Sack PoAL management

Written By: - Date published: 8:48 am, August 27th, 2012 - 28 comments
Categories: class war, jobs, workers' rights - Tags:

Remember the Ports of Auckland lock-out? The bosses tried to starve out 300 workers and their families to push through contracting out, which would cut $6m a year out of its wage bill/their pay packets.

The workers won.

Now, PoAL has reported a $12m loss caused by the $33m cost of the lockout.

So, the bosses spent $33m trying to get a $6m a year ‘saving’. It’s the ratepayers of Auckland who end up bearing that cost. Time to sack the managers who wasted that money. Honestly, what are we paying these morons – who think it’s good business to try to fire all your workers and hire them back on less pay and then, having spent all the projected ‘savings’ from impoverishing your workers, fail to actually achieve your goal?

What we need is management that views workers as human beings with families, not costs to be cut. And management that understands that when you take on the workers united in a union, you’re going to get your arse kicked.

28 comments on “Sack PoAL management ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Carol 1
    27 August 2012 at 9:14 am

    But, of course PoAL management is trying to blame the union for the losses:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/financial-results/7543780/Ports-of-Auckland-takes-12m-hit

    Ports of Auckland posted a $12 million loss for the year to June 30, with the Auckland Council-owned firm blaming strike action for a 10 per cent drop in container volumes.

    But it was PoAL actions in trying to undermine workers that resulted in the strike. I thought these right wingers were big on people taking responsibility for their own actions….? Gibson, I’m looking at you.

    • Matthew 1.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:42 am

      you’re half right. The right wing way is to take responsibility only when it works, blame someone else when it doesn’t. Private profits & socialized losses & all that.

  2. mike e 2
    27 August 2012 at 9:17 am

    Inside info I have come across shows that these giant shipping companies that have stopped using the port of Auckland were rationalizing the number of ports they call on before the strike(this is happening right across the country) and have used this opportunity to make the workers look bad .

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:40 am

      All the ports need to be nationalised and then work together. Require shipping lists and destinations of the cargo from the shipping companies so that the ships can then be directed to the best port. We’ll then get efficiency.

      • tc 2.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 11:50 am

        Yup, again in a country of 4+ mill with over 60% of the population hamilton and northwards we need to tell the shipping companies not them tell us.

        It’s a major F Up I reckon anyway if you look at akl the container port should be up the tamaki river alongside the industrial area of east tamaki/mt wellington and closer to manukau where all the warehouses actually are.

        I’m sure the good blue bloods of remers etc would vote for that.

      • insider 2.1.2
        27 August 2012 at 2:47 pm

        So bureaucrats will decide on preferred delivery schedules and destinations rather than customers and professionals providing the service?

        Can’t wait for that….

        Why stop at shipping? Why not do it for airlines and taxis and couriers?

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.2.1
          27 August 2012 at 3:19 pm

          So bureaucrats will decide on preferred delivery schedules and destinations rather than customers and professionals providing the service?

          Where did I say that? Oh, that’s right, I didn’t.

          BTW, the professionals organising the service are called bureaucrats so no change there.

        • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.2
          27 August 2012 at 5:40 pm

          A bureaucracy serving the public good is necessary and a hallmark of an orderly civilisation.

  3. tc 3
    27 August 2012 at 9:57 am

    Thanks Rortney and Shonkey, yet another supershity initiative the akl ratepayers end up paying for and it’s far from over with the arrogant self serving politically appointed CCO and POAL board of knuckle dragging sycophants.

  4. DH 4
    27 August 2012 at 10:42 am

    Curious the Herald is so sparse with the details. Stuff gives the full picture here;

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/financial-results/7543780/Ports-of-Auckland-takes-12m-hit

    Says the ‘loss’ is caused by a writedown of land by $39million. That’s a paper loss, also says it had a trading profit of $27 million after tax.

    Stuff article doesn’t make much sense though, think they got the land & building revaluations mixed up.

  5. DH 5
    27 August 2012 at 11:13 am

    Ah, here it is….. the report that the Herald & Stuff got their info from;

    http://www.poal.co.nz/news_media/2012_mediareleases/20120824_AnnualResults.htm

    The ‘loss’ is due to POAL writing down $39 million of land assets this year when they only wrote down $1.5million the year before. That has got nothing to do with the ports dispute.

    It’s interesting how the media make their own interpretations of it.

    • infused 5.1
      27 August 2012 at 11:49 am

      Typical James writing…

      “The bosses tried to starve”

      Give me a break.

      • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1
        27 August 2012 at 12:21 pm

        That’s exactly what they did try though. Not having a monetary income in a society that’s based around it generally does that.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          27 August 2012 at 5:39 pm

          Maybe infused has a different way of feeding his family when he’s locked out and his household income drops dramatically?

        • Grumpy 5.1.1.2
          27 August 2012 at 8:57 pm

          Takes a long time to starve someone on over $90k a year…….

          • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.2.1
            27 August 2012 at 9:09 pm

            No, it doesn’t – not when they’ve got a mortgage to pay, kids to feed and other bills coming in.

            Besides, they weren’t and aren’t on $90k/year.

          • Richard Down South 5.1.1.2.2
            28 August 2012 at 7:01 pm

            Usually you’ll find that the more you earn, the more you spend, and are in debt

      • tc 5.1.2
        27 August 2012 at 1:09 pm

        They also leaked confidential workers details remember but then that’s SOP for the NACT and their mates.

    • prism 5.2
      27 August 2012 at 9:07 pm

      DH 5
      There was a comment on on Thursday 9-noon Radionz from Gavin Ellis who has been in journalism for yonks about the numbers of young journalists with little experience and some hardly literate and unable to spell. Financial literacy could be a bridge too far.

  6. Malcolm 6
    27 August 2012 at 2:10 pm

    The workers haven’t won anything so far. Not sure why you say this James. They are still without a new collective agreement and if they do gain one it is likely to include several concessions to the bosses. Hardly a victory for the workers.

    From an article on 21st August:

    http://www.tewahanui.info/twn/index.php/auckland-ports-dispute-far-from-over/

    “Strikes, lock-outs, months of fighting and some very public bad blood – and still the Ports of Auckland (POA) dispute is far from over, according to Maritime Union New Zealand’s (MUNZ) President Gary Parsloe.

    Parsloe says union members are in the same position they were earlier this year – wanting to reach an agreement with Ports of Auckland to give port workers job security and stability.”

    • DH 6.1
      27 August 2012 at 3:01 pm

      That was the impression I got from the media release; that the battle isn’t over. POAL look to be still trying to whip up anti-union sentiment with the some of the comments they’ve made. That suggests they’re girding up for round 2.

      Whoever wrote that Herald article is either stupid or deliberately misleading people. The ports blamed the strike for a 10% drop in container volumes, they didn’t blame the strike for the $12million loss which is what the Herald are stating.

  7. RedBat 7
    27 August 2012 at 3:20 pm

    What on earth would you guys have to say if their were no ‘workers vs bosses’?

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      27 August 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Worker owned co-ops mate. The employees ARE the bosses. And the OWNERS.

    • Carol 7.2
      27 August 2012 at 3:24 pm

      What on earth would you guys have to say if their were no ‘workers vs bosses’?

      Probably something like either, “See, socialism really does work!”

      or “We have now all been assimilated” (into being unquestioning slaves for the bosses).

    • felix 7.3
      27 August 2012 at 4:03 pm

      “Gee it sure is good to know the fruits of my labour aren’t being siphoned off by someone who isn’t doing any of the work.”