncleGeoff 8.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 12:15 pm

        Speaking of Lyttelton and Timaru, I recall Brent Layton being dismissed from his position as chairman of the Lyttelton Port Company back in 2002, under circumstances with many similarities to what is happening at present. Even a leader issued by Colonel Blimp (aka Christchurch’s “Press”) advocated that he be dismissed, as he had been acting like an arrogant jerk at the time, including an occasion when he told [then Christchurch mayor] Garry Moore to back off after he suggested that the board and employees strive for a settlement.

        However, maybe Len Brown is unable to similarly dismiss Tony Gibson; didn’t Rodney Hide appoint the members of the board of POAL, and the central government is denying the Auckland Council total autonomy over their own activities? But if I was Len, I would still be inclined to at least give Tony Gibson a very public bollocking, and to make it very clear that he was not regarded as at all fit for the position.

        And speaking of Mearsk, I have heard that it is supposedly a Danish company. But isn’t Denmark also supposed to be a progressive country, with the lowest Gini coefficient [measuring inequality of wealth or annual income] for any country in the whole world? A case of one set of rules for home, and a different set of rules elsewhere?

    • james 111 8.3
      11 January 2012 at 9:44 am

      John
      What are you advocating Victorian Ports are cot case because of the Unions do you want us t o be like them

      • RedLogix 8.3.1
        11 January 2012 at 9:48 am

        Been to your boss demanding that pay cut yet?

        Or is that kind of thing only for other people?

      • McFlock 8.3.2
        11 January 2012 at 12:47 pm

        yep, damned unions are ruining australia. That’s why so many nzers are choosing to stay in nz and not emigrate to oz.

  9. Colonial Viper 9
    11 January 2012 at 9:37 am

    So I read in the Herald that a Korean fishing boat in the Ross Sea has had a fire and suffering missing crew.

    • Blighty 9.1
      11 January 2012 at 9:50 am

      wonder if it’s taking NZ quota. Does that apply in the Ross Sea? I guess not.

      Interesting in that article to see how many disasters occur on foreign-flagged nz-based fishing vessels.

    • KJT 9.2
      11 January 2012 at 9:51 am

      Yet another vessel that was sold from Japanese ownership because it was too old to be safe, manned by slave labour and sent to the most dangerous ocean in the world.

      What we are heading towards in NZ as the unions are broken.

  10. Bored 10
    11 January 2012 at 9:38 am

    Cameron Slater – Ports of Auckland…..scum working for scum.

  11. Pascal's bookie 11
    11 January 2012 at 9:55 am

    OTOH, Maersk don’t seem to have much confidence in Gibson.

  12. Travis 12
    11 January 2012 at 10:21 am

    James Henderson: I’m interested in you putting forward some evidence in light of Cameron Slater “being paid to run dirt stories for Ports of Auckland”.

    Please tell me that “He didn’t deny it” is all you have to produce.

    Where did this $10,000 figure come from?

    I hope you’re not making assumptions based on past instances, that would be poor form.

  13. Catherine Etheredge 13
    11 January 2012 at 10:26 am

    Dear James

    I am the Senior Communications Manager for Ports of Auckland and I can categorically confirm that we have not paid and will not pay Cameron Slater anything.

    Best regards
    Catherine

    [lprent: Double-checking the e-mail. If it pans out then I’ll add to the post.
    Confirmed. Adding. ]

    • Inventory2 13.1
      11 January 2012 at 11:38 am

      How long then until the defamatory accusations against Cameron Slater are withdrawn?

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 11:50 am

        Which claims and how were they defamatory?

        • Inventory2 13.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 12:02 pm

          They say that the nice thing about Cameron Slater is he’ll believe whatever he’s paid to believe. Yesterday, I asked whether Slater is being paid to run dirt stories for Ports of Auckland. He didn’t deny it. So what is the Port’s propagandist up to? Yesterday, he was calling for the workers’ pay to be slashed while defending the directors’ massive fees.

          In my previous post, I wrote:

          Cameron Slater’s rate is $10,000 for an operation like this

          Slater responded:

          There is no way I’d do what I am doing for $10,000 as a fixed fee, for something like the Ports of Auckland I’d probably do it for $20,000 after a discount for the sheer fun of union bashing

          He didn’t admit being paid but his failure to deny it when given the chance is evidence itself. Unless his “I’m not being paid by Ports of Auckland” keys were broken. Slater doesn’t run this kind of intense campaign for the hell of it – it’s his occupation. And why would he be running the Port’s lines for free? Who are they to him? It’s not like a shipping line or an exporter moving from one New Zealand port to another matters a jot in his life. Different when you’re getting paid though, eh?

          Updated: Ports of Auckland deny paying Cameron Slater anything. ]

          Well, that one would be a good start. Both Slater and PoAL categorically deny that any payment has been made. If sued, James Henderson would have to prove that they were lying, and that there had in fact been payments; the burden of proof would be on him.

          • felix 13.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 12:07 pm

            “Both Slater and PoAL categorically deny that any payment has been made.”

            Err, what? Where does Slater “categorically deny” anything? Do you even know what that means, InventedTory?

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.2
            11 January 2012 at 12:50 pm

            I don’t see where the defamatory accusation lies?

          • David H 13.1.1.1.3
            11 January 2012 at 7:39 pm

            But isn’t he on a sickness benefit as well? So here’s hoping that the appropriate people point an optic in his direction, just to keep things kosher.

      • lprent 13.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 11:51 am

        Over the years Cameron Slater has made numerous accusations against various authors on this site, including me. Most of them were incorrect and many of them have been proven incorrect. To date I have never seen an apology from Cameron Slater for any of those blatant lying slanders.

        You want us to follow a different standard to him – please explain why? I’m interested in how you run this double standard of morality….

        I suspect James might offer an apology to the Ports or Auckland for suggesting that they dealt with the lying arsehole.

        However Cameron Slater has the same recourse as we had with him. He can choose anything from blustering (which is what I suspect he will (as usual) do) through to legal action. The latter we would defend as vigorously as possible. This would include seeking disclosure on his finances to show that it was a reasonable presumption, and arguing that in any case it was an issue that is covered by public good.

        • Inventory2 13.1.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 12:03 pm

          And authors here have made many against him as well. Don’t pretend to be the injured innocent.

          • lprent 13.1.2.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 12:08 pm

            So? Look at the timeline. I can’t see any reason to be nice to him.

            However I see that in your usual fashion you ignored my question about your hypocritical standards. You really do reek of having a low moral standard generally…

            When Cameron was deliberately lying about us, you were cheering him on. When an author make a speculative mistake here, you want us to operate completely differently. Please explain this?

            • Mickrodge 13.1.2.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

              “You want us to follow a different standard to him – please explain why”?

              Because, as my mother always told me…”two wrongs don’t make a right”.

              Otherwise it’s all just a little bit juvenile.

              • lprent …
                11 January 2012 at 12:43 pm

                Silly comment.

                So you’re saying that Inventory2 was wrong the first time in cheering on Cameron Slater.
                And that Inventory2 is wrong in telling us we should write a retraction for Slater?

                But that was what I was saying. Ummm I guess we have the stupid aphorism from someone who hasn’t bothered to actually read the question and engage their brain?

                • Mickrodge …
                  11 January 2012 at 1:48 pm

                  Why is it a silly comment? Because it’s asking you to be mature and maybe look outside of the “he said, she said” schoolyard mentality?

                  You can take my “stupid aphorism” back as far as you like to include the actions of whoever you choose but put simply “the ball is currently in your court” given the latest accusations against Slater appear to be misleading.

                  Be the bigger man Lynn/James and admit that you might have got it wrong this time.

                  A big shiny $2 coin says you don’t.

            • Inventory2 13.1.2.1.1.2
              11 January 2012 at 12:31 pm

              Oh bollocks Lynn; James Henderson didn’t make a “speculative mistake”; it’s the second post in two days that accuses Slater of accpeting money to run a dirty campaign. There is no evidence, and PoAL has denied it as has Slater.

              There is only one reason for this attack; to try and turn the tide of opinion back in favour of MUNZ. And it’s hardly speculative when it is part of a series; a “pattern of behaviour” as you have been known to say.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                11 January 2012 at 12:38 pm

                Maybe, “Inventory2”, we’d be be fairer to Slater if he didn’t roll around in the muck so often.

                This is one example why so many view him with complete disdain; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/wishing-death-upon-him/

                I wonder if he’ll be apologising to Peters?

                And will Slater be apologising for sticking his nose into Auckland watersider’s affairs, when the strike doesn’t even concern him?

              • felix …
                11 January 2012 at 12:47 pm

                “PoAL has denied it as has Slater.”

                Again IV2, where does Slater “categorically deny” anything?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 January 2012 at 12:52 pm

                  Inventory 2 upholding the Right’s moral standards for caring and consideration lol

                • McFlock …
                  11 January 2012 at 12:53 pm

                  I think slater should sue IV2 for telling lies about slater issuing a categorical denial.

                • Inventory2 …
                  11 January 2012 at 1:20 pm

                  Here Felix:

                  Agent BallSack
                  Would be interested to know whether Whale has accepted any money, however. Not that its wrong to accept money for publishing views of others, writers do it all the time. Is there any truth behind the rumour that Whale is a ‘paid propagandist’ for the VRWC POAL!

                  Like
                  Reply

                  3 hours ago

                  Whaleoil
                  I have not accepted or received any money from Ports of Auckland, not 1 cent let alone $10,000. Though I must admit that their assumptions and allegations have given me pause for thought, perhaps I should charge for what I do. It was nice of them to establish a bench mark too.

              • lprent …
                11 January 2012 at 12:51 pm

                And I see that you are still avoiding facing the question I asked. Perhaps you’re scared of the depths of difference between who you think you are and how others perceive you? That would account for the avoidance behaviour.

                …has denied it as has Slater.

                Actually Slater didn’t deny it. He waffled around it without ever actually doing it. I had a look when I saw the first paragraph of the post this morning. I guess you didn’t make the effort?

                There is only one reason…

                Nope. The question I have had for some time is how someone who (as far as I know) is still on a sickness benefit is able to run a propaganda operation at the level that Cameron Slater does. His published figures for page views etc for his blog, even if they are as massaged as I suspect them to be, require quite a lot of server to run. And there doesn’t appear to be a lot of advertising supporting it. Then there is the question of his self-reported lifestyle….

                The question is if he gets paid for running blog campaigns.

                • Inventory2 …
                  11 January 2012 at 2:23 pm

                  The denial is posted above Lynn. To the best of my knowledge (never having actually met him) Slater is not on any benefit.

                  As for your original question:

                  You want us to follow a different standard to him – please explain why? I’m interested in how you run this double standard of morality….

                  The standard of morality you follow is entirely up to you. But when you, or somebody on your blog makes an unsubstantiated allegation which is subsequently denied, you have to decide whether to persist with it.

                  I’ve made allegations against people on my blog. When I’ve been called on it, I’ve apologised, and/or pulled the post. I know I’m not perfect, but I think I’ve been around long enough for people (other than yourself, given the “You really do reek of having a low moral standard generally…” jibe) that I don’t set out to make unfounded allegations. When I have, I accept responsibility.

                  Anyway, we’ve probably taken this discussion as far as we can; have a nice day 🙂

                  • lprent …
                    11 January 2012 at 11:03 pm

                    He published that he was on the sickness benefit when his medical insurance got cut. Since he has never mentioned actually working for a living and seems to spend all of his time on his blog actively churning out posts – my guess is that he still is. I’m sure if he wasn’t he’d have told everyone.

                    I was away in debugging limbo from just after the comment anyway…

                    • Jackal …
                      12 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

                      I asked Slater recently what he thought about being means tested as a sickness beneficiary (when National implement more bashing policies)… but he ignored the question. Presumably and maybe justifiably because he thinks himself imune from National’s archaic policies.

                      Slater did mention getting some work a month or so prior to the last election, but didn’t elaborate on what it was or if he’d stopped his WINZ payments. I can only asume that it would be to do with his blog, as that’s all the guy ever seems do. In fact his modus operandi is to criticize anybody who has a life outside of the blogosphere.

                      If Slater, DPF et. al. aren’t proud enough of their affiliations and probable employers to openly announce them, then that says a lot about the right wing in general. Their faux outrage in this instance demanding apologies/retractions etc is highly amusing, considering how unapologetic they are when caught lying.

        • law 13.1.2.2
          11 January 2012 at 12:05 pm

          lprent, I appreciate that the blog is written by volunteers, is there any accountability with your authors to follow up on comments and address errors in their postings?

          • lprent 13.1.2.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

            Like me, James is probably at work and only reading the site occasionally.

            I already did what was required for the site and updated the post.

          • Frank Macskasy 13.1.2.2.2
            11 January 2012 at 12:41 pm

            “Law:”…

            A left-wing blog publishes an error and you demand “accountability”.

            A right wing blog publishes deliberate lies and when someone demands “accountability”, we get deflection.

            The realities of the internet, eh?

    • Craig GlenEden 13.2
      11 January 2012 at 11:45 am

      Catherine Etheregde can you confirm that the average figure of $90.000 that is meant to be paid to workers is also bullshit!

      • havingalaff 13.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 11:52 am

        She has denied it so it must be true/false.

        I also here Trevor Mallard hasn’t denied interfering with turtles…. nuff said !

    • KJT 13.3
      11 January 2012 at 11:49 am

      They have a “Senior! communications manager”. Says it all really.

      Tauranga has “A” port manager.

    • felix 13.4
      11 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

      “I can categorically confirm that we have not paid and will not pay Cameron Slater anything.”

      Well I don’t think anyone expected he’d be invoicing you directly, Catherine.

  14. Jimmie 14
    11 January 2012 at 11:53 am

    Hmmmm SMOG. This post proves the old adage that assumptions are the mother of all f—ups.

    Take one vague assumption based on a non denial and extrapolate it out into a whole essay of a post with the one goal of demonizing the Whale.

    Perhaps its good for feeding your friendly resident commentators always wanting tosalivate on some anti VRWC morsel but as to contributing positively to the reputation of this blog as a fount of accurate and direct political commentary hmmmm opps better luck next time lol

    • joe bloggs 14.1
      11 January 2012 at 12:46 pm

      Come, come Jimmie, that’s a bit tough – where is it claimed that The Standard is the “home of facts”?

  15. dave brownz 15
    11 January 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Yeah we are at the tail end of the Pacific, next stop Ross Sea, with RWNJs fighting a losing battle for the 1%. But look at what our historic buddies are doing on the West Coast of the US.
    100 years ago NZ and Californian workers were fornicating to the tunes of the IWW.
    This is what our impending revolution against the 1% looks like. Fuck the 1%!
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/29/18703559.php

  16. felix 16
    11 January 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Just to be clear, Catherine’s statement that POAL aren’t paying Slater should be taken at face value and nothing more (or less).

    Of course they doesn’t pay a loser like Cameron Slater, no reputable organisation would. Reputable organisations pay lobbyists and PR firms, not disgraced political bloggers.

    What the PR firms and lobbyists do with the money is of course a separate matter and none of Catherine’s concern.

    • lprent 16.1
      11 January 2012 at 1:13 pm

      An interesting point. Are they paying someone like Matthew Hooten’s company (as a “for instance”) rather than doing all of their communications themselves. That could explain why Cameron Slater is so evasive if he is receives money for writing blogs.

      I can’t think why the port company would need to in a industrial dispute. It isn’t like they’re trying to lobby government for anything..?

      If I find time and can be bothered, I may ask that question.

  17. Fotran 17
    11 January 2012 at 1:20 pm

    This article and comments plays right into Slater’s hand.
    It is the sort of thing he apparently loves that he is attacked, and will continue to enjoy getting up people’s noses.

  18. Catherine Etheredge 18
    11 January 2012 at 1:28 pm

    In response to Craig of Glen Eden –

    I can confirm that the average remuneration for a full time stevedore, in the year ended June 30, 2011, was $91,480. The average remuneration for a part time stevedore (guaranteed at least 24 hours work a week) was $65,518.

    53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000. 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.

    The averages were calculated by POAL’s payroll team based on actual payments, including for leave days, medical insurance and superannuation contributions. (For employees covered by the collective agreement, POAL matches their superannuation contributions up to a maximum of 7%.) We excluded those who had worked for less than the full 12 months e.g. had left part way through the year.

    Employees are also entitled to 15 days sick leave per annum, accruing up to 45 days. All shift workers are entitled to five weeks annual leave. Training for all stevedoring tasks (crane driving, straddle driving and lashing) is undertaken in house and is paid for by the company.

    One question that has been asked is how many hours you have to work to earn that $91,000. Stevedores who earned the average $91,000 in the 2010/11 financial year were paid for an average of 43 hours per week, excluding leave days. If you factor leave days in, that increases to 49 hours per week.

    This leads to the key issue for the company – the high amount of paid downtime – an average of 35% of total hours paid. An employee getting paid for a 43 hour week is only working around 28 hours; for a 40 hour week, 26 hours. In a busy week, employees get paid for 66.5 hours but can only work for a maximum of 44.5.

    On Monday 9 January, to give a recent example, we paid 26 staff a total of $5,484,80 for downtime, because they were entitled to be paid until the end of their set eight hour shift even though the ship had finished & they had gone home. In another example employees worked two hours of an overtime shift but were paid for the full eight hours.

    This is not a cost-efficient nor sustainable labour model, especially when the company is not covering its cost of capital, cannot therefore justify further investment in order to grow, and its closest competitor has a labour utilisation rate in excess of 80%. (At Port of Tauranga stevedores start and finish work when a ship arrives and departs).

    The company has offered an upfront 10% increase to hourly rates along with the retention of existing terms and conditions in return for more flexible rosters which would significantly reduce the amount of paid downtime. Employees would have the opportunity to plan their roster a month in advance. This proposal would result in a people being remunerated for fewer overall hours at a higher rate than they would currently get for the same paid hours. To be fair, until such time as container volumes recover/improve, the 10% increase to hourly rates would not (as some commentators have suggested) push average remuneration over $100K.

    Catherine Etheredge
    Ports of Auckland

    • mickysavage 18.1
      11 January 2012 at 1:39 pm

      Dear Catherine
       
      Good of you to engage with the online community.
       
      Two questions:
       
      1.  Do your calculations include one off payments including, for instance, redundancy payments?  You see the amounts claimed seem very high.
       
      2.  As far as I can make out the $91k figure first appeared in a Cactus Kate post.  Who provided the information to Kate and were there any conditions?

      • Lanthanide 18.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

        She stated that “We excluded those who had worked for less than the full 12 months e.g. had left part way through the year.” so we should assume that the figures do not include redundancy payments.

        It probably does include bonuses, though.

        At $91,480 for 43/hours week for 52 weeks, the average hourly rate including all benefits works out at $40.91. I saw somewhere that the stevedoors said they got paid ~$27 in pocket, so that leaves $14 dollars to be made up in benefits etc.

        I can’t claim to understand exactly how they’re calculating the paid leave in there, but it seems like they’re paying a lot for their medical insurance.

        • millsy 18.1.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 7:20 am

          Catherine,

          Please advise why you see your company’s workers as expendable, and do you accept that with this rosters changes, they will be more or less on call hours earning less money, and may need to apply for top ups from the welfare system?

    • Lanthanide 18.2
      11 January 2012 at 1:51 pm

      Thanks very much for the detailed breakdown Catherine, appreciated.

    • Brett 18.3
      11 January 2012 at 2:00 pm

      Hmmmm, stupid pricks don’t realise how good they have got it.
      Talk about fucking the golden goose up the arse.

    • Craig GlenEden 18.4
      11 January 2012 at 3:00 pm

      So the average wharfie does not earn $90.000 a year from doing a 40 hour week! Thought not.

      • Bafacu 18.4.1
        11 January 2012 at 3:22 pm

        Quite correct, as the statement clealy notes (if you care to really read it) “earned the average $91,000 in the 2010/11 financial year were paid for an average of 43 hours per week” – note the words “earned” and “were paid for” – they only “worked for 28 hours a week” though! So by your reconing they were paid $91,00 for a 28 hour working week – not too bad is it?

    • McFlock 18.5
      11 January 2012 at 3:08 pm

      53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000. 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.

      I’m not sure this bit adds up – would appreciate someone to check my math 🙂 .

      For 123 workers to be 53% of the workforce, that gives a work population of 232. But for 43 individuals to be 28% of the workforce, the population is 153. I assume there’s a typo in there somewhere. If 43 workers are indeed on more than $100k out of a population of 232, then that means an actual top-echelon level of 18% of the workforce. 
       
      And I’m not familiar with the organisational structure on the port – does this average include only personnel with no personnel that report to them, or does is include the shift leaders or even a tier above small-team supervision?

      • phil 18.5.1
        11 January 2012 at 4:21 pm

        McFlock – it looks wrong to me too. Could POAL clarify? Is the 28 meant to be 18 (18.5ish rounded down)?

        While we are doing maths, I though the directors would receive $70,883 on average (425,000/6) not $83,000.

    • RedLogix 18.6
      11 January 2012 at 3:49 pm

      Now let’s do some unpacking of those numbers. I’ll stick to average case to keep it simple.

      You have to keep in mind that these figures are not straightforward; including as they do The averages were calculated by POAL’s payroll team based on actual payments, including for leave days, medical insurance and superannuation contributions.. Which are items NZ employers like to think are ‘paid’ to their employees, but are in fact just costs of doing business, and are treated as such in many other countries.

      The ‘average’ week is called at 43hrs, but that includes their annual leave. On the weeks actually worked it’s 49hrs.

      Now I have to assume that this is calculated as hours paid at the base rate of $27 per hr, because in the next sentence the ‘average’ overtime of 35% is included allegedly reducing the paid hours worked from 43 per week to 26 hrs actual work. (Well 43 * (1.0 – 0.35) = 28 hrs but near enough.)

      So if we simply multiply this 43hrs per week by the base rate of $27 per hour, and spread it over 52 weeks (because these numbers include annual leave) then we get an actual gross pay of about $60k.

      This leaves a fair old gap to $91k.

      • McFlock 18.6.1
        11 January 2012 at 4:16 pm

        The other point I have a quibble with is the assumption that the hourly rate worked by those few workers earning the “average” income must therefore be working the “average” number of hours:
        One question that has been asked is how many hours you have to work to earn that $91,000. Stevedores who earned the average $91,000 in the 2010/11 financial year were paid for an average of 43 hours per week, excluding leave days. If you factor leave days in, that increases to 49 hours per week.
         
        I would expect those earning more than most of their colleagues to have some manner of performance-based weighting to their income to reflect either their superior performance, experience, qualifications, or additional/supervisory duties. These could well be more on an exponential basis, rather than linear.

        But even if it were so, as RL illustrates they would still face a cut in pay of 28% after the generous 10% “increase”. 
         

      • aj 18.6.2
        11 January 2012 at 5:13 pm

        Do the numbers provided cover all staff, including management.

        • McFlock 18.6.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:28 pm

          I’m actually wondering more about lower management – do stevedores have team leaders / site supervisors and the like? Especially if there are unfilled vacancies, I would expect them to be on a higher wage and be the ones onsite all hours.

          • KJT 18.6.2.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 5:44 pm

            Of course they do.

            • McFlock 18.6.2.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 5:48 pm

              I figured so.
              In which case, does “full-time stevedore” include “senior stevedore” or “site supervisor” when the POAL make their salary calculations? Who knows. 
               

              • KJT …
                11 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

                With the workforce numbers they have given they must include supervisors and foremen. I suspect specialists like planners etc also, which would push the numbers up.

    • KJT 18.7
      11 January 2012 at 4:09 pm

      So. What you are saying is that POAL want the watersiders to be there and available, bound, to work. Not able to do any other commitments. Without paying for it!

      Just like McDonalds.

    • higherstandard 18.8
      11 January 2012 at 4:16 pm

      This is the most useful information I’ve seen published anywhere on this issue since the start of the dispute. pity the MSM journalists could not print this along with a possible rebuttal/alternative viewpoint from MUNZ.

      • McFlock 18.8.1
        11 January 2012 at 4:57 pm

        Except for the typo in the figures and the dubious practise of including costs of employment as part of the annual wage.

        • hs 18.8.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:01 pm

          I can’t see any typo ?

          I would have thought MUNZ could rebut this all quite easily if there are gross inaccuracies.

            • hs 18.8.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 5:30 pm

              Ah quite so looks like there is indeed a discrepancy in the %’s.

              That aside I still view it as the most useful information I’ve seen published and would welcome MUNZ doing likewise.

              • McFlock …
                11 January 2012 at 5:37 pm

                That, and if their “roster flexibility” actually eliminates their alleged “35% downtime” – personally I would figure that that’s where they could do their training and suchlike) then their “10% offer” is actually an effective paycut of 28%. 
                  
                Thanks, guvnor! The missus was mighty grateful for that shilling you gave us at Christmas! [cough cough]

                • hs …
                  11 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

                  I doubt they’d spend 35% of their time training.

                  Possibly for new employees but not on an annual basis across the workforce.

                  The crux of the issue to me does seem to be the difference between the two parties in relation to ‘paid downtime’.

                  I can see the need for paid downtime in certain areas – fire services being the best example perhaps but with modern communication I would have thought there would not be the need for such a large amount of downtime for the port.

                  • McFlock …
                    12 January 2012 at 11:27 am

                    But the point being that even if they were only spending 10% of their “downtime” training, then it’s not downtime. It’s training time.
                     
                    It just goes to show the wriggle-room in one can do in stats if you’re the only one with acces to the database.

          • McFlock 18.8.1.1.2
            11 January 2012 at 5:25 pm

            above.

            53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000. 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.

             (123/53)*100  =~232
             (43/28)*100    =~153

             
            However:

             (43/18)*100     =~238,  (43/19)*100     =~226

            So I’m assuming that it was an accidental typo that accidentally made it look like well over a quarter of stevedores were earning more than $100k, rather than it being less than a fifth.

    • Vicky32 18.9
      12 January 2012 at 4:37 pm

      I can confirm that the average remuneration for a full time stevedore,

      Just an aside – I look it up, and confirmed my impression that the word ‘stevedore’ is the American term. Why are we using the American word now? Does it mean that we now have American union-busting thought processes as well? It matters what we call something – if we persistently use American lexis/spelling, it makesit so much easier to think American thoughts about industrial relations…
      http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Meaning-Words-1474/Stevedore.htm
      What we used to say:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevedore#New_Zealand
      and for thoroughness:
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stevedore
       

    • Jackal 18.10
      12 January 2012 at 4:54 pm

      The company has offered an upfront 10% increase to hourly rates if they leave the Union… Don’t forget that bit of your “generous” offer Catherine Etheredge.

      This is entirely designed to bust the union, which is in fact a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

      Article 23 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

      May I also just remind you that your plans to employ full time scabs will be in breach of the Employment Relations Act 2000, which states:

      96 Performance of duties of striking or locked out employees
      (1) This section applies if there is a lockout or lawful strike.
      (2) An employer may employ or engage another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee only in accordance with subsection (3) or subsection (4).
      (3) An employer may employ another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee if the person—
      (a) is already employed by the employer at the time the strike or lockout commences; and
      (b) is not employed principally for the purpose of performing the work of a striking or locked out employee; and
      (c) agrees to perform the work.
      (4) An employer may employ or engage another person to perform the work of a striking or locked out employee if—
      (a) there are reasonable grounds for believing it is necessary for the work to be performed for reasons of safety or health; and
      (b) the person is employed or engaged to perform the work only to the extent necessary for reasons of safety or health.
      (5) A person who performs the work of a striking or locked out employee in accordance with subsection (3) or subsection (4) must not perform that work for any longer than the duration of the strike or lockout.
      (6) An employer who fails to comply with this section is liable to a penalty imposed by the Authority under this Act in respect of each person who performs the work concerned.

      You cannot by law discriminate against Union members, o stop with the psychological warfare via people like Slater and start negotiating properly.

      • higherstandard 18.10.1
        12 January 2012 at 5:01 pm

        I don’t think POAL have stipulated that anyone has to leave MUNZ if they accept the offer, although I accept I could be mistaken, have you got a link for that ?

        • Jackal 18.10.1.1
          12 January 2012 at 5:19 pm

          Matt McCarten: ‘Greedy wharfies’ tale hides ambitions for port

          When the union negotiators pointed out that half of the workforce were part-timers and casuals so he already had enough flexibility, Gibson responded by saying this was his “best and final offer”. He followed up by offering existing casual employees permanent jobs paid at 10 per cent more than the union rate, provided they resigned from the union.

          • higherstandard 18.10.1.1.1
            12 January 2012 at 5:24 pm

            I’ll think you’ll find that Matt has a history of going off half cocked and printing untruths.

            Once again have you got a credible link for that such as a release from POAL or MUNZ ?

            • McFlock 18.10.1.1.1.1
              12 January 2012 at 5:27 pm

              Shifting goalposts again, lower?

              “have you got a link for that ?”
              vs
              “Once again have you got a credible link for that such as a release from POAL or MUNZ ?”
               
              i.e. any source you disagree with is not “credible”.

              • higherstandard …
                12 January 2012 at 6:02 pm

                McF

                As per the Jackal’s first post

                ..’The company has offered an upfront 10% increase to hourly rates if they leave the Union… Don’t forget that bit of your “generous” offer Catherine Etheredge.

                Do you think it is credible that POAL has made an offer of 10% conditional on members leaving the union based on no such report from MUNZ or POAL and solely based upon an article from Matt McCarten ?

                From what I have seen they have made the offer to MUNZ without any such condition.

                • McFlock …
                  12 January 2012 at 8:36 pm

                  Certainly possible. Also possible that McCartin’s wrong. But the issue here is what you deem to be “credible”. You asked for a source. You were given a source – a source more credible than the dodgy math from pr staff. But having been given the single source you asked for, now you’re claiming  that what you asked for was not enough to be “credible”.
                   
                  The previous standard you set for “credibility” is now, according to you, insufficient. Which is why I said you were shifting the goal posts.

                  • higherstandard …
                    12 January 2012 at 8:48 pm

                    So Matt McCarten is a better source than either of the two parties involved … mmmm OK, let’s just agree to disagree.

                    • McFlock …
                      12 January 2012 at 9:01 pm

                      Well, you didn’t stipulate “source, and I will only accept the direct testmony from either of the two parties involved in the dispute, delivered under oath.” You got what you asked for.
                        
                      It’s not even an issue about the relative trustworthiness of a source – although I find it interesting that the port pr uses figures here that don’t agree with themselves (and I’m not even quibbling about $91k, I’m referring to the basic issues they have with calculating percentages).
                        
                       

                    • higherstandard …
                      12 January 2012 at 9:22 pm

                      Crikey you’ve almost got me wishing that Rogernome would return to commenting here.

                      For the avoidance of future confusion when there is a comment such as

                      ‘..’The company has offered an upfront 10% increase to hourly rates if they leave the Union… Don’t forget that bit of your “generous” offer Catherine Etheredge.’

                      and I comment

                      “I don’t think POAL have stipulated that anyone has to leave MUNZ if they accept the offer, although I accept I could be mistaken, have you got a link for that ?”

                      I’m looking for confirmation in the form of a link to statement from MUNZ or POAL not a link to a third party piece from Cameron Slater, The Standard or Matt McCarten

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      12 January 2012 at 9:39 pm

                      HS, you’re probably not aware that the only way a worker can end a lockout is by leaving the union. The lockout notice is usually in the form of ‘you are locked out until you sign our offer’. That required signature is on an IEA and the CEA overules the IEA if the worker is a member of a union party to the CEA. Therefore, for the IEA to be operative, the worker must resign their union membership.
                       
                      CMP were very explicit about it, POAL maybe less so. But when you lock out workers, you are compelling them to leave the union if they wish to return to work. And, in POAL’s case, that included a ten percent wage rise, so McFlock is right.
                       
                       

    • DH 18.11
      14 January 2012 at 9:51 pm

      “An employee getting paid for a 43 hour week is only working around 28 hours; for a 40 hour week, 26 hours”

      I take it there aren’t many accountants at the Standard, no-one seems familiar with the cost of labour formula. Every person on a wage typically works about 30-33hrs for each 40hrs paid so the 26hrs is rather misleading if it’s worked out from the annual pay & includes leave etc.

      Cost of Labour formula for the standard 40hr week…

      A 40hr week is 2080 hrs paid per year, or 260 8hr days. Take off 4weeks holiday; 160hrs, 11 days statutory; 88hrs, 5days sick leave; 40hrs. 20minutes per day in paid smoko; 75hrs. Total hrs paid & not worked; 363. Average hrs worked for 40hr week; 33hrs.

      On top of that 363hrs every worker has some unproductive time which is typically around 7-10% so the real chargeable hrs worked on an annual pay basis is close to 30hrs for pretty much every person who works a 40hr week. I expect Catherine Etheredge only works some 30hrs for every 40hrs she gets paid too. The 26hr figure needs explaining; how did they arrive at it?

      You guys don’t question the statistics enough IMO.

      • RedLogix 18.11.1
        14 January 2012 at 10:03 pm

        Well we were very sceptical… but you are right.

        Just about everything we have been told by PoAL is probably bs or spin one way or another.

  19. Frank Macskasy 19
    11 January 2012 at 1:30 pm

    I get the very strong sense that the employers, National Party, and assorted right-wing groupies, are starting to realise that the PoA strike is spinning out of control.

    With the internet, the truth about casualisation is syarting to emerge. People are beginning to realise that this is not about a 10% wage increase (which was offered by the BOSSES – not a Union demand!)…

    Yup, panic is starting to set in.

    And the more Blogs and Facebook pages that report the truth, the more they will be shitting themselves…

    • infused 19.1
      11 January 2012 at 1:47 pm

      I don’t think there is any panic at all to be honest.

      • Dan hansen 19.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 2:22 pm

        Rather than panic the port is winning the debate and this turning into another hobbit moment for the unions

        PS: i guess at 91k port workers are now officially ‘rich pricks’? So Colonial Viper will now automatically dislike them and assume they ripping off everybody else?

        Or are there two classes of rich pricks – labour voting ones (that are good) and national ones (that are bad)?

        • felix 19.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:38 pm

          It’s only you and your mates who use terms like “rich pricks”.

          Grow up.

          • Dan Hansen 19.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 6:25 pm

            …and certain labour party finance minster of note who coined the term

            The underlying message of a large number of the left wing thought processes outlined on this site is that “if you are rich you have got there by exploiting others”

        • Frank Macskasy 19.1.1.2
          12 January 2012 at 6:11 pm

          Dan – you appear to resist higher wages for NZ workers. Why is that?

          Even John Key pledged to raise wages for workers, way back in 2008.

          Do you have a problem with NZ becoming a high-wage economy?

    • Karl 19.2
      11 January 2012 at 2:15 pm

      I get the very strong sense that the union, Labour Party, and assorted left-wing groupies, are starting to realise that the PoA strike has spun out of their control.

      With the internet, the truth about casualisation is syarting to emerge. People are beginning to realise that this is not about a group of hard done by workers striking for their ‘rights’ but an overpaid Union Hierarchy movement trying to extort more for their already overpaid membership.

      Yup, panic is starting to set in.

      And the more Blogs and Facebook pages that report the truth, the more they will be shitting themselves…

      • Colonial Viper 19.2.1
        12 January 2012 at 9:06 pm

        Dream on mate, please justify the $300/hr board member rate for sitting on their fat asses, and the $750K pa the CEO gets – I note he is not planning to bust down his own working terms and conditions, just those of the line workers.

  20. Cactus Kate 20
    11 January 2012 at 1:49 pm

    A Whale subcontractor?
    You are fucking joking.
    There’s one more reason I do things – love
    And I love smashing up Unions,

    • mickysavage 20.1
      11 January 2012 at 1:51 pm

      Don’t you think your hatred of unions is a bit unbalanced Kate?  They have achieved a great deal of good in the time that they have been in existence.

      • law 20.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 2:02 pm

        Don’t you think your hatred of National is a bit unbalanced Greg? They have achieved a great deal of good in the time that they have been in existence

        • Frank Macskasy 20.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 2:05 pm

          “Don’t you think your hatred of National is a bit unbalanced Greg? They have achieved a great deal of good in the time that they have been in existence”

          No.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 2:14 pm

          Let’s see. Hundreds of workers being fucked over while port execs and directors make millions in salary, fees and benefits.

          Seeing that POAL have no interest in being reasonable, they get everything they have coming to them. If they are expecting “balance” in return for their inept operational management, they’re more incompetent and naive than it looks like presently.

          • Dan hansen 20.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 2:17 pm

            At 91k for 43 hours a week of unskilled labour i could probably handle being “fucked over” – hell i might even enjoy it

            • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.2.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 2:24 pm

              Hey Dan, did you say that all POAL wharfies are getting a raise to $91K pa? Awesome! Where did you see that.

              Gibson gets $750K pa and he sure as hell doesnt work back to back shifts. In fact, value destroyer that he is, he needs to go and now.

              • Dan hansen …
                11 January 2012 at 2:35 pm

                91k is the figure that reflects a circa 40 [43] hour work week, which is line with the hours of the average worker in NZ – so its the most useful comparison point in determining whether it fair.

                I agree that 750k is excessive for running what in a global (and NZ) sense is a relatively small company. In fact I agree that that majority of CEO salaries are out of control – just as in this case the wharfies pay is also far too high relatively to other like occupations and hours worked. For example is it ‘fair’ that the average nurse earns 50-60k for a similar 30-45 hour shift based work week? If you going to rally against excessive CEO salary you should at least be consistent in your thinking when it comes to the excessive pays earned by wharfies…or is the fact they in a union blinding you to realities?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

                  Start by setting the example at the top. Clean out the over priced Board and CEO now.

                • KJT …
                  11 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

                  It’s not the wharfies getting too much, it is that our Teachers and Nurses, and many other New Zealanders, are grossly underpaid.

                  Due, to a large extent, to the emasculation of unions since the ECA.

                  • Dan Hansen …
                    11 January 2012 at 4:43 pm

                    Lets just MAKE the minimum wage 91k and be done with it!

                    Of course this would have no impact on the return earned by providers of capital, of course in response they would not remove their capital but rather just suck it up and earn perpetual losses

                    The government can just step in a buy these now worthless assets for $1 and we can live in a socialist utopia

                    Genius

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:46 pm

                      This is why we need infrastructure in public ownership, so some foreign based privateer doesn’t decide to fuck off with the capital, either directly, or indirectly by running the balance sheet down.

                      Yeah let’s make the minimum wage $91K and make sure that the CEo and the board members take massive paycuts to be on it eh.

                    • KJT …
                      11 January 2012 at 5:09 pm

                      Who provided the capital for Ports of Auckland in the first place.

                      Clue. It was not a private provider of capital.

                      And POAL’s cost of capital is just a valuation construct.

                    • Dan Hansen …
                      11 January 2012 at 6:29 pm

                      In reply to KJT below

                      Who provided the capital for Ports of Auckland in the first place is irrelevant – shareholders be it private or public demand a return for a commercial investment

                      If you think the cost of capital is only a valuation construct then you missing the key driver of our capitalist society – earning a return that at least reflects the risk of the investment. It drives all capital flows within and externally to a country

                      Im not sure you even know what it means….

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2012 at 6:34 pm

                      Dan Hansen you’re wrong. No one is stupid enough to try and demand an ROI for a port based solely on the port in isolation and without taking into account the wider societal and economic benefits such a facility has for Auckland.

                      Oh yeah RWNJs are.

                      Frankly the ROI on public port capital should be the same as a savings account. 2.5% pa if that.

                      And fire that damn CEO and the directors, thats an extra 10.5% ROI there.

                    • KJT …
                      11 January 2012 at 6:55 pm

                      I know all too well what it means.

                      And specifying an ROI when nobody can definitely quantify the real cost of capital is BS.
                      http://www.comu.govt.nz/about-comu/our-role/monitoring/board-valuation/

                      Any costs of capital valuations for assets built up over decades are just guesses.

                • DH …
                  17 January 2012 at 1:07 am

                  “91k is the figure that reflects a circa 40 [43] hour work week,”

                  That is false. The 43 hours looks to have been calculated by dividing total hours worked by a full year to get an average. It is a fake figure because they don’t work a full year; they have holidays just like every other worker does. When holidays (leave) are included it works out to 49hr weeks and even that is too low because workers usually get paid for a standard 40hr week when on leave & 8hr day for statutories which bring the average down. Clearly the $91k comes from working greater than 50hr weeks.

            • Frank Macskasy 20.1.1.2.1.2
              11 January 2012 at 2:30 pm

              I’d like to see an unskilled worker drive a multi-tonne container crane. The PoA’s insurance company would have a collective coronary.

              • Dan hansen …
                11 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

                Then what about the comparison of wharfies pay to nurses and teachers that earn much less?

                Or in fact a comparison to your generic GP which probably also earns circa 90-100k? Who is more ‘skilled’? Who has sacrificed more to get their position?

                http://www.emigratenz.org/salary-general-practitioner.html

                At least Mickey in his response to Catherine appeared to agree that the wharfies average pay “seemed very high’ – when will the rest of you admit it? Once you made that step you might have a bit more sympathy for the position of the POA for wanting to obtain better productivity from their payline (if your inherent biases allow you to make that intellectual jump)

                • Ianupnorth …
                  11 January 2012 at 2:56 pm

                  The average GP is on over $150K per annum; the average hospital consultant starts on $150K and rise to over $200K, plus can dabble in a bit of private work; they also get 6 weeks annual leave, two weeks paid study leave (with about $14K to spend on ‘professional development – normally a conference in a nice place with the family) and a 3 month sabbatical every five years, with expenses met! (see http://www.asms.org.nz/includes/download.aspx?ID=119302)

                  • Dan Hansen …
                    11 January 2012 at 3:11 pm

                    Two links – two different figures. You got to love stats

                    • McFlock …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

                      Not really. 
                        
                      You guesstimated a NZ average from a list of job advertisements that had no demonstrable sampling methodology.

                      Ianupnorth provided a collective contract for a union that represents 3500 health professionals.
                        

                    • Dan Hansen …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:56 pm

                      Mcflock

                      Did you even look at my link – was no guess-estimate at all i quoted figures provided in the link. Though i agree the second link does appear more comprehensive. Hence my comment re stats

                      Though if it easier for you to understood the issue, think of the comparison between nurses / fire man / police and the higher (over paid and unproductive) POA wharfies – is there a logical or economic or fairness reason why wharfies should earn more than nurses?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 January 2012 at 5:11 pm

                      Sigh.

                      This link:
                      http://www.emigratenz.org/salary-general-practitioner.html ?

                      The bit where it says “Salary and wage information for New Zealand professions is compiled regularly by analysis of New Zealand jobs advertised in major publications. Salaries are annual unless otherwise stated” is what we like to call “a description of sampling procedure”. For specialist employment I would expect examination of specialist journals as well as “advertisements in major publications”. 

                       
                      I would also caution you against assuming that regional salary approximate averages (or at least approximate averages for starting points in salary negotiations in different regional centres) can in any way be validly extrapolated to  “your generic GP which probably also earns circa 90-100k” (by which I assume you mean something along the lines of “a GP with average qualifications and pay conditions in New Zealand”). The Queenstown GP figure, for example, might come from only one advertised vacancy. The Auckland GP figure would have a higher turnover, but then you’re also merging Counties Manukau DHB with Auckland DHB. 

                      At least the ASMS figure is an actual collective contract for an organisation that has approx 20-25% membership of registered doctors.

                      PS: as to your wider issue, I agree entirely. Doctors, Nurses, fire-fighters and police officers should all receive immediate pay increases.

                  • higherstandard …
                    11 January 2012 at 3:19 pm

                    Ian as you know there are not a large number who work 10/10ths in public and then supplement with much private work.

                    Also to suggest that consultants in the pubic system rort the professional development fund to spend conferences overseas with this families this is also rare these days – at least in my experience.

                    • Frank Macskasy …
                      12 January 2012 at 6:18 pm

                      So what?

                      Good lord, are you right wingers going to put everyone under the flippin’ electron-microscope to see who is a deserving wage-earner and who isn’t?!

                      Talk about yer Tall Poppy Syndrome!

                      John Key pledges to raise wages and the first thing that reactionaries do? Slam those workers who earn high wages.

                      Bugger me, there ain’t no pleasing you people, is there.

                • Lanthanide …
                  11 January 2012 at 3:47 pm

                  Dan, the figures up above by Catherine are total remuneration. The figures you linked to are wages and salary. You’re comparing apples with oranges.

                  • Dan Hansen …
                    11 January 2012 at 6:32 pm

                    So Mcflock if “Doctors, Nurses, fire-fighters and police officers should all receive immediate pay increases [to 91k]” how will this be funded…i assume you mean a rich prick tax – in which case what will the rich pricks do?

                    If nurses, firefighters are all now paid 91k wont the vast majority of workers now demand 91k?

                    Suggest you take a few minutes to work out the implications of this

                    • KJT …
                      11 January 2012 at 6:52 pm

                      Oh yeah. The old threat of capital flight.

                      Fortunately they are too greedy to stick to principle.

                      Also explain why everyone is heading to OZ where the “rich pricks” are taxed a lot more?

                    • McFlock …
                      11 January 2012 at 10:23 pm

                      Idiot. By putting [91k] in my mouth you’re actually demanding a pay cut for doctors.
                       
                      By missing such an obvious point you’re obviously too stupid to understand the “implications” of a progressive taxation system, free education and the consumer/production increase of an expanding middle class. As opposed to the social problems we have from an expanding lower class.

          • Monty 20.1.1.2.2
            11 January 2012 at 4:18 pm

            [Deleted .Blatant trolling … when you use the word ‘scumbags’ to describe firemen you’ve gone too far. RL]

            (Sorry mickey to lose the parent comment on you.)

            • mickysavage 20.1.1.2.2.1
              11 January 2012 at 4:25 pm

              Wow, cactus, Monty, higherstandard, Hooten have all commented.  The right wing sure enjoy a bit of union bashing …

               

              • higherstandard …
                11 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

                You call my comment Union bashing Greg ?

                Well I suppose you call yourself a competent lawyer so you’re on record as being pretty loose and fast with your use of language.

                • mickysavage …
                  11 January 2012 at 4:38 pm

                  Well HS you do seem to have got awfully excited over the posts concerning the Maritime Union.

                  And you know nothing about me or my reputation.

                  BTW are you really the person who was masquerading on the Standard as female staff members a little while ago? 

                  • higherstandard …
                    11 January 2012 at 4:45 pm

                    Female staff members ?

                    Best you go back and do some basic human biology revision. Not me bud I’ve used a number of handles here including my own in the early days when lynn was using the milder AncientGeek handle but have always been male handles.

                    Oh and there’s plenty on record here about you, on the interwebs and among the Labour illuminati, all hilarious.

                    • lprent …
                      11 January 2012 at 10:58 pm

                      …lynn was using the milder AncientGeek handle…

                      And Lyn still reckons she preferred my personality as AncientGeek. I used that when I was separating the admin/sysop role from my commenting (originally I just did the tech role).

                      I dropped it when we (finally) decided to start active moderation. There was far to much possibility of getting into a situation of conflicts of interest. I still largely separate my comments from moderation in terms of what I’d do in each role. But the ‘personality’ tends to be creeping together as being a bit of an old ogre impatient with seeing the same old crap. But that is more a factor of not really taking much of a break from blogging, and progessively having less time to do it as the comments mount up.

                      I still use it sometimes whilst testing a non-admin login.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/?s=%40author+AncientGeek&isopen=block&search_comments=true&search_sortby=date

                • McFlock …
                  11 January 2012 at 4:38 pm

                  As opposed to an outright liar like you?

            • higherstandard 20.1.1.2.2.2
              11 January 2012 at 4:31 pm

              Why not leave his comment up – if he did indeed call firemen scumbags I’ll happily roger him sideways in a bloglike fashion.

      • Cactus Kate 20.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

        Don’t you think your hatred of big business and that of the Standard is a bit unbalanced Mickey? They have achieved far more than Unions have.
        I will always help in the fight against Unions, as I’m sure you will always help fighting big business.

        • Colonial Viper 20.1.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 2:09 pm

          Achieved far more, but for whom?

          As the GDP pie has grown, an increasing amount of that increased economic productivity has gone to the top 1%, and financial capital exported offshore, making NZ a poorer place. For those who are left.

        • mickysavage 20.1.2.2
          11 January 2012 at 2:09 pm

          Kate I run a business.  They are absolutely vital for the economy.  As are workers.  As are unions.

    • Frank Macskasy 20.2
      11 January 2012 at 1:53 pm

      So did the Polish Communist Party in 1981, Kate…

      But they failed.

      • Gosman 20.2.1
        12 January 2012 at 9:22 am

        Hey Frank, do you know what happened to the Gdansk shipping yards that were at the heart of the Solidarity movement?

  21. Catherine Etheredge 21
    11 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

    mickysavage – we did not include one off payments such as redundancy – the averages were calculated only on current employees who worked the full year.

    The figures first appeared in a POAL advertisement in The Shipping Gazette on 26 November 2011. I sent them to Cactus Kate after she emailed me asking for them. There were no conditions.

    Best regards
    Catherine

    • Colonial Viper 21.1
      11 January 2012 at 2:29 pm

      Dear Catherine,

      In addition to the average figure you have quoted, would POAL please release what the median income over that year was, for those employees.

      • Dan hansen 21.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 2:43 pm

        Lol – you looking for any explanation for the ridiculously high pay numbers arent you!

        Face the truth and it will liberate you

        • Craig GlenEden 21.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 3:11 pm

          Because Dan hansen the figures have to include over time and extra shifts. Next question was the Port of Auckland profitable in the last 5 years and how much have the board members been paid in that same period.

          • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 3:17 pm

            And how much has the CEO and the rest of the executive management team taken for themselves, from the economic surplus that the wharfies and other actual workers at POAL generated.

            • Dan Hansen 21.1.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 3:27 pm

              Given its been stated the POA hasnt meet its cost of capital no economic surplus has been generated!

              Besides workers (and CEO’s who are only glorified workers) cant generate an economic surplus unless somebody provides the capital (and should get a return for doing so) – a point lefties conveniently forget

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 January 2012 at 3:31 pm

                What cost of capital. The port generates massive economic benefits for the city, and that needs to be taken into account.

                Besides workers (or CEO’s or are only glorified workers) cant generate an economic surplus unless somebody provides the capital (and should get a return for doing so) – a point lefties conveniently forget

                Nah fuck it we don’t need capitalist owners to provide the capital, the Govt can do that by taxing capital from millionaires and billionaires, and then providing that capital back as 1% loans to worker co-ops. Easy.

                • Dan Hansen …
                  11 January 2012 at 3:38 pm

                  Thats right lets nationalise everything – thats worked out so well every other time its been tried during the 20th century

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    11 January 2012 at 3:43 pm

                    Worked for China. And Iceland. And it will work for Greece, Portugal and Spain.

                    Ireland are too gutless to try it though. Better than being owned by the banksters.

                    • Dan Hansen …
                      11 January 2012 at 3:53 pm

                      I think you will find that China’s success only happened once they embraced defacto capitalism…also the remnants of communism and central planning in China only remain due to the existence of a police state that tramples over everybody’s human rights….

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2012 at 6:28 pm

                      China’s version of capitalism is NOT American style capitalism.

                      In fact, China exploited the characteristics (weaknesses) of US style capitalism to great success.

                  • felix …
                    11 January 2012 at 3:50 pm

                    China now supplies the entire world with manufactured goods and has more money than a capitalist pig can shit, while the U.S.A. desperately prints money to stay afloat.

                    This apparently is evidence of the failure of nationalisation and the success of privatisation.

                    Right Dan?

                    • Dan Hansen …
                      11 January 2012 at 3:54 pm

                      Do some reading – the vast majority of exporting entities in China are private (or have significant private ownership)

                      Capitalism saved communist China – ironic isnt it

                      Some reading for you (“Private ownership: The real source of China’s
                      economic miracle – Mckinsey)

                      http://www.gmupolicy.net/china/readings/McKinsey%20on%20Private%20ownership.pdf

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:17 pm

                      Yes … but the other partner is almost always the CCP. And usually has a controlling interest.

                      And critically you overlook the fact that China holds it’s banking system very, very tightly to the State. And uniquely among the large trading nations; the government fixes it’s exchange rate.

                      For while many entities are indeed private, they operate with a quite tighhly controlled and planned marketplace and fiscal environment. Certainly China is nothing like the US capitalist model you seem to have in mind.

                    • Dan Hansen …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

                      In reply to RL above

                      Yes you right banking system in China is very tightly controlled – but i suspect not for too much longer

                      The US effectively exporting inflation to China – the pressue to liberalise the banking system and float the exchange rate is increasing rapidly.

                      IF there is a parner it normally the CCP – but CCP ownership has been decreasing overtime. Which makes senses – the conversion to capitalism has to be staged – full CCP ownership, then partial then minimal then none

                      As you dont dispute (and as detailed in the paper) the arise of private ownership and capitalism is what has driven the success of China so to say the solution for NZ is to nationalise assets is a rather silly comment.

                      Finally central planning and control works when you have a compliant population – that requires a police state the the inevitable human rights abuses

                      Im not sure we should aspire to the China system – as an example Lynn and the authors (and contributors) to this form would likely find them self in jail for critising the government

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

                      And yet you conveniently ignore the fact that while China was undergoing this massive transformation .. it was still being running as an economy with a very high degree of central planning, and in particular controlling it’s exchange rate to a fraction of it’s real value.

                      While at the same time highly de-centralised and privatised Western economies have stagnated and struggled. Clearly capitalism on it’s own is not the whole answer.

                      Simplistic ‘communism versus capitalism’ arguments are appallingly narrow and so last century really.

                    • KJT …
                      11 January 2012 at 6:04 pm

                      Meanwhile. In the home of failed capitalism.

                      http://www.alternet.org/economy/153646/america_beyond_capitalism%3A_is_it_possible

                      “”Mondragón Cooperative Corporation in the Basque country of Spain. This highly successful grouping of worker-owned cooperatives employs 85,000 people in fields ranging from sophisticated medical technology and the production of appliances to large supermarkets and a credit union with over 21 billion euros in assets””.

                      And North Dakota continues to buck the trend of job loses in the USA with State controlled banking.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_Dakota

          • Dan Hansen 21.1.1.1.2
            11 January 2012 at 3:22 pm

            The median may by slightly lower looking at the range provided by Catherine but i highly doubt the difference will be significant and change the underlying point that wharfies are over paid

            Profitability in its self isnt meaningful unless tied back to the capital employed – and that is POA’s point. There shareholders arent getting a WACC (cost of capital) return on their investment – hence value is being destroyed on an annual basis and that isnt sustainable.

            A useful counter argument (if somebody could bothered to do the analysis) is that the value of the investment as reflected on the balance sheet is out of date and therefore is artificially high and should be revalued lower – implication is for a given level of profitability that return is higher, and potentially a cost of capital return is already being earned on the true economic value of the assets. To get this economic value you going to have to revalue POA assets using POT assets as a proxy for the true value

            Maybe the question for Catherine is “is the value of assets as reflected on the POA balance sheet a true reflection of the economic value and has POA had any advice that a revaluation (downwards) may be required?”

            • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.2.1
              11 January 2012 at 3:27 pm

              The median may by slightly lower looking at the range provided by Catherine but i highly doubt the difference will be significant and change the underlying point that wharfies are over paid

              1) Let’s see the median figures then.
              2) Fire the CEO and the Directors, they are the ones who are overpaid, destroying value and they need to be shat on.

              • Dan Hansen …
                11 January 2012 at 3:34 pm

                1) Sure but its not going to change the picture

                2) if you want to fire the CEO and Board for being overpaid – then by same logic you should fire the port wharfies for earning a ridicilious 91k for 28 hours work.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  11 January 2012 at 3:39 pm

                  Responsibility and leadership starts with those at the top setting the example. Save $2M by firing the CEO and half a dozen board members for a start. And no one would notice their absence.

                  • Dan Hansen …
                    11 January 2012 at 4:08 pm

                    So who leads the company under your scenario? The workers?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 January 2012 at 4:38 pm

                      There’s a few options. Perhaps a CEO elected by the workers on an annual or bi-annual basis (might be from the existing workers, might be an outsider), and a governance structure consisting of a workers council which holds 20% of the board seats.

                      There will be plenty of workers happy to sit on the workers council and the board for an honourarium of just a few grand per year. And they will be far more able to get productivity gains from workers than this current “smash the union” approach of the 1990’s.

                      Each of these would be significant steps to realising a democratic socialism.

                    • felix …
                      11 January 2012 at 5:23 pm

                      “Perhaps a CEO elected by the workers on an annual or bi-annual basis (might be from the existing workers, might be an outsider), and a governance structure consisting of a workers council which holds 20% of the board seats.”

                      Elected? That sounds like democracy to me.

                      You filthy comm1e, trying to democratise everything.

                    • KJT …
                      11 January 2012 at 5:31 pm

                      I will, for half of Gibson’s salary.

                      Plenty of competent people around, but as they are not experts on cost cutting, privatisation and union bashing and know how to build companies rather than destroy, they will not get a look in.

                • Craig GlenEden …
                  11 January 2012 at 4:42 pm

                  They dont get $91.000 for 28 hours work they get $91,000 a year for 49 hours a week over twelve months. Stop telling lies Dan.

                  Surely you should be happy that these families are getting a decent wage to live on, if they have their conditions cut they will like thousands of others will most likely pack up and go to Australia where Unions are strong and wages continue to be decent for working families.

                  Why do you and the rest of the RWNJ hate working families why would you want to see NZ workers not getting a decent wage?

                • KJT …
                  11 January 2012 at 6:10 pm

                  They do not earn 91 k for 28 hours/week work. Read above.

                  Do you really think people should be required to be “at work” and not be paid because the management cannot organise work time properly.

                  Simply paying the managers and directors a more reasonable amount, and cutting down on the tribe of HR, “communications” and other managers will give the required return on capital.

        • Blighty 21.1.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 3:43 pm

          dan hansen. Would it be such a terrible thing if workers were earning $90,000 a year? They’re not, but would it be so terrible?

          I don’t hear you nashing your teeth over Paul Reynold’s $7 million a year, which is 80 times $90,000 – or quarter of the union workers’ total pay even under the Port’s bullshit numbers.

          • Willie Maley 21.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 3:50 pm

            +1

          • Dan Hansen 21.1.1.2.2
            11 January 2012 at 4:05 pm

            It would be great thing – if we could afford it and had the productivity to support it – sadly we dont as a nation

            See my above post when i note that the vast majority of CEO are overpaid

            • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.2.2.1
              11 January 2012 at 4:48 pm

              It would be great thing – if we could afford it and had the productivity to support it – sadly we dont as a nation

              Lie.

              Didn’t you see Dan – the value of the the Rich Pricks List has gone up enormously in the last 10 years.

              Worker productivity has sky rocketed and the top 0.1% have been keeping the gains for themselves.

              • KJT …
                11 January 2012 at 6:12 pm

                Productivity gains of 83%. Wages went up 15%. Most of which went to the top 5% of wage earners.

                If median wages had kept up with productivity and prices, the median wage would be more than 90k now.

                We can afford decent pay for workers.

                What we cannot afford is a continued hemorrhage of cash to overseas speculators, in our infrastructure, borrowing back our own money at interest from banks and non productive parasites like our old boys club of managers, speculators and financiers.

  22. Cactus Kate 22
    11 January 2012 at 2:11 pm

    http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/12/unions-stealing-christmas.html
    Here is my original post where I asked the question.

    Like I said at the time I promised to make enquiries and contacted POA and several of my contacts in the business reporting community. All of whom were too lazy to get back to me.

    The POA as Catherine has stated gave me the numbers. Which I then published. Free of charge. Motivated solely by a well documented dislike of Unions. As well as of course hypocrisy on the wharfies side that they want public sympathy when they’re coining it.

    No leaks, no conspiracy. Shit some might go all the way and call it journalism.

    • RedLogix 22.1
      11 January 2012 at 3:53 pm

      Motivated solely by a well documented dislike of Unions.

      How do you get by as a lawyer if you don’t belong to any Bar Association? Just curious?

      • Cactus Kate 22.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 3:58 pm

        Quite well for many years. I’ve only rejoined in the last year as it was beneficial to be listed overseas. Membership is voluntary and not being a member hasn’t held me back in the slightest according to the figures I published on Lawyers pay from surveys.

        Funnily enough I haven’t had any complaints from lawyers about publishing their pay, but the Unions and pinkos have gone nuts when I did for the stevedores.

        • felix 22.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 4:08 pm

          So you find it beneficial to be a voluntary member of a union but you’d like to deprive others of the same right.

        • RedLogix 22.1.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 4:11 pm

          So you are happy to join a Union when it suits you. Thought so.

          And I take it you’ve not taken much issue with Unions like, Federated Farmers, various Employer, Police and Medical Associations? Or Fonterrra which is one big farmer collective?

          And haven’t you noticed that most big corporates will do anything to ensure they operate in a non-competitive oligopoly? Anything to raise the barrier to entry for new competitors… operating in a market where the only important differentiator is price, is always a race to the bottom and zero profits.

          No-one really believes in free markets you know.

          • Cactus Kate 22.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 5:22 pm

            Actually it is not a Union. It doesn’t negotiate my pay or that of other lawyers.
            And in any case ironically I had to in order that offshore businesses could search that I was indeed a lawyer. That is I had to be a member of the Bar association to get on their website so foreigners could google that I was a lawyer.

            Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered. So yes another crappy argument by you all as I am in fact by stealth required to pay to be a member.

            If you google me vs Fed Fuckwits and Fongterror you will see I have carved both those organisations up therefore am entirely consistent in bashing these up as well.

            • KJT 22.1.1.2.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 5:26 pm

              It doesn’t set floors on Lawyers fees, And doesn’t lobby for that benefit system for Lawyers, legal aid. Yeah right.

            • felix 22.1.1.2.1.2
              11 January 2012 at 5:47 pm

              “That is I had to be a member of the Bar association to get on their website so foreigners could google that I was a lawyer.

              Otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered.”

              But you did bother because it is beneficial to you. You joined a collective because it’s in your best interests to belong to one.

              You do realise that it’s voluntary to join all the “evil” unions too, don’t you Cathy?

              • Cactus Kate …
                11 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

                It wasn’t voluntary as I joined for one purpose – To get my name on the public register to prove I am a lawyer ie. hold a current practising certificate. Mickey can explain this to you.
                No joining, no name on website so those foreign to the NZ jurisdiction cannot verify your claim to hold a practising certificate.
                Not one person or organization in NZ responsible for any pay or conditions I receive, if for no other reason genius. I don’t work in NZ!
                That I had to join is an indictment on the monopoly they have and charge for of publishing names of lawyers with current practising certificates.
                If the courts offered that service for free there is no way I would bother being a member.
                But you aren’t understanding this so feel free to continue your ignorance.

                • KJT …
                  11 January 2012 at 7:47 pm

                  If the courts offered this service paid for by the tax payer. While I stay where I do not pay back taxes for the cost of my education or any other services NZ tax payers provided to me.

                  Fixed it for you.

                • felix …
                  11 January 2012 at 8:29 pm

                  I understand this perfectly well, Cathy. It’s you who’s been changing your story re- voluntary membership from comment to comment.

                  Have another drink, granny.

                • Jackal …
                  12 January 2012 at 5:11 pm

                  Catcus

                  Shit some might go all the way and call it journalism.

                  Hardly! I still find it hard to believe that you’re a real lawyer Odgers… could you perhaps post your credentials? Things must be pretty diabolical in Hong Kong if they let you practice law with such obvious mental deficiencies going on.

          • Colonial Viper 22.1.1.2.2
            11 January 2012 at 5:46 pm

            No-one really believes in free markets you know.

            Especially China, who signed a “Free Trade Agreement” with us allowing them to put tarriffs on NZ dairy products as they wish. Which they have done so more than a dozen times since its signing.

    • DavidW 22.2
      11 January 2012 at 3:56 pm

      Oh shit Kate, I hate it like anything when you blow a good conspiracy theory out of the water. You mean you just ASKED for the information and it was provided?? Well I’ll be . ………….. And here we were spending days disputing the numbers and calling each other dirty lying capitalist running dogs and all kinds of groovy insulting names and obfuscating like crazy over matters completely non-central to the argument, and abusing anyone who meekly suggested that facts were a commodity in short supply around here and what do you do? Damn you Kate !!!!

      • RedLogix 22.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 3:59 pm

        You mean you just ASKED for the information and it was provided??

        And you’ve pretty much swallowed the company numbers uncritically. When you unpack them a bit …something doesn’t make sense.

        They don’t provide a complete picture.

        • DavidW 22.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 4:09 pm

          Don’t mistake me for dumb RL, I know perfectly well what a cost-to-the-employer calculation looks like. If you now want to say that benefits should not be included in earnings, perhaps you should have been a bit more specific earlier. Rule 1, when you get an answer, carefully define the question.

          I am however interested in the 1 for 1 super subsidy to 7%, don’t see that much these days (or ever for that matter), most of the rest including productivity incentives look a bit vanilla (not that they appear to have improved the POAL efficiency rankings much tho’)

  23. Frank Macskasy 23
    11 January 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Don’t you think your hatred of big business and that of the Standard is a bit unbalanced Mickey? They have achieved far more than Unions have.
    I will always help in the fight against Unions, as I’m sure you will always help fighting big business.

    Kate, that statement doesn’t even come close to accuracy..

    Of course Unions have achieved much. You and I are both aware of the last two hundred years, where Unions have played a prominent part in promoting safety; fair pay; a 40 hour week; equal pay; etc; etc. Manyh of the benefits you enjoy in your own employer-employee contract is based on what Unionists have achieved in the past.

    In fact, you probably owe the fact that you’re a qualified lawyer (?) rather than a pregnant housewife with a dozen kids; a pile of laundry; a stack of dirty dishes; etc – on the achievements of unionism and feminism. (No offence intended to housewives, who do a hard job and often for little recognition.)

    Count yourself lucky you live in 2012 – not 1812.

    I can’t speak for others, but stating that ” you will always help fighting big business” is, again, not accurate. We (generally) fight against the excesses and abuses of big business. That is the difference, as I perceive it: you oppose Unions because they exist – I oppose Big Business’ abuses when such abuses exist.

    Considering the global banking crisis caused by big business abuse; incomptenance; and greed – I think there is reasonable cause to keep a close watch on businesses?

    After all, it wasn’t the Maritime Union , sitting in Wall St boardrooms, that had to be bailed out by Bush and then Obama.

    • law 23.1
      11 January 2012 at 2:22 pm

      Frank, since you appear to not like banks, have you considered closing down your bank account?

      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 2:31 pm

        Hey law, after the righties privatise the water supply and all the power generators what would you like us to do to protest?

        Never drink water or use power again?

        Moron. Strategic economic infrastructure like the banking system must always be owned and operated in the public good, not for the good of Australian shareholders.

        • Frank Macskasy 23.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 2:39 pm

          Indeed, CV.

          (And I like to say, I don’t bank with a foreign owned bank. )

        • law 23.1.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 3:19 pm

          CV- you are welcome to connect a water tank to your gutters as I have done, next project will likely be a solar panel- I note an article in the Herald this week highlighting the increasing price reduction of them.

          You are also welcome to purchase shares in Westpac, ASB or the ANZ Group, though I am not sure what their owenership has got to do with this? I was simply letting Frank know he has the option not to have a bank account seen as he appears to not like bankers.

          • Frank Macskasy 23.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 9:29 pm

            “I was simply letting Frank know he has the option not to have a bank account seen as he appears to not like bankers.”

            As with your other assumptions and prejudices, you are in error.

          • Vicky32 23.1.1.2.2
            12 January 2012 at 5:50 pm

            I was simply letting Frank know he has the option not to have a bank account seen as he appears to not like bankers.

            Surely you know that no one has the option not to have a bank account? Quite aside from anything else, no employer will pay cash in hand.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.2.2.1
              12 January 2012 at 6:00 pm

              By law employers are required to agree to pay cash in hand…unless they contract out of it. Which is why every employment contract says that your pay will be direct credited into your bank account.

        • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.3
          11 January 2012 at 3:25 pm

          So capitalist owners with net assets and net worth will be welcome to participate in your little society then? After all it is predominantly the 1% who actively participate in the equity and debt markets.

          Your cute little EV system cannot power your oven or your hot water cylinder, and your grey water system is just that – grey water not potable.

          The privatisation of infrastructure leaves most with no way out but to pay for private profits for shareholders.

          False non choices as the corporate sector gobbles up the key monopoly infrastructure each of us need to live.

          • law 23.1.1.3.1
            11 January 2012 at 3:27 pm

            Ahh no, my water is drinkable, the UV light and other filters it goes through ensures that.

          • Karl 23.1.1.3.2
            11 January 2012 at 3:29 pm

            Because no one on a farm drinks rainwater? Twit.

            • Colonial Viper 23.1.1.3.2.1
              11 January 2012 at 3:55 pm

              Suggesting that townies have a serious option of getting off the town supply en masse is ridiculous.

              Stop privateers making money off core infrastructure each of us need to live.

    • Cactus Kate 23.2
      11 January 2012 at 3:32 pm

      And out with the sexist insults already now you’ve been discredited.

      Nah no offence intended to belittle housewives because you know the Union did so much for women they should be able to achieve more….

      I suppose Maori and Pacific Islanders should thank Unions as well that they aren’t living in caves, beating each other over the heads with sticks still or cleaning your shoes? What about the gays? And the Asians? And the transgendered?

  24. Frank Macskasy 24
    11 January 2012 at 2:25 pm

    The POA as Catherine has stated gave me the numbers. Which I then published. Free of charge. Motivated solely by a well documented dislike of Unions. As well as of course hypocrisy on the wharfies side that they want public sympathy when they’re coining it.

    It’s not hypocrisy.

    The Maritime Union is simply fulfilling National Party policy, in raising wages;

    “We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.” – John Key, 29 January 2008

    Source: http://www.johnkey.co.nz/archives/306-SPEECH-2008-A-Fresh-Start-for-New-Zealand.html

  25. ABS 25
    11 January 2012 at 2:34 pm

    At least Whale and Kate attempt to quantify their statements with facts. As has been shown, this whole post is a fantasy from go to finish. And if you bothered to check, 6 hours ago I asked Whale whether or not he had taken any money from the POAL or subsidiaries and he replied with a very definitive NO! Won’t link but given the severe moderation here I will screenshot and post on every other site that allows free and frank discourse.

    • McFlock 25.1
      11 January 2012 at 3:12 pm

      At least Whale and Kate attempt to quantify their statements with facts. 
       
      First time for everything, I suppose…

    • felix 25.2
      11 January 2012 at 3:36 pm

      Bollocks, Mr Ballsack.

      If it’s the q&a InventedTory quoted above then neither the question nor the answer said anything of the sort.

      If that’s not the exchange you’re referring to then please link to the correct one.

      “Won’t link but given the severe moderation here I will screenshot and post on every other site that allows free and frank discourse.”

      What absolute bullshit, people post links here all day long. You won’t post one because you lied about the wording of your question and Slater’s answer.

      • ABS 25.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 6:42 pm

        Sigh. Anyone who disagrees with the left is a liar. Obfuscate all you want ~ the whole premise and body of the post above us is complete and utter bullshit. However, you won’t call out James Henderson will you? I will stand by my original observation that The Standard is the biggest circle jerk in history. If I make it past moderation of course.

        • Frank Macskasy 25.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 9:32 pm

          “I will stand by my original observation that The Standard is the biggest circle jerk in history.”

          I suppose the irony of that statement totally eludes you?

    • Inventory2 25.3
      11 January 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Happy to post your screenshot ABS 🙂

      • felix 25.3.1
        11 January 2012 at 4:12 pm

        Why don’t you just link to it here like anyone else would?

        Ballsack doesn’t seem to have the capacity, but you know how to paste a link, right IV2? What’s stopping you?

        Is it that you don’t have anything to link to other than the q&a you posted above in which Slater doesn’t actually deny being paid for his work?

        • ABS 25.3.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 4:26 pm

          Because I find it hard enough to pass moderation here without linking to WhaleOil. Thanks Inv2 for doing so.

          • felix 25.3.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 6:44 pm

            He hasn’t linked, he just quoted your question and Slater’s answer.

            They don’t say what you claim they do.

            • ABS 25.3.1.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 7:26 pm

              I tried linking before but was put on moderation again. Here’s a thought – just go to WhaleOil. For your information, I came to this thread and after reading it, wanted to know myself whether Cameron was paid money for publishing the views of POAL.

              To surmise:
              ABS: Cameron have you taken money to run POAL’s propaganda?

              Direct Quote WhaleOil: Whaleoil
              I have not accepted or received any money from Ports of Auckland, not 1 cent let alone $10,000

              [The auto-spam trap catches all sorts of stuff that would otherwise make this site utterly unmanageable. It’s necessary. Most of the time if you are patient a moderator will get around to releasing your comment within an hour or so.]

              • felix …
                11 January 2012 at 8:23 pm

                That answer doesn’t come close to denying that he’s being paid for the work, it only says he hasn’t received any money from POAL.

                Why don’t you read the fucking thread? This has been addressed several times already.

                And stop bullshitting about not being able to link. You’re just using that as an excuse to change your wording every time you describe the question and answer.

                • ABS …
                  11 January 2012 at 9:14 pm

                  To paraphrase the left: “this is why we need National Standards”

                  I am not Cameron Slater. I asked a question and received an answer. Sorry if that answer trims your ball hairs.

                  ~BallSack

                  • felix …
                    12 January 2012 at 12:41 am

                    Look I can see you’re not the sharpest prick around so I’ll explain this one more time and I’ll type slowly.

                    Slater said he hadn’t received any money from POAL, and that’s all he said.

                    He hasn’t denied that he’s being paid for the work.

                    Do you get it yet?

  26. Frank Macskasy 26
    11 January 2012 at 2:37 pm

    The piddling $2,000 donation that the Maritime Union gave to Len Brown, Slater used to suggest the Supercity mayor was in the wharfies’ pocket. That one didn’t really fly. – Author’s opening post.

    Interesting…

    Slater condemns the $2,000 donation?

    How does he square that – with this:

    “Dealer who gave Nats $50k eyes Govt BMWs”
    – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10725267

  27. Brett Dale 27
    11 January 2012 at 2:40 pm

    $91480pa is the average wage???????

    I thought these guys were only getting $13 bucks an hour??

    • Frank Macskasy 27.1
      11 January 2012 at 5:15 pm

      Brett – you do know that the Union is not seeking a 10% wage increase, don’t you?

      You do know that the 10% was offered by the PoA employers – not the Union?

      And you are aware that the reason for the strike isn’t over wages – but threatened casualisation by PoL ?

      There y’go; glad to be of assistance.

      • Brett Dale 27.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:42 pm

        POA offered 10%, and the unions turned it down. The LIBERAL MEDIA (I should get a job at faux news) kept showing that guy with a banner that had $13 dollars an hour in all conditions.

        Im guessing most kiwis think these guys are on 13 dollars and hour and not 94 thousand.

  28. Fat Cat 28
    11 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

    $100k per year. Imagine being that lucky! Imagine being so lucky that an insurance company will pay you out $100k per year for 6 years! . . after which you’re so depressed you have to go on a sickness benefit . . but you’re never too depressed to appear on Leighton Smith’s show, or Larry Williams’ show, or court, or blogging tours, or hunting, or holidaying.

  29. Brett Dale 29
    11 January 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Here is a simple question, will I get a answer from it????

    How much money are these [port workers currently paid on average?

    Im not talking about management?

    Im talking about the workers who you guys are supporting.

    Im kinda guessing the figure of 90 thousand a year is wrong?

    • felix 29.1
      11 January 2012 at 3:04 pm

      $27 an hour for full time apparently. Not bad.

      • Brett Dale 29.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

        Nice for them, too bad they wanted more.

        • felix 29.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:29 pm

          No Brett, they wanted the same money adjusted for inflation. The Port wants to pay them less.

          Try to keep up mate.

          • Brett Dale 29.1.1.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 5:41 pm

            I thought they wanted more than 10%?

          • Brett Dale 29.1.1.1.2
            11 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

            Inflation is over 10%??

            [God I can’t stand you flailing around like this.

            The Union is asking to retain existing terms and rosters plus a 2.5% inflation only adjustment.

            PoAL is asking for a complete dismantling of the rosters which will mean a reduction of paid hours in the order of 25-35%. In return they are only offering a 10% pay rise. Yet the workers will still have to be available to work 24/7.

            In total this amounts to a substantial pay cut for exactly the same work….RL]

            • Brett Dale 29.1.1.1.2.1
              12 January 2012 at 11:05 am

              So basically the Union dont want their workers to be on call 24/7, and they want their workers to be paid even if they dont work.

              Well here is what should happen

              You should only get paid for the hours you work.

              If your not working, and dont want to come in on call, turn your cell phone off.

              • The Voice of Reason …
                12 January 2012 at 11:20 am

                Hey Brett, I can’t find your comments decrying the payment of workers who were unable to work due to the Chch earthquakes. Can you show me where they are? I presume they will be near your posts opposing the payment of workers whose places of work were closed due to snow in Otago and Southland last winter. And the winter before that. And the winter before that, etc etc.
                 
                But, fundamentally, what you support is the unilateral breaking of contracts by the party who can’t plan a workload effectively. All fulltime Kiwi waged workers are guaranteed minimum working hours each week (usually in the range of 35-45 hours per week). It’s not the workers’ fault if the work isn’t available, so why should they subsidise incompetence?

                • Brett Dale …
                  12 January 2012 at 11:44 am

                  Voice of reason:

                  There is no earthquake in Auckland, there is no snow in Auckland, these workers who are on a huge wage already want to be paid a 40 hour week for only working 20 odd hours.

                  Now if their current employer wont do this, perhaps they can look for work in another industry, Im sure other employers would be quite happy to pay them for a 40 hour week and have them only work 20 odd hours.

              • RedLogix …
                12 January 2012 at 11:26 am

                I’m rapidly losing patience with idiots.

                The union is perfectly happy for their workers to be on call 24/7. It’s the nature of the work, they’ve done it like that forever.

                You should only get paid for the hours you work.

                The workers have contracted to do a full 8 hr shift. They are required by their employer to be available for that shift. The workers do not have the option to ‘turn their cell-phone off’, nor can they seek alternate employment.

                The employer then shortens that shift from 8 hrs to say 2 hrs; it is the employer who is breaking the contract.

                Do you think it is the employee who should wear the cost of the employer breaking the contract.

                • Brett Dale …
                  12 January 2012 at 12:00 pm

                  RedLogix:

                  If the work isnt there though? what is the employer suppose to do?

                  • RedLogix …
                    12 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

                    In the case of PoAL the work is there. These guys actually do heaps of overtime in the course of a year.

                    The problem is that the employer has real structural problems with proper utilisation of their asset, and with workflow management.

                    But rather than fix those problems; they just want to take the cheap lazy way out and dump the cost onto their workers.

                    Which is plain dumb.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      12 January 2012 at 12:22 pm

                      POAL and Port of Tauranga also appear to be charging way less than their Australian port management counterparts.

  30. Blue 30
    11 January 2012 at 3:03 pm

    See Post 18 for your answer Brett

  31. randal 31
    11 January 2012 at 3:24 pm

    dont worry folks.
    according to fran sulivan they are going to fill in the harbour or move it somewhere else or whatever if the accountants dont get their way and spit the dummy.

  32. Karl 32
    11 January 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Of course one of the most amusing things about watching all the left wing commentators on this thread supporting the wharfies – is you seem to have forgotten this is a CCO.

    So anything given to those “rich pricks” above the median wage is stealing from all the impoverished Auckland City dwellers. In fact Len may have just found a way to pay for his train set…

    • Frank Macskasy 32.1
      11 January 2012 at 5:16 pm

      Karl – for your benefit – you do know that the Union is not seeking a 10% wage increase, don’t you?

      You do know that the 10% was offered by the PoA employers – not the Union?

      And you are aware that the reason for the strike isn’t over wages – but threatened casualisation by PoL ?

      There y’go; glad to be of assistance. Again.

  33. Karl 33
    11 January 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Of which only 28 hours were actually worked – the rest were spent at home the poor dears.

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      11 January 2012 at 3:35 pm

      Still doesn’t beat the $300/hr rate gifted to the double dipping company directors to destroy the port’s value and lose the port’s major customers.

      • Dan 33.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

        Double dipping how?

      • Karl 33.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 3:47 pm

        Because you assume that a director with full legal liability for the entity is only doing 5.5 hours a week? Have you ever even remotely seen what a director typically does?

        We had one of the most useless hands off directors I have ever seen at my previous employer – but even he did far more than that for us.

        Also while basking in your collectivist ideals you may want to reflect on this:
        http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/11/thanksgiving-lessons.html

        “It’s one of the ironies of American history that when the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth rock they promptly set about creating a communist society. Of course, they were soon starving to death.”

        I just hope the union bosses spread their largess around to support all the workers they’ve successfully gotten fired.

        • Colonial Viper 33.1.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:47 pm

          “It’s one of the ironies of American history that when the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth rock they promptly set about creating a communist society. Of course, they were soon starving to death.”

          46M Americans on Food Stamps and counting mate. Hows the bastion of free market capitalism doing these days?

    • Blighty 33.2
      11 January 2012 at 3:38 pm

      no, they weren’t ‘spent at home’. Paid down time is spent at the port.

      And the 28 hours of work you refer to a week is 40 hours of restored shifts. On their hourly rate of $27, that’s $56,000 a year – hardly ‘rich pricks’.

      Jesus. You don’t understand this issue at all.

      But, then, you’re a righty arguing for someone else to get a pay cut. What’s new there?

      • Rob 33.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 8:09 pm

        what , playing plants vs zombies all day, geeze

        • felix 33.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 8:33 pm

          Righto Rob, are you going to be talking to your boss tomorrow and offering to turn up to work several hours early and sit around for with no pay while you wait to be called up?

          No?

          Didn’t think so.

    • Frank Macskasy 33.3
      11 January 2012 at 5:18 pm

      You really haven’t the faintest, do you…?

      So, after the maritime worker’s jobs are casualised, Karl, can we go after YOUR job?

      Just checking.

    • Frank Macskasy 33.4
      11 January 2012 at 9:55 pm

      And you should care because—?

  34. Colonial Viper 34
    11 January 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Workers have to do double shifts to turn their $27/hr into $91K

    The CEO is not worth the $750K he is earning, fire him first.

    Face it POAL has run out of ideas to improve their profitability; the only thing the Board and executive management can think of now to make an extra dollar is to take it away from workers.

    There needs to be a thorough clean out at the top.

  35. Allyson 35
    11 January 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Reading this thread leads me to conclude that Matt McCarten is either very gullible or does not always tell the truth.

    • indiana 35.1
      11 January 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Apparently doesn’t pay taxes either…

      • Frank Macskasy 35.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 5:19 pm

        That is pretty close to slander.

        So the right wing nutters start trolling when they can’t win the debate with rational discourse.

        • law 35.1.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 5:39 pm

          pot. kettle. black

        • Inventory2 35.1.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 6:57 pm

          Frank Macskasy said

          That is pretty close to slander.

          So the right wing nutters start trolling when they can’t win the debate with rational discourse.

          No Frank; those allegations against McCarten are a proven fact.

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10740987

          Inland Revenue is chasing unionist Matt McCarten’s Unite Support Services Ltd. for $150,750 in unpaid taxes after the department forced the company into liquidation last month.

          McCarten’s vehicle, which supplied administrative support services to the youth-orientated union Unite Inc., was put into liquidation by a High Court order last month after the tax department pursued it for “failure to provide for taxation,” according to the first liquidator’s report.

          The Official Assignee rated the prospect of a dividend as “unlikely,” and is looking into the company’s possible interest in an Onehunga building lease, the report said.

          The liquidator will contact McCarten to verify Unite Support Services’ interest in the building, which may have outstanding arrears owed on the lease.

          IRD is seeking almost $4,000 costs, $97,000 in a preferential claim and a further $49,800 as an unsecured creditor with proof of debt.

          The Unite union assigned an interest in a lease and the provision of educational activities to McCarten’s company, according to its 2009 financial statements, the latest lodged with the Companies Office.

          The union has the right to take action against McCarten’s company if there’s a default of the lease agreement.

          The union fell afoul of the IRD after failing to pay tax on revenue accrued between October 2007 and March 2009. After racking up $134,000 in unpaid tax, it agreed to repay that at a rate of $8,000 a month.

          The company reported a net deficit of $33,700 in the 2009 year and made a loss of $15,500 the year before.

          Both Unite Union and Unite Social Services Limited (of which McCarten was sole director) had significant arrears to the IRD. In the case of the Unite Union, it was $134,000 in debt, accrued over an 18-month period before and after the 2008 election.

          If an employer of Unite union members failed to pass on deductions for PAYE, Kiwisaver, Student loans etc, the union and McCarten would be rightly irate. So it’s not a good look when a trade union withholds money it has deducted from union staff, is it now.

          I hope I haven’t shattered your image of McCarten and Unite; I’m surprised you weren’t aware of this, widely read as you are. But thanks for the opportunity to educate you 🙂

          • ABS 35.1.1.2.1
            11 January 2012 at 7:33 pm

            [We always delete these ‘pwned’ comments. They start flamewars…..RL]

          • Frank Macskasy 35.1.1.2.2
            11 January 2012 at 9:26 pm

            So it’s the UNION that is/was being “chased” for taxes – not Matt McCarten?

            The right wing trolls should be a tad more specific then, eh? Because Username Indiana can still be seen as making slanderous allegations.

            Facts.

            Glad to help IV2.

            • Inventory2 35.1.1.2.2.1
              12 January 2012 at 8:44 am

              No Frank; Unite Social Services was liquidated by IRD because of a tax debt of $150k. Unite Social Services Limited’s sole director and shareholder was Matt McCarten. And you may note the the IRD’s application to place the company into liquidation was for “failing to provide for taxation”. Effectively, IRD is saying that USS Ltd had made no provision for tax, and had no intention of paying it.

              McCarten set up USS to contract to Unite Union to provide administrative services (ironic given the outrage at the thought that PoAL may contract out services!). The two are unable to be separated. And as anyone knows, Unite Union is Matt McCarten. He has admitted elsewhere that he got it wrong. But it has been an embarrassing episode for the union movement and for McCarten personally who was one of the few union leaders I had a modicum of respect for.

  36. Travis 36
    11 January 2012 at 4:08 pm

    lprent: since James Henderson has gone to ground since making his false claims this morning and failed to answer my question, and since you’ve seemingly been more than happy to support his claims perhaps then you would be happy to answer the same question I asked him:

    ” James Henderson: I’m interested in you putting forward some evidence in light of Cameron Slater “being paid to run dirt stories for Ports of Auckland”.

    Please tell me that “He didn’t deny it” is all you have to produce.

    Where did this $10,000 figure come from?

    I hope you’re not making assumptions based on past instances, that would be poor form.”
    ***********
    And please don’t feed me that ” Like me, James is probably at work and only reading the site occasionally.”

    I’m not interested in any sidestepping, but will partially accept any pedalling in the reverse direction, I keenly await your response, or did I ask a curly one?

    • lprent 36.1
      11 January 2012 at 10:28 pm

      Ummm well I was working some nasty code from mid-afternoon to quite late. Had dinner, written a post, cleaned up e-mails, . And now I’m working my way back through the comments now.

      But the short answer I don’t know for sure (and James never comments anyway).

      However I’d presume that in the absence of any other visible means of support apart from a sickness benefit that he may or may not be on, and as he clearly doesn’t work, I assume that he is getting his blog to pay his income somehow – the question is how. Now there have been rumours for some time…

      If Slater doesn’t like it, then he is always welcome to pursue legal avenues. I for one would love to force a disclosure on him via the courts to prove where he is supporting his blog (and lifestyle) from. I’m sure that would be of considerable public interest and in the public good.

      I’d suggest that you read the about and the policy. Especially the section on “You must..”. You’re just lucky I didn’t see this while moderating.

    • Frank Macskasy 36.2
      11 January 2012 at 11:25 pm

      Travis; considering the dirt that Cameron dishes up – much of it unfounded – you’ll excuse me if my Sympathy Factor for him remains firmly set at ‘zero’.

  37. chris73 37
    11 January 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Seriously this is gold, the only thing you clowns should be greatful for is that this has happened so early in the election cycle and people will have forgotten about it…

    Honestly how dumb are you guys or is that you’re so far out of touch with the majority of kiwis that you really have no idea what people who arn’t stuck in the 1950s actually think?

    See heres the thing, the problem is you think that everyone else thinks and act like you lot on the left do so if someone (cactus kate for example) posts something you don’t like/agree with you immediately assume shes making it up because thats what the left do (make stuff up, lie, mis-spoke, disinformation etc etc)

    Best entertainment on the net (after notalwaysright.com)

    To be positive Shearers shown good instincts by keeping well away for this

  38. Colonial Viper 38
    11 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

    I see the RWNJs have a real interest in this issue. Wonder why 😀

    • chris73 38.1
      11 January 2012 at 6:05 pm

      Because your lots first thought is to lie, attack and discredit any view that you disagree with and in this instance (like so many others) you lot have lost this battle because of it (and by battle I win the publics perception)

      And its amusing

      • Cactus Kate 38.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 9:40 pm

        +1

      • Frank Macskasy 38.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 11:23 pm

        “Lost this battle”, Chris?

        No, I don’t think so.

        The propaganda from the employers was that this was a wages-related issue and the figure of 10% was bandied about.

        Then the truth becomes public; it’s not about wages, and the figure of 10% increase came from employers who wanted to CASUALISE their workforce.

        I think that’s when most New Zealanders would have realised what, precisely was going on.

        And most New Zealanders would be horrified if their employer tried to change a full time, 40+ hour a week job into a casualised role. Not only is that unfair, but it’s pretty damned hard to pay the mortgage and raise a family when you don’t know what your rostered work hours will be from day to day, or week to week.

        Because if the Maritime Union workers can be casualised – who’s next?

      • muzza 38.1.3
        12 January 2012 at 4:19 pm

        Chris73 – You have no idea what you are talking about, and you have no idea what you are playing with. Back the workers, because we all are workers in some way shape or form, and need to support eachother , not look to tear it all apart.

        The left-right paradigm is killing peoples ability to rationalise, “You lot this, you lot that” is that the level we have reached now is it!

    • James 111 38.2
      11 January 2012 at 6:41 pm

      CV
      Its a bit of shame when the truth come out from POA and blows away all the Left Wing Bull Shit isnt it?
      Gone very quiet on here trying to justify what really seems like greed.

      Notice Mcflock has gone hiding

      • McFlock 38.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 10:15 pm

        Went to the pub with my friends, dickwad.
        Look up “friends” in the dictionary. Then tell me what your point is.

    • ABS 38.3
      11 January 2012 at 6:50 pm

      Perhaps we are just as sick of left wing trolls CV. The difference being right wing trolls say what they personally believe whilst left wing trolls repeat the party line ad infinitum.

      • KJT 38.3.1
        11 January 2012 at 7:13 pm

        LOL.

        I have yet to see an original thought from a RWNJ.

      • felix 38.3.2
        11 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

        lolz

      • Frank Macskasy 38.3.3
        11 January 2012 at 10:01 pm

        Really, ABS?

        Considering that you’re a right winger of a Left wing Blog, I think that’s a bit rich.

        And considering you’ve not attempted to add anything of a factual nature to this debate – who, precisely, is the troll?

        You’ve come here simply to make derisory comments and ad hominem attacks – through the safety of your anonymity.

        So really, you contribute practically nothing to this discourse. At least Cactus Kate attempts to add something of value by addressing specific issues.

        • felix 38.3.3.1
          12 January 2012 at 12:16 am

          “At least Cactus Kate attempts to add something of value by addressing specific issues.”
          [citation needed]

          • lprent 38.3.3.1.1
            12 January 2012 at 8:17 am

            Oh come on Felix. Despite my frequent carping at her, she does argue her case and usually to an agree to disagree level. That is despite her proclivity toward getting indignant about being offended.

  39. Peter Martin 39
    11 January 2012 at 5:59 pm

    So…after all that, just how much do people consider a PoA employee should earn…and how many hours per week?

  40. Tangled up in blue 40
    11 January 2012 at 6:21 pm

    I can confirm that the average remuneration for a full time stevedore, in the year ended June 30, 2011, was $91,480. The average remuneration for a part time stevedore (guaranteed at least 24 hours work a week) was $65,518.

    53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000. 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.

    The averages were calculated by POAL’s payroll team based on actual payments, including for leave days, medical insurance and superannuation contributions

    vs.

    The company says workers are getting $90,000 per year for 26 hours work. This is simply wrong, and management has not provided any supporting data to back up this claim

    A stevedores guarantee for 40 hours per week is $1,090.40 = $56,700.80 per annum @ 260 shifts per year. To earn the money being quoted by Mr Gibson, stevedores would have to complete an extra 1,377 hours.

    http://www.munz.org.nz/ports-of-auckland-dispute/

    I’m guessing that the 30 odd thousand discrepancy is worker benefits?

    • chris73 40.1
      11 January 2012 at 6:26 pm

      I’m thinking that the unions (and lefties in general) believe the end justifies the means so they’ll tell lies

      Or they were hoping the info wouldn’t come out.

      • Colonial Viper 40.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 6:32 pm

        Alsways fascinating watching the Right project their inner characteristics on the world around them.

        In addition to ‘the ends justifies the means’ meme, the politics of envy meme, and the hater meme are all very revealing of the RWNJ personality.

      • RedLogix 40.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 7:13 pm

        We KNOW from PoAL themselves that the base rate is $27.40 per hour.

        Now if you multiply that out at say just an ordinary 40 hour week, by 52 weeks in a whole year … this is a gross pay of $56,000 or so.

        Now how do you think PoAL arrived at a gross pay of $91,000 for 26hrs a week work?

        I’m really interested to see how you think these two numbers can be reconciled?

        • ropata 40.1.2.1
          12 January 2012 at 12:28 am

          There are probably allowances added to the base rate. Depends on the collective agreement but I would expect a shift allowance, danger allowance, possibly a dirt allowance for most workers. Also there would be a scale for skills, seniority, and holding tickets to safely operate the machines. Then there are overtime rates and productivity bonuses.
          All very reasonable considering the enviroment these guys work in.
          See Helen Kelly’s detailed breakdown here.

    • James 111 40.2
      11 January 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Wonder who is lying then? Makes you wonder whether the Union has all its facts together on this one doesnt it. Looking at the standard of representation the Wharfies have on TV I some how dont think they have. Or they cant actually come to grips with the situation that these guys are very well paid for what they do or dont do compared with like Jobs less than 2.5 hours drive from here

      • Tangled up in blue 40.2.1
        11 January 2012 at 6:52 pm

        Total remuneration includes “medical insurance and superannuation contributions“.

        Are these types of expenses (especially insurance) usually counted as a payment to the employee??

        Serious question.

        • KJT 40.2.1.1
          11 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

          Not normally when you are comparing hourly rates.

        • RedLogix 40.2.1.2
          11 January 2012 at 7:29 pm

          Employers like to…especially in this country. In most other countries these sort of costs are seen for what they are, costs of doing business.

          When counting medical insurance into the total package, what they don’t mention is that if the individual employee decides to opt out of insurance, they don’t get offered the cash difference.

          It’s much the same if a company vehicle is supplied, if you ask for the cash instead the employer will always turn you down.

          Employers usually don’t supply these things from the goodness of their hearts; they do it because they are generally regarded as a necessary expenditure to ensure the employee is available, and capable of doing the job. It really makes as much sense to include these things into a ‘total renumeration’ as including costs like office space, IT and software, tools and training. All these things can directly or indirectly benefit BOTH employer and employee in varying degrees.

          Another interesting one is superannuation. Different countries link various forms of contribution solely as a cost to the employee, some to the employer… but in both cases they really amount to a form of taxation earmarked for the purpose of retirement.

          But of course what counts to most people is the cash they see at each payday. No-one really believes these inflated ‘total renumeration’ packages.

      • Frank Macskasy 40.2.2
        11 January 2012 at 9:53 pm

        So? Why should you care, James?

        Do you expect others to comment on your wages, whether it’s justified or not, for the work you do?

    • Frank Macskasy 40.3
      11 January 2012 at 11:18 pm

      Hmmmm, sounds like the “politics of envy” there, TuiB?

  41. James 111 41
    11 January 2012 at 6:57 pm

    I thought these figures were really interesting

    » 35% of hours paid are for when there is no work to be done, so those 43 paid hours, on average only 28 hours are actually worked.
    » This means the effective pay per hour worked is an average of $62.50 per hour ($91,000/52/28).

    $62.50 an hour equivalent for actual hours work not bloody bad getting right up there in the hourly rate stakes. No wonder they want to hang onto that for as long as possible.

    No wonder the company cant pay for ts cost of capital, and its dividend has fallen whilst Tauranga ports dividend has soared

    • KJT 41.1
      11 January 2012 at 7:18 pm

      So. A shop assistant should only be paid for the actual time serving customers. Not hours at work.

      And the low returns are nothing to do with management giving Mearsk too cheap a rate to entice them from Tauranga.

      POAL drops rates and Labour costs to get Mearsk back. Tauranga does the same and vs=versa until all wharfies are casuals on $13. That is what the strike is about.

      Don’t be a dick.

      • James 111 41.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 7:27 pm

        KJT

        I believe the guys name who runs such an efficent wharf at Tauranga is Les Dickson he has the contract . He also sorted out the Bluff wharf as well when you see how well they run, and what a great dividend the Ports of Tauranga are paying back to the people in the bay. POA would be foolish not to get him involved up here .W e would see productivity go up Auckland Rate payers getting a better return on investment. Even may be some left over for Lens trainset what do you reckon. Im sure Mr Parsloe must tremble at the knees when he hears the name Les Dickson

      • James 111 41.1.2
        11 January 2012 at 7:30 pm

        KJT
        The shop assistant cant go home and get paid for it would get fired. The Wharfies can go home and get paid for a full 8 hours even if they only worked 2 hours what a great job. Cant see how you can draw any correlation that works in your favour in that little comment

        • KJT 41.1.2.1
          11 January 2012 at 7:34 pm

          Bullshit.

          They have to be available for the 8 hours. same as the shop assistant.

          And the shop assistant doe’s not get called out at random times outside the daily hours when a customer arrives.

          • James 111 41.1.2.1.1
            11 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

            KJT
            Please read this note worked 2 hours wnet home got paid for 8 hours not bullshit fact from Catherine Etheridge

            On Monday 9 January, to give a recent example, we paid 26 staff a total of $5,484,80 for downtime, because they were entitled to be paid until the end of their set eight hour shift even though the ship had finished & they had gone home. In another example employees worked two hours of an overtime shift but were paid for the full eight hours.

            • RedLogix 41.1.2.1.1.1
              11 January 2012 at 7:52 pm

              So what.. the company required those workers to be available for work. Whether it turned out to be 2hrs actual work, or a 16hr double shift… the employer gets the benefit of having them available.

              And therefore should pay for it. Have a bit of a think about this.

            • KJT 41.1.2.1.1.2
              11 January 2012 at 7:56 pm

              So What.

              I paid my staff to be at home when we could not work because of rain, customer cancellations etc. The price you pay for having trained staff on standby.

              That is why you set your charges to cover your costs.

              And organise other work, like restowing the container stacks and rail discharge, when the ships are not in. Instead of slowing the ship rate down by doing the final stacking as you go.

            • Frank Macskasy 41.1.2.1.1.3
              11 January 2012 at 11:16 pm

              And what would you propose, James? Cut wages?

              Is that what you and your libertarian colleagues want?

              Firstly, cut wages and the result may be a flood of skilled, experienced watersides heading to Australia and elsewhere. I’m sure other countries would welcome our skilled workers.

              Heck, they already have our doctors, nurses, teachers, etc.

              Secondly, John Key’s stated policy in 2008 was to raise wages to Australia’s level. It seems to me that there is a reaction against the Prime Minister’s stated objective?

              Thirdly. So what is watersiders are paid $90,000 p.a.? Why are you and other anti-unionists indulging in the “politics of envy”?

              When the top 150 NBR Rich Listers increased their wealth by 20% in 2010, the neo-liberal groupies were wholly supportive, ands derided the Left as being “envious”.

              So why is “politics of envy” ok against workers – but not against multi-millionaires?

        • KJT 41.1.2.2
          11 January 2012 at 7:37 pm

          I doubt if much makes Gary tremble at the knees.

          I’ve had a few dealings with him over the years, usually from the other side of the table.

        • RedLogix 41.1.2.3
          11 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

          Of course it’s a different story if you start work at midnight and the ship is unloaded by 2am. Now what are you going to do with the rest of the night? You still need to get some sleep and much of the next day is cut.

          In your scenario you’ve made yourself available for an 8 hour shift, but you only got paid for 2 hrs…and you had no choice in the matter. The workers HAVE to be available 24/7.

          I’ve been in a similar situation as a contractor some years ago; I’d signed up to a fixed 6 weeks work beginning in March, but due to project delays …week by week I was put off… until I finally got on site mid-July.

          And for a whole four months I couldn’t take on any other work. In the end it cost me almost six months time… for a mere six weeks pay. I only survived it because I happened to have other funds to draw on, more by good luck than anything.

          • Descendant Of Smith 41.1.2.3.1
            11 January 2012 at 9:05 pm

            I’ve got a mate who looks after factory machinery at night. He’s allowed to sleep, play his Xbox whatever while he’s there. He’s there in case something goes wrong and he has to fix it. He’s gets paid for all the hours he works.

            Fireman don’t get paid only when they are putting out fires – guess what they are allowed to go to sleep and even have beds provided.

            If you’re on the employers time you should get paid – no if’s, no buts.

            The case against the IHC reconfirmed this recently as well.

            I suspect as well it is not in the ports interest to have the workers at work while there are no ships there. There would be increased costs and risk to manage around staff who don’t physically need to be there and increased costs (while small) to provide work, supervision etc while on site.

            I can’t see logically why you would want them at work unless you actually had something for them to do.

            Reducing wages in my view doesn’t increase productivity in any way. It’s a cheats way out to pretend that you have increased productivity when all you have done in reduce input costs.

            It’s a symptom of poor management if that’s the only solution they can come up with.

            In this case, and having seen this scenario played out over the years, it seems more like a deliberate push to break the union and a push to sell off the port.

            It’s not just about the port as an ongoing entity – it’s also about the prime real estate they own.

            Len Brown and the rest of the council need to get their shit together and take some sensible control back.

            As to all those right w(h)ingers moaning about the pay as always follow your own advice.

            Remember if you are on a benefit, or paid a crap wage or don’t have a decent income, or earn less than these workers it’s all your own fault. Get off your lazy backsides and get a better paying job. Work a bit harder. Do some training that will get you a better job and pay for it yourself. You’re only in that position cause you are slothful and lazy.

            Anyone can be a millionaire if they aren’t a lazy shit.

  42. Jum 42
    11 January 2012 at 7:36 pm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1201/S00027/cbaff-asks-auckland-council-to-intervene-in-port-dispute.htm

    Yes it is time for Brown to make a decision; let’s see whose side he really is on.

    Is he the Mayor in charge of the council or are JKeyll and Hide still in control in Auckland?

    Yet another greedy CBAFF which seeks to sell off every New Zealanders’ birthright – not just anyone in Auckland. This is a New Zealand asset and should be defended as such.

  43. James 111 43
    11 January 2012 at 8:02 pm

    It aint gunna happen at Poa for much longer because it isnt happening Tauranga that is why they are running a much more effective operation.

    Productivity is higher than POA, Labour cost is lower. Why wouldnt POA want to head in exactly the same direction it makes absolute sense

    • RedLogix 43.1
      11 January 2012 at 8:14 pm

      And the shipping company Maersk will just play off both ports against each other until…?

      Think about it James. What is the logical end-point of your argument?

    • Jum 43.2
      11 January 2012 at 9:38 pm

      James 111

      ‘Labour cost is lower.’

      You fucking bastard – those are people you’re talking about, not statistics.

  44. Helen Kelly 44
    11 January 2012 at 8:26 pm

    The Ports response is an interesting change of position isnt it?

    The first position was that Port workers earn an average of $91,000 for a 26 hour week. This was widely publicised and is now being so seriously challenged they have been flushed out to provide the correct information.

    Now it appears the $91,000 is for a 49 hour week and this includes superannuation, medical insurance etc. Assuming the superannuation is 7% then $6,370 of this is a super subsidy, leaving an avearage annual salary of $84,000. Given these “average” workers are working 22.5% more hours than a “normal working week” of 40 hours, then $20,475 of this salary can be considered payment for the extra working hours.

    This leaves an avearage wage of $64,155 which includes medical insurance.

    The union says a stevedores guarantee for 40 hours per week is $1,090.40 = $56,700.80 per annum @ 260 shifts per year. Regardless, the position has changed dramatically since the Ports first shots rasing questions about the other information they are using to disguise the agenda to make permanent workers into casuals.

    It would be great if the Port could provide the avearage salary of the 20% of casuals workers they employ at the port by hours worked?

    [Edited for clarity. Thanks for this HK… RL]

    • Sp1 44.1
      11 January 2012 at 8:48 pm

      Surely you still need to include superannuation into total remuneration, especially at a generous 7%?

      • RedLogix 44.1.1
        11 January 2012 at 9:09 pm

        Well yes and no. Different countries treat these sorts of ‘worker benefits’ differently.

        In fact employers incur a whole range of costs, training, equipment, IT and tools, admin, work space etc. Superannuation and PAYE are really just taxes and are just another cost of doing business.

        Most people are really only interested in what arrives in their bank account each week.

    • Helen Kelly 44.2
      11 January 2012 at 8:57 pm

      clarity is good 🙂

  45. randal 45
    11 January 2012 at 8:30 pm

    well first of all POA gave the wharfies the money now they want to take it away.
    POA is just a pack of Indian giving bastards.

  46. Sp1 46
    11 January 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Couldn’t the union do a better job of getting the public onside by asking for the full payroll data to be released (seems to be a large gap still in what is being reported by both sides) and asking for a representative roster of what POAL is asking for?

    • Frank Macskasy 46.1
      11 January 2012 at 11:09 pm

      Spl, that would rely on the media actually covering the issues. For vexample, a TV3 reported that the union was striking again after certain demands from one side. The media report left it at that; no in-depth reporting of who-wanted-what or what those demands were.

      Most of the real info has to be gleaned from the internet.

      In these instances, the media is actually worse than useless, as reporting only bits of the story simply mis-leads the public.

  47. Jenny 47
    11 January 2012 at 8:54 pm

    So what is the Port’s propagandist up to? Yesterday, he was calling for the workers’ pay to be slashed while defending the directors’ massive fees.

    JAMES HENDERSON

    That clinches it then. Slater can’t be in the pay of POAL as the company are not the slighted bit interested in any concessions from the union.

    In fact Slater’s call to lower the wharfies pay, goes against POAL’s strategy of offering to pay workers 10% more if they leave the union.

    From the beginning, POAL strategy has been to remove the union from the site altogether.

    This is their end game.

    The union could offer to agree to a 50% wage cut, and POAL would not be interested.

    Bottom line, company offer = Contractors are being brought in, and redundancies are to be announced for the wharfies. No ifs, no buts.

    Referring to the 1998 Australian waterfront dispute, where wharf employers did exactly the same thing. Union leaders are calling this unfolding management strategy “a Patricks situation”.

    Depending on the union’s reply to this strategy, this could be shaping up to be this country’s most significant dispute since the Progressive lock out.

  48. Jenny 48
    11 January 2012 at 10:27 pm

    ‘
    Employees of Xbox contractor, Foxconn, theaten mass suicide

    Cameron Slater can now safely take a break from his full time job, churning out right wing anti-worker hate speech, to do a little catch up on his Xbox tan, happy with the news of Xbox’s can’t beef hooked employee relations.

  49. Colonial Viper 49
    12 January 2012 at 11:37 am

    Australian port managers more competent than NZ

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10778226

    Australian ports receive higher fees per container than NZ ports.

    Our loser NZ port managers prefer to compare themselves against cut price Asian ports with cheap labour and low safety standards, and ignore the inconvenient comparison with our high performing Aussie cousins.

    Fire the Board and the executive management at POAL. They are destroying the port’s value and trying to hide the fact that they are incapable of demanding world best market rates from their customers by blaming workers.

  50. muzza 50
    12 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Same old story – demosise the unions and the workers, while defending the fees or the directors.

    As an Auckland Tax Payer, I am perfectly ok with how things at the port “productivity” etc, although I would be happier if the directors were not double dipping in fees…

    The POAL’s own reports states that they are doing a good job, and performance etc is good, and the port is competivie with other ports of relative similarity..

    I also love those arguments who attempt to breakdown the pay based on time “actually working” – as if they themselves are productive every minute of their working day!

    FFS people, keep the politics of envy out of it, support these guys because there is much more at stake than what seems to be on the surface of it!

  51. randal 51
    12 January 2012 at 5:26 pm

    the truth is out.
    this whole thing has been a giant red herring so the productivity commission (who the fuck are they) can come out and say its time to privatise the port.
    I see.
    Now the CEO gibson and is going to be able to reward himself with a big parcel of shares and pay whale shit off a s well.
    this thing gets crummier and crummier by the minute and in the middle of it all are the watersiders who get to lose everything just to pay these bastards off.

  52. Frank Macskasy 52
    12 January 2012 at 5:28 pm

    And here’s another case of de-unionisation – going on even as we write,

    “ANZCO locked out 111 workers at the plant when they refused to accept pay cuts of up to 20 per cent and reductions in conditions.”

    “Overseas labour concerns union”
    – http://www.wanganuichronicle.co.nz/news/overseas-labour-concerns-union/1198634/

  53. Colonial Viper 53
    12 January 2012 at 6:56 pm

    Internal POAL document proves management bad faith and intention to escalate

    http://thestandard.org.nz/why-does-the-right-think-port-workers-pay-should-be-cut/#comment-424753

Links to post