Stick a fork in Port management, they’re done

Written By: - Date published: 7:03 am, January 13th, 2012 - 264 comments
Categories: business, employment, Unions, wages, workers' rights - Tags: ,

A leaked Ports of Auckland strategy document shows their goal is to reduce the stevedores’ wages by 20%. They were planning to manufacture a crisis even before the stevedores’ collective expired. They’ve been rumbled breaking the law by not bargaining in good faith. Their political support will now evaporate. They should cut their losses, and a deal with the workers, now.

Last night, the Maritime Union released this draft document, written before the collective expired. It outlines in bullet points the Port management’s objectives and strategy:

  • The Port’s goal is defined as cutting the wage bill for stevedores from $30 million to $24 million while getting them to do the same amount of work.
  • They planned to purposely put up an offer than the workers will never agree to and refuse to accept any offer from the union, knowing that this would lead to strike action.
  • The next stage would be to push ahead with contracting out. They calculated the bill for redundancies – remember, this is before they’ve even started talking to the unionised workers.
  • They assessed how to get political actors onside and who would likely ‘fold’ to the union.

The Port is trying to deny that this document represents the Port’s policy, yet it is clear that the Port has pursued this strategy.

The offer they put up is tantamount to demanding a 20% wage cut from the workers. The union offer is the status quo with an inflation adjustment to the hourly rate. The Port spun their offer as a 10% hourly pay increase, and had the gall to call the workers unreasonable.

The Port then moved to further toxify the relationship with the stevedores by branding them as overpaid and lazy via their blogosphere allies. This dirty campaign has further eroded the already slim chances of a settlement.

After mediation yesterday, the management promptly blamed the union for not giving in but also showed that it won’t take one step toward compromise: “today’s marathon six-hour mediation session with the Maritime Union was frustrating … Whatever the union comes up with has to stack up in a business sense compared to an outsourced labour model”

The Port even had the cheek to offer the crisis it has created by refusing to try to reach an agreement as a reason for not trying to reach an agreement: “Right now though, we’re running out of time. Our customers are looking for a quick and definitive outcome. Our employees’ jobs are uncertain [because we’ve said we’re going to sack them all]. We have to protect our existing business, win back the business we’ve lost, and put the foundations in place to achieve sustainable growth over the long term, in the interests of all stakeholders”.

Documentary proof that the Port has been running a strategy to make the negotiations fail all along shows that they have not met the requirement to bargain in good faith, which is an offence under the Employment Relations Act. It also destroys the credibility of the Port management and its spin machine.

Whereas National had seemed about to jump in the ring on the Port’s side (following an oh so conveniently timed Productivity Commission report that calls for partial privatisation and de-unionisation of ports) they will now stay well clear. National has no interest in being seen siding with the Port’s dirty tricks team now that it has been exposed for what it is.

If they have any sense, the Port management will cut their losses at this point and settle for a status quo agreement with the workers. The directors will surely be telling them to get it sorted before any more business is lost.

We can expect CEO Tony Gibson, the man employed for a $750,000 salary to break the union, to be gone by the end of the year.

264 comments on “Stick a fork in Port management, they’re done ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    13 January 2012 at 7:15 am

    This report reeks of bad faith.  Obviously someone in the organisation has a conscience.  I bet there is a witch hunt being conducted as we type …

    • higherstandard 1.1
      13 January 2012 at 7:26 am

      Perhaps you should offer MUNZ the use of your legal skills.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 7:29 am

        You’re boring hs.  Address the article.

        • higherstandard 1.1.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 7:37 am

          I did with RedLogix last night.

          In short, if MUNZ has been holding this as a last play smoking gun I think it is a very damp squib. POAL appear to be winning the PR battle with relative ease.

          That aside I think that as POAL get tenders back from the companies that are to bid on the service delivery that MUNZ members currently deliver that their resolve will strengthen along with that of their shareholders.

          I did note that POAL were still talking to Helen Kelly though and as she is a far better operator than what we’ve seen from MUNZ perhaps she can get a win for MUNZ members out of what looks to be a forlorn situation.

          • Psycho Milt 1.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 7:40 am

            They’ve confirmed what the left has been saying about the dispute, and it’s a damp squib? The mind boggles at what a “smoking gun” would look like in your view – plans to turn the workforce into compost maybe?

            • higherstandard 1.1.1.1.1.1
              13 January 2012 at 7:49 am

              PM

              As RedLogix pointed out a smoking gun would have somewhat better provenance for a start, it would also not be able to be kicked into touch as easily as POAL will undoubtedly try to do.

              • RedLogix …
                13 January 2012 at 12:40 pm

                Well last night it was not certain where the document had come from.

                This morning PoAL admit that it came from within their organisation. They do go on to try and disown it by implying that it’s just the work of some ‘rogue’ employee that they’ve since dismissed.

                But of course, they have no way of disowning the fact that pretty much every point of strategy planned in that document… has been actually implemented.

              • CnrJoe …
                14 January 2012 at 6:53 am

                hs – “it would also not be able to be kicked into touch as easily as POAL will undoubtedly try to do” – I can’t make that make sense

            • QoT 1.1.1.1.1.2
              13 January 2012 at 7:50 am

              Nah, PM, plans would just be bits of paper with meaningless words on them. SAFE-esque video footage of the worker composting machines in operation, maybe.

            • mickysavage 1.1.1.1.1.3
              13 January 2012 at 7:53 am

              Gawd hs are you on the creative writing team this morning?

              Good faith means approaching a dispute or negotiation with an open mind and the ability to weigh up competing alternatives.  A preconstructed plan to not move from a position while at the same time sayint “but they are being unreasonable and inflexible” is evidence of a closed mind.

              Good try though.  Those who refuse to open their eyes can say that they cannot see what is in front of them. 

              • higherstandard …
                13 January 2012 at 8:03 am

                Greg are you daft?

                Did you read my reply to you ?

                Have you read the document released by MUNZ ?

                Would you use it as a smoking gun in an employment dispute ? If so in your professional opinion what weight do you think the mediator or employment courts would put on it and what would their view be ?

                In my non-legal opinion it is a very weak non-damning document that will be easily batted aside by POAL.

                • mickysavage …
                  13 January 2012 at 8:10 am

                  To reply:

                  1.  No.
                  2.  Yes
                  3.  Of course
                  4.  Yes
                  5.  Considerable since the behaviour of the company matches the contents of the document, even if it is obviously an early draft.
                  6.  You are full of surprises. 

                • The Voice of Reason …
                  13 January 2012 at 8:11 am

                  Actually, it would (will) be useful in a case against POAL for breaching the good faith provisions of the Act. It is not a draft, it is an actual plan. Drafts tend to have the word ‘draft’ stamped all over them. The Employment Court would look at whether POAL’s public pronouncements that the union is the problem against that documents obvious intent to not bargain in good faith.
                   
                  Should POAL claim it was a draft then the court will look at the final version as well. The port will have to disclose all internal communications under the discovery provisions of NZ law anyway. POAL have a significant legal problem now. The question is whether the media are bright enough to recognise that and write it up accordingly.

                  • IrishBill …
                    13 January 2012 at 8:14 am

                    Yep. I think there’s also grounds for an interim injunction of redundancies and/or contracting.

                    • higherstandard …
                      13 January 2012 at 8:20 am

                      Can you ask MUNZ to get on with it then IB, the ratepayers would prefer this was solved before we enter the 2020s

                    • Rosie …
                      13 January 2012 at 9:02 pm

                      Yes, MUNZ just needs to bang the whole thing into court. It’s obvious there’s no other way. POAL won’t move until they’re forced to. Even if the tribunal demands more mediation first at least the process has started. Money-grubbing rich pricks like Gibson and his mates know no other language. And with a court the currency is facts so the difference between the parties’ positions, as well as POAL’s behaviour, is all that will be relevant, instead of all the off-topic sideshow shenanigans the likes of Odgers and Slater have been peddling. Get on with it, MUNZ – it’s time.

                  • higherstandard …
                    13 January 2012 at 8:18 am

                    If that is an actual plan then as Auckland ratepayers we are all fucked not only do we have unrealistic work costs we have senior managers with plans which consist of the most cursory thought processes and which appear to have been typed up by a chimp over their tea break.

                    Actually my bad it’s just business as usual.

                  • Bazar …
                    13 January 2012 at 1:36 pm

                    You’re retarded.
                    Its a draft document, or did you not reach the end where it becomes nothing but placeholder text.

                    The final part of the draft goes on to recommend notifying the board, and checking to see if they agree. So this draft doesn’t represent an enacted policy.
                    Its not even a policy, just highlighting that there are large differences in costs between PoA and PoT, and that with the union refusing the proposed changes, they should be looking at their options.

                    But moving on, i’m STILL struggling to see why the hell the union gets to dictate the terms of employment.

                    The draft goes on to suggest that PoT is operating considerably better, but any attempt to restructure gets blocked by the union.

                    Its pretty clear this is a case of where the Union wants to keep its paychecks, even at the cost of an inefficient business.
                    And a business that wants to downsize its workcosts at the cost of its employees

                    • Ross …
                      13 January 2012 at 1:44 pm

                      Actually the union doesn’t get to dictate the terms of employment. That’s why they attended mediation and apparently showed they were prepared to negotiate. So where is the union dictating?

                      It’s the employer who is wanting to slash wages…even though the company has agreed that there’s been significant productivity gains during the last 5 years.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 January 2012 at 1:49 pm

                      Au contraire Bazar.

                      The draft strategy document appears to be well into the process of being physically enacted.

                      In coordination with both Fonterra and Maersk.

                    • Bazar …
                      13 January 2012 at 6:16 pm

                      @Ross

                      “Actually the union doesn’t get to dictate the terms of employment. ”
                      What do you think they are striking over.
                      Terms of employment.

                      ” That’s why they attended mediation and apparently showed they were prepared to negotiate. ”

                      Prepared to negotiate?
                      Negotate what? Terms of surrender?
                      Just because they showed up doesn’t mean they were being reasonable, and vice versa.

                      All i can see is a union that will not accept anything less then union control of the workforce. Otherwise non-union employees wouldn’t be such a core issue to this strike

                    • Bazar …
                      13 January 2012 at 6:25 pm

                      @ Viper

                      “The draft strategy document appears to be well into the process of being physically enacted.”

                      *sigh*
                      There is no way the document can be physically enacted, because it doesn’t recommend or even suggest a course of action.

                      All it does announce when strike action can begin, what options they have for the new contract, and the costs associated with those options.

                      The fact that it covers the options from giving the union what it wants, to making the workforce redundant, means it covers the most likely possibilities.

                      Unsurprisingly this site has gone berserk over a draft document, claiming that this was all planned and this is their proof.
                      Critical thinking on this site is in rare supply, when this draft is championed as “proof” of foul play

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      13 January 2012 at 7:21 pm

                      Bazar, you need to do some research on employment law. You are talking absolute bollocks in a way that even Cliff Clavin would find embarrassing.
                       
                      Good faith behaviour is required under our law. This document is a clear indication of a plan for the opposite, which has now come to pass. Not only this document, but all other documents (letters, notes, minutes, emails etc) are going to be discoverable when the union goes to court to seek injunctions and associated rulings.
                       
                      Because of where it leads, this document is very much a smoking gun. Almost the modern definition of the phrase, in fact.

                    • Jackal …
                      13 January 2012 at 7:26 pm

                      @Bazar

                      We’ve been seeing the POA “draft” Labour Strategy plan enacted pretty much word for word, which shows that your claim it’s not policy to be wrong!

                      The fact of the matter is that the document shows POA management planning to act outside of the law. An employer is not allowed to actively work to destroy a Union or try to make a worker forgo their membership.

                      You say that the document doesn’t outline a course of action, when in fact it outlines several. POA has chosen the most damaging course of action, not only for the Union, but also in terms of the ports continueed viability.

                      “All it does announce when strike action can begin” (sic)… Have you actually thought about your comment? POA does not choose when strike action is to be undertaken moron!

                      The document is proof of foul play Bazar. Here’s a brief rundown:

                      Fabricating a crisis with Maersk, acting without the majority of stakeholder’s support, illegally planning to employ full time scabs, actively planning on how to weaken if not destroy the Union, acting outside of the ports objectives, setting objectives without proper risk assessment, claiming that the Union did not notify the strikes and falsely claiming the current or proposed system doesn’t give the port flexibility.

                      You’re the one who appears to be retarded Bazar.

                    • Bazar …
                      13 January 2012 at 11:59 pm

                      @Jackle

                      Let me point out the first contradiction.

                      “We’ve been seeing the POA “draft” Labour Strategy plan enacted pretty much word for word”

                      “… the document doesn’t outline a course of action, … in fact it outlines several”

                      By your own words, you admit that this document outlines several outcomes, and because one of them happened, its not a draft document but an enacted policy.

                      *facepalm*

                      What people here are unable to grasp is this document simply listed the most likely outcomes.

                      1. they accept our terms
                      2. we accept their terms
                      3. they strike
                      4. we make them redundant
                      5. something we didn’t think of.

                      Because 3 has been listed and happened, people are claiming this is a smoking gun. Turning a blind eye that 1, 2, 4 never happened, and that it simply listed the possiblities.

                      But the moment you said it had been enacted word for word, i knew you hadn’t read the draft. SO i’m simply wasting my breath.

                      ““All it does announce when strike action can begin” (sic)… Have you actually thought about your comment? POA does not choose when strike action is to be undertaken moron!”

                      Its a document listing the possiblities. One of the possiblities was striking and it pointed out when it could begin. Not when it would.
                      It is not a PoA agenda, it was not in PoA’s power as you stated. It simply mentioned the soonest the Union could begin striking.

                      “Fabricating a crisis with Maersk”
                      No proof, just a theory without any grounding.

                      “acting without the majority of stakeholder’s support”
                      Companies are not a democracy, they have a board and a CEO to make decisions for themselves.

                      “illegally planning to employ full time scabs”
                      No proof, just a theory without any grounding.

                      “actively planning on how to weaken if not destroy the Union”
                      While the new terms of employment are not favourable to the union, it is neither illegal or immoral.

                      “acting outside of the ports objectives”
                      Strong employment relations are not an objective of the port. Neither is paying danegold to the union.

                      “setting objectives without proper risk assessment”
                      What the hell do you think that draft is? The beginings of a risk assessment.

                      “claiming that the Union did not notify the strikes”
                      Don’t know what you’re talking about, and honestly don’t care, its ilrevelent.

                      “and falsely claiming the current or proposed system doesn’t give the port flexibility.”
                      Low employee efficiency rates does lend itself to the port being inflexable.
                      Compared to PoT, PoA is inefficient and bloated.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      14 January 2012 at 1:20 am

                      What you don’t seem to grasp is that writing down a plan of what to do after a union strikes in response to your demands assumes that you won’t be negotiating with a goal of preventing them from striking. Good faith means actually trying to reach a negotiation, discussing things reasonably, and not gaming the system. If you don’t think that document reveals an attempt to game the system, (or “bad faith”) then you didn’t properly understand it.

                    • Jackal …
                      14 January 2012 at 12:10 pm

                      Bazar

                      Its a document listing the possiblities.

                      Correct! It lists the likely reaction to the planned changes.

                      It is not a PoA agenda, it was not in PoA’s power as you stated.

                      The planned changes caused a likely response. Therefore it was in POA’s power to ensure the strike did not happen, by not trying to implement unreasonable changes.

                      No proof, just a theory without any grounding.

                      There is ample proof that Maersk had decided to shift its operations to Tauranga long before the strike action.

                      Companies are not a democracy, they have a board and a CEO to make decisions for themselves.

                      The document states that no action should be taken without a majority of stakeholder’s in agreement. Senior management should act in the best interest of all involved, they clearly haven’t.

                      No proof, just a theory without any grounding.

                      The fact that POA is planning to employ full time scabs has been announced numerous times on the news and is also outlined in the document… it even gives costings. What kind of proof do you require?

                      While the new terms of employment are not favourable to the union, it is neither illegal or immoral.

                      You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you Bazar? POA is in breach of the Employment Relations Act 2000:

                      4 Parties to employment relationship to deal with each other in good faith
                      (1) The parties to an employment relationship specified in subsection (2)—
                      (a) must deal with each other in good faith; and
                      (b) without limiting paragraph (a), must not, whether directly or indirectly, do anything—
                      (i) to mislead or deceive each other; or
                      (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other.

                      […]

                      It is a breach of subsection (1) for an employer to advise, or to do anything with the intention of inducing, an employee—
                      (a) not to be involved in bargaining for a collective agreement; or
                      (b) not to be covered by a collective agreement.

                      Would you like that in layman’s terms?

                      Strong employment relations are not an objective of the port.

                      Strong employment relations should be an objective of the port and it’s stakeholder’s. Without good employment relations, the port will not have trained and hard workers, and therefore POAL will not be able to increase efficiency.

                      Page three states that one of the considered POAL objectives was to have a sustainable customer service, which would require no actual or threatened industrial action. POAL knew what their plan would instigate, and that the resulting industrial action would effect the objective of having sustainable customer service… therefore they acted outside of the ports objectives.

                      Neither is paying danegold to the union.

                      As far as I’m aware, the Union is not requesting any additional fees. Correct me if I’m wrong, but POAL does not pay the Union directly, the member’s of the Union do.

                      What the hell do you think that draft is? The beginings of a risk assessment.

                      POAL’s lack of proper risk assessment in terms of its objectives to increase productivity and labour flexibility is evident by the continued and unresolved dispute. A proper risk assessment would not have resulted in decisions being made that caused a prolonged dispute.

                      As an aside… the real privatisation objectives of POAL and their National buddies are not outlined in this document.

                      Don’t know what you’re talking about, and honestly don’t care, its ilrevelent.

                      It’s not irrelevant that a document that appears to be prepared for POA’s board members contains information that is designed to mislead. The strikes have been undertaken legally as defined by the Employment Relations Act and MUNZ has not pressured anybody illegally.

                      Low employee efficiency rates does lend itself to the port being inflexable.

                      Who says there’s low employment efficiency? The efficiency Tauranga gains on Auckland’s port is entirely to do with Auckland’s design deficiencies compared to Tauranga.

                      Graph 1.1.5 shows that POA crane rate per hour is $25, while Tauranga’s is $33 per hour. Changing the employment arrangement to gain efficiency that is lost because of how the port is designed is not a solution.

                      Compared to PoT, PoA is inefficient and bloated.

                      Not in terms of profits. Most ports around the world are currently running at a loss because of the leverage multinational shipping companies have. POA makes 6% while POT makes 8%… the difference is entirely attributable to the ports design difference and not how hard the worker’s work.

                      In my opinion, the best thing to do to increase POA efficiency is to sack the senior management.

                    • Bazar …
                      14 January 2012 at 3:43 pm

                      @Matthew

                      “What you don’t seem to grasp is that writing down a plan of what to do after a union strikes”

                      For the countless time. IT IS NOT A PLAN.
                      It is a list of possible outcomes. There is no talk about actions, so it cannot be described as a plan, or a policy. IT IS SIMPLY A REPORT

                      “If you don’t think that document reveals an attempt to game the system, (or “bad faith”) then you didn’t properly understand it.”

                      So explain to me this.
                      If the PoA REQUIRE that there be the flexibility in their new service contract, and the union CATEGORICALLY refuse any new flexibility , and in fact require harsher controls over workforce labour, what do you think will happen?

                      This site seems to take the stance that PoA is required by law, because of good faith, to concede to the union.
                      But that’s as silly an idea as that the union should, because of good faith, concede to the ports demands.

                      The strikes started because the union wanted to show how dead set they are on the port conceding.
                      The strikes continue because the port wants the union to know how dead set they are on the union conceding.

                      It’d only be bad faith if the port had said something to the union like “get back to work and we’ll draw up a new contract next week with your terms”, and then fired them, or stalled it out longer.

                      If they said something like:
                      “Call off the strike and we’ll draw up a new contract conceding to your demands, and they never do”

                      That would be bad faith.
                      Letting the union strike on their terms, while you propose 9+ different new contracts. That’s not bad faith. That’s just negotiations.
                      Saying that i don’t believe this will be resolved with negotiations any more. This is now looking to be a battle to the death, and unless overrides the port’s leadership, the unions have no chance of winning.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      14 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

                      Ok, bazar, you can stop now. We understand that you don’t know what ‘good faith’ means in NZ industrial law and that the document’s significance goes completely over your head. If you want to get on top of it, you could do some research on the ‘net or ask a lawyer. The DoL website is pretty useful and there are many legal support websites that will help, too.
                       
                      Hell, you could even try reading the comments in this thread r e a l l y  s l o w l y so that some of it sinks in. But I bet you won’t do any of that, because you can handle being told you are wrong by lefties, you just don’t want to face admitting it to yourself.
                       
                      Quick question. Are you now, or have you ever been, involved in the negotiation of a CEA? Did it involve more than opening the door to the boardroom and taking instructions on the adults’ coffee preferences?

                    • Jackal …
                      14 January 2012 at 5:45 pm

                      @Bazar

                      IT IS SIMPLY A REPORT

                      I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but a S T R A T E G Y, is a word of military origin, referring to a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.

                      and the union CATEGORICALLY refuse any new flexibility.

                      The Union has been willing to negotiate and be flexible on the deal… they are not willing to dissolve just so a deal with POA can be made.

    • Sanctuary 1.2
      13 January 2012 at 8:06 am

      “… I bet there is a witch hunt being conducted…”

      from the Herald story we read…

      “…A Ports spokeswoman said the document was a draft, never represented company policy, and the author had been made redundant…”

      I am not Sherlock Holmes, but one could wildly speculate that making someone redundant who knows how to use a flash drive means payback is a bitch, baby.

      Just wild speculation of course.

      • Pascal's bookie 1.2.1
        13 January 2012 at 8:18 am

        So this thing that never represented company policy would look pretty stupid when compared to what the company subsequently did, I would imagine.

        Oh, shit. It looks like company actions bear no relationship to company policy.

        Whose fault would that be? That someone should be sacked!!

      • Frank Macskasy 1.2.2
        13 January 2012 at 8:39 am

        So, that’s a confirmation of it’s authenticity then, Sanctuary. Whether it was “never represented company policy” – well, current events seem to point otherwise?

  2. tc 2
    13 January 2012 at 7:25 am

    The fact it’s put this all in a report rather than the old nudge nudge wink wink in this day and age shows how incompetent they are.

    Skilled operators wouldn’t have such a damming document around as a smoking gun…….Gibson and his crony board show how inept they are even at a govt backed initiative such as union bashing.

  3. Janice 3
    13 January 2012 at 7:35 am

    Who is representing the owners of the POA – the Auckland ratepayers? Please stand up and be counted.

  4. Malcolm 4
    13 January 2012 at 8:01 am

    I only hope your optimism is warranted James. I wouldn’t put it past National to offer POA some kind of law change to stitch the union up. Removing the requirement to conclude an agreement has already been signalled. Maybe they plan to get rid of good faith entirely but that could backfire.

    POA could weather a fine from the Employment Court and still push ahead with their strategy. I’m not sure if they’re done for yet. The entire NZ labour movement must act if the workers and their union is to be defended.

  5. Malcolm 5
    13 January 2012 at 8:08 am

    Also interesting how the NDU, DWU and RMTU are listed as stakeholders who may agree with the POA plan to bust the Maritime Union!!

    • Colonial Viper 5.1
      13 January 2012 at 9:04 am

      PORTS OF TAURANGA MUST BE SHUT DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY

      • james 111 5.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 12:03 pm

        Why shut down a port that is working very effectively just because it shows POA workers productivity in a bad light.

        It like telling everyone they cant drive a Toyota because they are too reliable all must drive a Skoda or a Lada. Then everyone is on a even playing field.
        I can see CV that competition is not a big word in your vocabulary

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 12:10 pm

          In fact, shut down ports all around the country. Fucking Maersk and Fonterra. They are behind this shit. Let’s see how Massey’s Cossacks ride in a new generation.

          Competition? I like competition, and I like workers competing for the best long term deal they can get from employers.

          • james 111 5.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 12:13 pm

            Funny that but you dont like Employers competing for the best deal they get from workers including productivity
            Reeks a bit of Hypocrisy me thinks!

            • Frank Macskasy 5.1.1.1.1.1
              13 January 2012 at 12:22 pm

              “Productivity”?

              And yet, accordimng to the NBR (that crass socialist satrap), the PoA has not only been profitable – but is in growth mode!!

              NBR: Imports drive Ports of Auckland profit higher
              – http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/imports-drive-ports-auckland-profit-higher-128397

              NBR: Increased traffic at Ports of Auckland
              – http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/increased-traffic-ports-auckland-131343

              NBR: Ports of Auckland profits hold steady
              – http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ports-auckland-profits-hold-steady-mn-99551

              What is really revealing is this article,

              NBR: Plea for ratepayers to give up port control
              – http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/plea-ratepayers-give-port-control-128331

              So it’s not profits, growth, and productivity that is at issue here. It’s ownership of these assets. That’s what this whole thing has boiled down to.

              • Gosman …
                13 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

                So the question that needs to be asked is where is the direction on this issue from the current 100% owners of the the POAL i.e. the Greater Auckland council and especially the Mayor of the ‘Super city’?

                As the key stakeholder and one which is led by a man elected by many on the understanding he wished to protect the council owned assets from being removed from council ownership it does begger belief that they have no real position on this issue if it is as cut and dried as some here try to make out.

            • mik e 5.1.1.1.1.2
              13 January 2012 at 4:53 pm

              jturd race to the bottom mentality thats why NZ keeps falling behind Australia.
              I’m with Rod Oram on this one.
              Continually cutting costs is not a success model for NZ.
              you can only cut so far.
              Commodities are the back bone of New Zealands economy while we have a 1 dimensional economy, we get idiots who are 1 dimensional in their thinking.
              Shaving little bits off here and their are prolonging the inevitable,commodities aren,t going to make this country economically viable.Profits are fickle.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                13 January 2012 at 5:39 pm

                It’s interesting how folk like Rod Oram “get it”, Mik E, but “libertarians” like Gosman, and others, seem continually in the dark about consequences of cutting job security; driving down wages; etc.

                On my blog I pointed out to Gosman that despite it’s recently elected right wing government, that Sweden was still a social democracy.

                New Zealand , by contrast, is a neo-liberal, free market economy.

                Yet, Sweden’s GDP (PPP) is $36,502.

                NZ’s GDP (PPP) is $26,966.

                (2010 figures)

                The question is: since NZ has been a free market economy (the 6th most open on the planet) – why is Sweden’s GDP higher than ours?

                Gosman failed to answer that question. (Like he avoids any question that poses embarresing answers to his libertarian religion.)

                (Watch Gosman either avoid or deflect from this question. It’s de rigueur for him.)

      • Pete 5.1.2
        13 January 2012 at 1:10 pm

        There are only two lawful reasons for industrial action – when negotiating a collective agreement and on health and safety issues. So Tauranga shutting down is not going to happen.

  6. randal 6
    13 January 2012 at 8:47 am

    looks like ceo gibson is just another juvenile post modernist who thinks that their thoughts are facts and that only their own truths count.
    welcome to the real world.

  7. beachbum 7
    13 January 2012 at 8:50 am

    As long as MUNZ keep focusing on a document like this and argue about why POAL is or isnt being reasonable, they will get nowhere. They need to work out how they are going to keep their members in a job. Which means moving from their current position. They or the writer of this article will still be bitching and moaning about what was or wasnt said and in the meantime POAL will be signed contracts woth other operators.

    The writing looks to be on the wall really based on what is in the press. 95% of them will end up working for a new sub contracting company soon except for any shit stirrers who are lazy.

    It looks like the train is leavinf the station and anybody who wants to be on it better jump on pretty quick. Les Dickson (or hos son I guess), C3 (owned by Asciona/POT), look to be beneficiaries of the contracting out.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      13 January 2012 at 9:07 am

      Port activity in Tauranga and Auckland will be stopped for weeks on end.

      Let them bring in Massey’s Cossacks again. We’ll be ready for them.

    • Matthew Whitehead 7.2
      14 January 2012 at 1:25 am

      Unless of course a court injunction prevents the port from firing them, and then discovery is used to dig out any other union-busting documents that might exist.

  8. Lanthanide 8
    13 January 2012 at 8:57 am

    Helen Kelly was on National Radio this morning.

    She said in a meeting with the employer yesterday, the union put up a proposal which the employer agreed met all of their flexibility requirements, however they refused to accept it because of the continued involvement of the union.

    Helen Kelly said that this is tacit acknowledgement that the POAL simply want to get rid of the union as their main goal.

  9. Malcolm 9
    13 January 2012 at 9:12 am

    Beachbum

    I agree with your first statement but after that what you say is an utter disgrace.

    MUNZ need to build solidarity with the rest of the labour movement over this. This is a big test of strength. If one of the most democratic rank and file orientated union branches in NZ can be smashed then what hope do we have?

    Industrial action in solidarity with Auckland wharfies is the only hope of beating this assault.

  10. Blue 10
    13 January 2012 at 9:22 am

    This should have been front page news this morning. But no, there are still no competent news organisations in NZ.

    The media’s response to a company flagrantly breaking the law in order to break a union is to let them get away with it.

  11. UncleGeoff 11
    13 January 2012 at 9:33 am

    “We can expect CEO Tony Gibson, the man employed for a $750,000 salary to break the union, to be gone by the end of the year.”

    Given his form to date, wouldn’t a more appropriate schedule for his departure be before the end of this month?

    Some other observations:

    The MUA has accepted that there are fluctuations in labour requirements on the wharves, as they have already agreed to a mix of full time staff, part time staff, and casual staff — and they have also offered to cooperate with POAL management when it comes to investigating how productivity can be raised yet higher. Yet the response of management has been the same old tired TINA (There Is No Alternative) that the workplace needs to be casualised yet further — and without providing any compelling reasons for such a change.

    Has any serious effort been made to investigate why there have have been deaths on the wharves at Tauranga, and/or who was responsible? (Bearing in mind that Tony Gibson wants work practices at Tauranga to be practiced at Auckland as well.)

    While Garry Moore was was mayor of Christchurch, he was in favour of a proposal to privatise 49% of the Port of Lyttelton’s shares, and even though all of the local MPs, with the exception of Gerry Brownlee, were opposed to doing it. But at least he fired Brent Layton from his position as chairman of the Lyttelton Port Company back in 2002, at a time when Brent was acting like an arrogant jerk.

    So, when is Len Brown going to wise up? If he doesn’t take a stand now, it is good odds that he will subsequently come under pressure for at least partial privitisation of POAL. Does he really want to be remembered as being an accessory to the agenda of the extreme right wing?

    The government doubtless envisages the current situation as being a form of wedge politics which is beneficial to themselves and their supporters. If they can get the public to believe that the watersiders are exceptionally well-off, and hence undeserving of sympathy, then that will be one less obstacle to increased casualisation in yet other workplaces.

    And will any of the mass media ever get serious about investigating what is really going on here?

    • beachbum 11.1
      13 January 2012 at 9:40 am

      “Does he really want to be remembered as being an accessory to the agenda of the extreme right wing?”

      Being remembered for something didn’t worry Roger Douglas when he was Minister For Finance in the Labour Party.

      You give Len Brown too much credit for actually thinking about things.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 9:45 am

        Roger Douglas deluded himself that Friedmanite Chicago school economics would save the world. No doubt he will go to his dying day with that conviction, even as the globalised economy crumbles around his ears.

        • Hami Shearlie 11.1.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 10:22 am

          Roger Douglas won’t have time to worry about whether his Friedmanite Chicago School economics were right or not – he’ll be too busy swanning off on taxpayer funded trips to the UK to see his kids and grandkids – face it CV – why would Rog care about peoples lives crumbling around them, when his is so cushy?

    • Hami Shearlie 11.2
      13 January 2012 at 10:18 am

      I doubt the mass media will ever investigate this. They know on which side their bread is buttered and who does the buttering. The owners of the newspapers etc they write for are the same people who will profit if the POAL is privatised -what a strange coincidence – NOT!

      • beachbum 11.2.1
        13 January 2012 at 10:34 am

        Thats it Hami – you have hit the nail on the head. It is just so obvious. The Newspaper owners have been providing advice to the Port on how to run their business for years!!!

        Get a grip.

        The title to the Article is “stick a fork into Port Management”. The union was just too slow- the fork is just being removed from them as they slump over.

        If it is true that Helen Kely said they had agreed to all the POA terms then they have obviously backed down, but too late.

        • The Voice of Reason 11.2.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 10:47 am

          Again, more noise from the echo chamber that is your head, beachbum. The union made a counter offer that the company agreed met their flexibility needs, but POAL still refused to settle. Nothing has changed as a result of that mediation, but the party with the problem this morning is POAL, who are to be found with their trousers round their ankles due to the release of their plan.
           
          Any other fantasies you want shot down? I’m here all morning, tee off’s not till 1. (Gosh, isn’t the four weeks annual leave that unions got for all Kiwi’s great? I know I love it!)

        • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.2
          13 January 2012 at 11:09 am

          If it is true that Helen Kely said they had agreed to all the POA terms then they have obviously backed down, but too late.

          Why is it too late to avert all out industrial war? IS the POAL board and management hellbent on putting in action their anti-worker war plans come hell or high water?

          • higherstandard 11.2.1.2.1
            13 January 2012 at 11:15 am

            Indeed, I would find it extraordinary if true.

            If it is the case the persons in charge of the negotiations for POAL should be dismissed immediately.

            • KJT 11.2.1.2.1.1
              13 January 2012 at 3:50 pm

              POAL is trying to break the Union. It does not matter what the Union comes up with.

              POAL’s RWNJ board have allocated funds to get rid of Unions at the port once and for all.

              You have to wonder who the board and management are working for.
              I thought you were supposed to work in the best interests of your current employer, not your previous one.

              Why is it in ratepayers interest to allow Mearsk and Fonterra to ratchet down rates between Auckland and Tauranga.

              It will not stop until both ports have a workforce from labour supply companies at minimum wage. Which means both rate and tax payers end up subsidizing Mearsk profits.

              Tauranga wharfies are not happy either. They can see if MUNZ caves the whole exercise will be repeated to drop their wages.

              And Tauranga wharfies are Union members. Some MUNZ.

              Logistically Auckland can never compete with Tauranga. Limited container stacking area and congested transport.

              Shipping companies are not going to pass on lowered freight rates. They already collude to keep their rates way above cost to and from NZ.

              The end result is simply going to be more money disappearing into offshore pockets while POAL and Tauranga kill each other trying to be the lowest cost port.

              This fake competition is killing NZ while overseas shipping companies are laughing.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 January 2012 at 4:00 pm

                NZ managers are naive innocent lambs. The foreign based corporate sharks play us like violins.

                And I hang my head in shame at these mixed metaphors.

                • McFlock …
                  13 January 2012 at 7:37 pm

                  Not mixed, just a metaphor followed by a simile.
                  A mixed metaphor would be that the international corporate sharks are using the short and curlies of NZ management lambs as fiddle strings while Rome burns.

                  🙂

        • daveo 11.2.1.3
          13 January 2012 at 11:10 am

          Haha. Funny little righties. As soon as it turns against them they’re all like “it’s a done deal now. Too late”. You get the feeling they were the kids who took their ball home with them when they started to lose the game.

          • Colonial Viper 11.2.1.3.1
            13 January 2012 at 11:15 am

            Or bullies at school who went crying to mummy once they got a punch in the face back.

      • Fotran 11.2.2
        13 January 2012 at 2:07 pm

        Hami
        The mainstream media do not have the intelligence to understand what is happening. They are a pack of incompetent university graduate idiots, without an ounce of skills.

        • Populuxe1 11.2.2.1
          13 January 2012 at 8:39 pm

          Don’t blame the journalists – you could have the best scoop in the world, but it means diddly if you can’t get it past The Editor and the company line.
           

  12. Jackal 12
    13 January 2012 at 11:22 am

    What the Ports of Auckland’s Labour Strategy document shows is a conceited effort on the part of senior management to manipulate the situation. They even consider what the effect of a threat/actual loss of Maersk would have on the dispute process… something planned out in detail in the undated document.

    Instead of adopting one of the alternative options like continuing with progressive change or focusing on cultural change and improving leadership, they have chosen to cause a dispute. In doing so, they ignored one of the Ports of Auckland’s main objectives; to supply sustainable customer service.

    Interestingly, the document shows that the ports customers would be the only stakeholders to support the proposed restructuring, when the requirement was for a majority of stakeholders to support the plan. In causing the dispute, they’ve even ignored their own requirements FFS!

    This really does look bad for POAL. I would think that any resulting legal action would determine that they intentionally set out to cause this dispute and manipulate the situation to their supposed advantage, which in clear breach of the Employment Relations Act.

    CEO Tony Gibson needs to resign.

    • Ross 12.1
      13 January 2012 at 11:32 am

      POAL can’t even abide by its own Code of Ethics.

      POAL people will:

      • Undertake their duties in accordance with POAL’s values;
      • Conduct themselves in a way that demonstrates that their honesty is beyond question and will not behave in a manner that has the potential to bring POAL’s image into disrepute;
      • In performing their duties to POAL, deal honestly with other people at all times;
      • Not enter into transactions or make promises on behalf of POAL that POAL does not intend to honour;
      • Undertake their duties with care and diligence;
      • Ensure that any personal or political opinions POAL people express are clearly identified as their own and are not represented to be the views of POAL;
      • Value individuals’ rights and differences, and treat people with respect in accordance with POAL’s Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Sexual Harassment Policies;
      • To the best of their ability, ensure that POAL’s records and documents, including financial reports, are true, correct and conform to POAL’s reporting standards and internal controls; and
      • Not accept or offer bribes or improper inducements from or to anyone; and
      • Act in accordance with POAL’s Health and Safety Policies to help achieve a safe working environment.

      I am sorry but their honesty is not beyong question. And POAL’s image has most certainly been brought into disrepute. Of course, it’s all the union’s fault.

    • Colonial Viper 12.2
      13 January 2012 at 11:39 am

      The original soft copy of the document will be dated (“last modified”) and will likely have metadata tags showing who has worked on the document previously.

      (I hope the union has been smart enough to not release any original soft copies of POAL documents that they have as it would allow POAL to conduct a forensics activity to determine where leaks came from).

    • RobM 12.3
      13 January 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Yes time for a legal battle. I fear our craven MSM will award the rhetorical battle to the POAL.

      Reading the document it seems the objective of sustainable customer service can only be met by eliminating industrial action or the threat of such. In other words removing union representation from the workplace.

  13. Frank Macskasy 13
    13 January 2012 at 11:40 am

    Those wishing to send letters-to-the-editor can do so by emailing them to: “NZ Herald” , letters@herald.co.nz

    Any bit of support for the striking workers will be helpful, I’m guessing. Especially after Brown’s unhelpful comments.

    • james 111 14.1
      13 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

      Yes I notice that they didnt offer to stop payments for standown time which was one of POA major problems given that Stevedores are getting paid for 30% of their hours when they are actually doing no work.
      This puts their hourly rate around $62.50 per hour when you look at actual hours worked versus hours paid. POA waas never going to accept what was put forward untill this was addressed that was one of the moain sticking points in all correspondence released by POA.
      Why didnt the Union address it?

      • Lanthanide 14.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 12:21 pm

        james, if you are hired as a checkout operator at a supermarket, do you still get paid when you aren’t serving customers?

        If the store sends you home because there’s no work for you to do, they still have to pay you.

        It’s no different for a stevedor.

      • RedLogix 14.1.2
        13 January 2012 at 12:28 pm

        @James:

        You have had the error in that thinking pointed out to you repeatedly. Yet here you are repeating the same lie. You appear to learn nothing and are currently adding little of value to the debate.

        One last time. There are many, many service occupations where the hours paid and the hours actually working are quite different.

        This is perfectly normal. And employers are legally required to pay workers for the hours they have agreed to be available for work. This is basic contract and employment law.

        Take careful note; this is your last opportunity here to learn.

        • Jassen 14.1.2.1
          13 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

          What I can’t understand from the unions point of view though is that particular contract is now finished. The company are obviously not happy with that particular portion of the previous work arrangements and have probably had it in the piepline for many years to change it. A lot of companys do this, especially with contracts. They wait for re-negotiations to tweak policy.

          If I think of any contracts that I have entered into as an employee, if there was something in that contract that I had already signed up for, that through the duration of the contract I found I didn’t like, I could not argue against it whilst still in contract, but I could definately make it part of my negotiations when discussing the new contract. If the employer was not prepared to budge, then either I made adjustments in my demands, or I chose not to buckle and move off elsewhere.

          Why can this also not work for the employer?

          Also another question I have for the union. If they are so confident in what they are asking of the POAL is what the workers want, then why not have just one secret ballot. If the ballot is overwhelming in their favour, then they have mandate to continue to stand their ground. If the ballot goes against them or is amrginal, then surely they should consider a different approach.

          • Matthew Whitehead 14.1.2.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 1:38 am

            That’s the exact opposite of good-faith negotiation. You’re supposed to bring up issues as they occur, and solve them as soon as is practical. A contract can be adjusted by mutual agreement before its renewal time, and SHOULD be if it isn’t acceptable as-is, assuming both parties value their arrangement.

            Generally when issues come up at contract renewal time, it’s because there’s either been a dispute about an issue with the contract that hasn’t been resolved since it’s come up, or someone is playing silly buggers by springing a “concern” that they don’t really have on the other party, and then refusing to consider it addressed in order to strengthen their bargaining position.

      • Frank Macskasy 14.1.3
        13 January 2012 at 12:34 pm

        sThis puts their hourly rate around $62.50 per hour when you look at actual hours worked versus hours paid…

        $62.50? where did that figure come from?

        • james 111 14.1.3.1
          13 January 2012 at 1:18 pm

          Frank in her release of information on Wednesday Catherine Etheridge from POA said the following.
          1) Average Salary for a full time Stevedore who has been with the company for more than 1 year is $91,000 per annum
          2) They have at least 30% stand down time during which they dont work where in many instances they can or do go home.

          3) so in effect they are earning $91,000 for 28 hours worked per week

          91,000 / 52 weeks = $1750 per week / 28 hours = $62.50 per hour on average for hours actually worked versus hours paid.

          This information was provided to the Standard on Wednesday hope that helps

          • Lanthanide 14.1.3.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 1:32 pm

            It is still unclear if Catherine’s figures are talking about money that ends up in people’s bank accounts, or the total monetary value of all of their conditions and benefits.

            For example, by New Zealand law everyone is entitled to 4 weeks of annual leave per year. If you work for all 52 weeks and take none of your leave entitlement, you still only get paid whatever your actual salary is. The monetary value of those 4 weeks gets calculated into your total remuneration (and creates a liability on the company’s accounts until you use them) but they don’t actually appear in your bank account.

            So saying someone get’s paid $91k when actually what appears in their bank account is more like $70k is quite misleading.

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.3.1.1.1
              13 January 2012 at 3:23 pm

              It is still unclear if Catherine’s figures are talking about money that ends up in people’s bank accounts, or the total monetary value of all of their conditions and benefits.

              I’m pretty sure it includes allowances, overtime, health insurances, car parking, leave and other benefits, etc. Its a total ‘renumeration package’ not a ‘payslip’ figure.

            • nadis 14.1.3.1.1.2
              13 January 2012 at 6:10 pm

              Its hardly misleading to count the monetary value of all benefits to an employee – its what the IRD does with respect to FBT etc. If you pay tax on it you are considered to have earned it. So holiday pay, super, meal allowances, cars etc all count.

              • Lanthanide …
                13 January 2012 at 9:35 pm

                Yes, so someone who says “I only earn $45k” and comparing that to the “$91k” figure will get the impression that the stevedores are earning double what they do.

                But then if you take into account 4 weeks annual annual leave, they’re really up to $48.5k already.

                These things add up fast.

          • Ross 14.1.3.1.2
            13 January 2012 at 1:49 pm

            James,

            Here’s a really simple question for you.

            How much does a backbench MP get paid, how many days are they required to sit in the house, and do they get paid when they’re not in parliament?

          • Frank Macskasy 14.1.3.1.3
            13 January 2012 at 5:12 pm

            … and yet, James, the hourly rate is still $27?

            I guess one can “massage” figures to fit any purpose.

            For example, the “downtime” you refer to is probably experienced in every single job in existance. Whether it’s firefighters on-call, but not actually holding a hose and dousing a blaze, or shopworkers who may not serve a single customer in any given time period.

            It can be applied to me; to you; to Parliamentarians who spend only a few months actually in the House. (And many spend even less time in the Debating Chamber – John Key, in particular, in famous for not being around during Question Time.)

            So this “downtime” issue is a red herring.

            The $62.50 you mention is a fiction, based on creative accounting. Not exactly a sound reason to base peoples’ jobs on.

            • Matthew Whitehead 14.1.3.1.3.1
              14 January 2012 at 1:47 am

              Yep, I work in an office and have been paid for downtime before. It is standard practice that if you are asked to come in or are on-call, you get paid for the time you were expected to work (or be available to work) initially, not the time you actually worked.

      • mickysavage 14.1.4
        13 January 2012 at 12:34 pm

        Yep and if you took into account the time they took out from working to breathe they would be earning a gazillion dollars an hour the bludgers …

        • Frank Macskasy 14.1.4.1
          13 January 2012 at 12:37 pm

          They breathe?! Not on company time, I hope!! Scandalous!

          • Hami Shearlie 14.1.4.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 9:36 pm

            What about all the other inconvenient bodily functions – the thought of all that work time lost while reading magazines in the dunny – well, no wonder Tony’s upset!Maybe his dispute should be with the Almighty for designing us wrongly!

      • Frank Macskasy 14.1.5
        13 January 2012 at 12:35 pm

        And furthermore, James, can I ask you one question;

        Why does it bother you that maritime workers are paid for a stand-down period? What is your connection with that?

    • Bafacu 14.2
      13 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

      The article isn’t there any more!!!!!

  15. randal 15
    13 January 2012 at 1:16 pm

    its about time the len brown came out from behind the curtain and exercised some authority or is he just another shadow boxer.

  16. randal 16
    13 January 2012 at 1:17 pm

    this port is supposed to be owned by the people of Auckland. not some cabal of tinpot wannabee tycoons straight from b-school with big ambitions.

  17. newsense 17
    13 January 2012 at 2:24 pm

    why isn’t this front page on the Herald?

  18. randal 18
    13 January 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Its not on the front page of any rag in the country because they are slaves to the right wing tories currently looting the country for their private pelf and gain.

  19. tsmithfield 19
    13 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

    So, which Labour MPs are showing solidarity with the watersiders?

    Surely there must have been statements of support, or Labour MPs joining the picket lines?

  20. Jum 20
    13 January 2012 at 4:12 pm

    I cannot understand why NACTMU, Cactus Kate and Neil Gibson hate the Unions so much – their beloved Key and Co belong to the:

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

    – a one world people control machine if ever there was one.

    I also have not found out what was discussed at the New Zealand held meeting, a year or so ago, with John Key as host – anyone know? The website had a sudden blank during that time frame.

    Since I consider NACTMU, people like Cactus Kate and Neil Gibson to be the slime that is pondscum, and a threat to a humane, egalitarian New Zealand future I guess that makes us even.

    Cactus Kate told us some time back she does not care what we think of her. Neil Gibson is after a rich future with the nzbusinessrotundtable and NACTMU as always just like stealing our assets and our money and our rights so I guess they won’t care what I think of them.

    They obviously know nothing about the stockpiling of anger and the history of this country when folks eventually realise that there is no place in the sun for them, only for their masters.

    Eventually NACTMU, Cactus Kate and Neil Gibson will care. I’ll make a point of helping people to remember them.

    • Gosman 20.1
      13 January 2012 at 4:20 pm

      Where is this stockpiling of anger being stored then?

      Obviously not in the electorate at large in any meaningful way as the relative positions between the right and left of the political spectrum hardly moved at the last election.

      Neither is it in the rather pathetic Occupy movements in NZ who seem to be dying a slow and painful death by lack of publicity oxygen and lack of interest by the wider public.

      How is this anger manifesting itself currently except through the rantings of a few hard core lefties on a leftist site like this?

      • Jum 20.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 4:34 pm

        Gosman

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

        I shall continue to post these statements on this blog and in other areas. The People, that are affected by your hero Key’s extreme rightwing policies and his work done on behalf of his masters in America who seek to own and control New Zealand’s sovereignty and the external areas around New Zealand, are too busy doing 3 jobs to earn enough money to survive on, under the casualisation policies that Gibson is seeking for his masters, you fuckwit.

        ‘stockpiling of anger and the history of this country when folks eventually realise’ You really are thick aren’t ya. Stockpiling goes on until it reaches a tipping point. ‘Eventually’ means the tipping point has arrived.

        Even I’m not that hopeful it will happen before Key and people like you have stolen everything worth having from New Zealanders and handed it over to the pondscum that inhabit secretive places. (secretive – TPPA e.g.)

        Meanwhile, I’ll add you to my list (as if I hadn’t already…)

        ‘Slime scum on the bottom of Ponds’ List that want to betray New Zealand and Kiwis for their own greed:

        – NACTMU
        – Cactus Kate
        – Neil Gibson
        – Gosman
        –

        PS
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union

        • Gosman 20.1.1.1
          13 January 2012 at 4:42 pm

          I am truly honoured however people who compose lists of people that they like and dislike are a little bit odd in my book. However this seems to fit in with your other odd behaviour which is to believe wacky conspiracy theories about supposedly secretive international organisations that seek to control the world. By the way do you also have a problem with the Socialist international movement, which I believe the NZ Labour party may be affiliated to? Or is membership of international political organisations okay if you are on the left of the political spectrum?

          • Colonial Viper 20.1.1.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 4:47 pm

            Globalisation and neoliberalisation was designed to advantage the elites and the corporates.

            What a surprise, that rich powerful influential people might get together and plan to help each another in the short, medium and long term.

            Not really a conspiracy mate its just common sense.

            • Gosman 20.1.1.1.1.1
              13 January 2012 at 4:52 pm

              So do you have a problem with the Socialist international movement then? This is a collection of parties around the world that believe in democratic socialist principles (or at least pay lip service to them). If not, why is it okay for left leaning political movements to belong to international groupings of like minded parties but not right leaning ones?

              • Frank Macskasy …
                13 January 2012 at 5:18 pm

                “If not, why is it okay for left leaning political movements to belong to international groupings of like minded parties but not right leaning ones?”

                Because, Gosman, Socialist International does not promote policies of theft.

                By theft, I refer to the privatisation of public assets, against the will the the majority. By theft, I refer to taxation policies that benefit a few, at the expense of the many.

                And by theft, I mean taking away hope and aspirations from the poor and alienated – so that the top 10% can benefit.

                I hope that answers your question (but I doubt it).

                And by the way, the apparent agenda of privatisation-by-stealth of Ports of Auckland is yet another form of theft.

                If you weren’t so wrapped up in your libertarian ideology, you might realise the nature of events swirling around you. It’s a shame you don’t use your intelligence to look behind the superficialities of media reporting, to what is really going on.

                You might be surprised at what you find.

                • Jum …
                  13 January 2012 at 6:45 pm

                  Frank Macskasy,

                  Well said you damn fine individual!

                  As for Colonial Viper – A New Zealand Order of Merit for the work you have done, are doing and will do for the rights of the working man and woman. Long may it continue.

                  LPrent – Order of the Ashphalt – Keeping One’s Foot on the Ground in the Interests of Civilized and Altruistic Endeavour.

                  This is a special award for work above and beyond the duty of one individual to bring to account those who would destroy what is left of a dignified, egalitarian, proud country – New Zealand.

                  Keep up the good work (even though you chuck me off sometimes…)

                  An ‘aw shucks’ from any one of you will be sufficient.

          • muzza 20.1.1.1.2
            13 January 2012 at 5:00 pm

            “Secret international organisations” – what like The Federal Reserve, Central European Bank, NAFTA, GATT, TPPA, UN, WTO (S-510/CODEX), NATO, WHO,etc – I suppose you class their underhand work as accidents? None of them are following any sort of agenda are they, its all just ad hoc agencies running around making a massive, randon mess!

            Some people are so controlled they believe their thougths are their own….phew

            • Jum 20.1.1.1.2.1
              13 January 2012 at 6:27 pm

              muzza,

              I’ve always recognised what was right and what was wrong in society. Shame you have allowed your greed and your selfishness to control your conscience.

              PS
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
              John Key belongs to the above group as a disciple of the rightwing policies that take away the rights of the working man and woman and replaces those rights with misery.

              PPS
              Whatever my failings in life, even I can tell when it’s time to say ‘STOP’ you’re destroying my children’s hopes of an egalitarian life. When are you going to grow that far, muzza?

              • muzza …
                13 January 2012 at 6:45 pm

                Jum, it looks like you have interpreted my post in the opposite direction from what I intended.

                For what it’s worth, it is clear what has been done to society, hence my defence of the warfies in other posts – There is much more to the issue here, than the general public would bother to understand, based on MSM!

                Oh the joys of digital communications!

                • Jum …
                  13 January 2012 at 6:49 pm

                  Muzza,
                  I will remove your name from my list.

                  Putting the Federal Reserve and the TPPA in the same listing as the UN was a problem for me to recognise that you saw the difference between men who want to control the world and an organisation which at least wants to help all people.

                  • muzza …
                    13 January 2012 at 7:11 pm

                    Jum – you might like to go do some research on what the UN is really all about, who/ how it started up, and where is sits in the organizational hirarchy of globalisation.

                    Because if you think the UN are fighting on behalf of the little people, you may well be in or a shock or two….

          • Populuxe1 20.1.1.1.3
            13 January 2012 at 8:46 pm

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qcBjh8yfwY.
            Hehe – it’s bad manners to hate someone you’ve never met 🙂 especially over politics 🙂

        • Bored 20.1.1.2
          13 January 2012 at 10:18 pm

          Maybe Icke is right, lizards one and all.

      • Colonial Viper 20.1.2
        13 January 2012 at 4:37 pm

        Where is this stockpiling of anger being stored then?

        Obviously not in the electorate at large in any meaningful way as the relative positions between the right and left of the political spectrum hardly moved at the last election.

        Don’t forget about the million people who could not be bothered to (or chose not to) vote for any political party.

        • Gosman 20.1.2.1
          13 January 2012 at 4:45 pm

          Those one million people were quite obviously all supporters of the Aotearoa legalise Cannabis party that forgot to vote. You disagree? My analysis has about as much validity behind it as yours.

          • Frank Macskasy 20.1.2.1.1
            13 January 2012 at 5:20 pm

            On what do you base your claim that the million voters who failed to vote were ALCP supporters?

            Do you have facts to back up their level of membership/support/committment to the ALCP?

            Who told you this? And what is the credibility of your source of information that leads you to this assumption?

            (See? This is what some of your inane questioning looks like.)

          • fender 20.1.2.1.2
            13 January 2012 at 5:41 pm

            No they were going to vote for the Shipley Lower The Drinking Age Party gosman you drip, but they fell over and missed the event altogether.

            • Jum 20.1.2.1.2.1
              13 January 2012 at 6:20 pm

              Fender,

              LOL

              Or was it the Jenny Shipley take away the rights of a safe mining career by removing safety regulations, safety inspectors, hell she even removed the right for women to have safe, anxiety-free childbirth. What a woman – what a murderer.

              She reminds me in character, so far, of Cactus Kate.

  21. Kevin Hester 21
    13 January 2012 at 5:20 pm

    i suspect the whole manufactured dispute is a precursor to privitasiation of the port.
    disclaimer::: I have no link to the workers/ port authority/ council/ political party, I just smell a rat

  22. nadis 22
    13 January 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Q. Who owns the POA?

    A. Auckland City.

    So the owners (i.e., ratepayers like you and me as represented by Len Brown and his elected council) have given the board of directors certain goals and targets to meet. The board delegates to the management to implement those targets. Whether you agree with the management approach or not, they are doing what any other management team would do when given the same imperatives and faced with a competitor with a significant labour cost advantage. And don’t bleat about directors fees – again lobby Len Brown and his council to change these.

    But heres the rub – the management is only acting within the remit of what the owners ask for and permit. Anyone who objects to the management approach should actually be protesting to the ultimate authority here – the mayor and the councillors. Seriously if the “staunchest”, wealthiest and most organised union in NZ can’t win a labour dispute with a company owned by a council with a left wing mayor and dominated by left leaning councillors – then god help the left and unions because they are obviously incapable of helping themselves.

    Distilled to its essence – this is a dispute between the Maritime Union and a company ultimately controlled by Len Brown and his council. If you accept (I don’t but others may) that the management and board of POA are acting like spoilt toddlers then its up to Dad (Len and his council) to yank the chain.

    • Frank Macskasy 22.1
      13 January 2012 at 6:58 pm

      Not correct, Nadis. Ports of Auckland is owned by the Aucland City Council – but is actually kept at arms-length via the Auckland Council Investments Limited, a council-controlled investment company.

      But even if that weren’t the case – so what?

      By what stretch of the imagination do you believe that workers must follow a strict protocol of “XYZ” to protest against?

      The maritime workers were hired by Ports of Auckland Ltd. Therefore the contract exists between the MUNZ members/employees, and POA Ltd.

      Trying to deflect with “workers should do this” or “workers should do that” is a sophistry that we can all do without.

      The issues here are quite simple;

      (a) workers retaining their full-time jobs, instead of being casualise, and suffering reduced wages,

      (b) the background agenda that seems to be at-play here, to privatise PoA.

      Those are the issues. That is what matters.

      • nadis 22.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 8:11 pm

        You’ve obviously never been involved in companies at a senior management level or board level. Fundamental bottom line is that council owns it. And you obviously have bad comprehension skills – I didn’t once suggest what the union should or shouldn’t do. All I am pointing out is that the board and management of POA serve at the pleasure of the company owners. And that the owners have the power to solve by changing the targets given to the board but have chosen not to.

        Your issues a) and b) are fully in the control of the council to solve. Privatising POA will be a decision made by the council – not management, not the board, not the Round Table, not by some of the shadowy (and fictional) conspiracy groups mentioned elsewhere on this thread.and if Len Brown chooses to sit on the fence then I tell you right now MUNZ will lose.

        As the beneficial owner of POA council is fully within their rights to do something along the lines of:

        “We are disappointed that agreement between the POA and it’s workers has not been achieved. the Port is an important publicly owned asset and we are not prepared to see value eroded by the ongoimg dispute. We have therefore altered the mandate given to the board and directed them to enter into binding arbitration with MUNZ before retired Labour Court Judge Joe Bloggs. Our new required return on capital for then POA will allow a mutually beneficial agreement between the employer and staff. Should the union elect not to enter into binding arbitration I fully expect POA to follow the Tauranga labour model.”

  23. Jum 23
    13 January 2012 at 6:22 pm

    ‘Slime scum on the bottom of Ponds’ List that want to betray New Zealand and Kiwis for their own greed:

    – NACTMU
    – Cactus Kate
    – Neil Gibson
    – Gosman
    – Muzza
    –

    PS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union

    John Key belongs to the above group as a disciple of the rightwing policies that take away the rights of the working man and woman and replaces those rights with misery.

  24. Jum 24
    13 January 2012 at 6:50 pm

    ‘Slime scum on the bottom of Ponds’ List that want to betray New Zealand and Kiwis for their own greed:

    – NACTMU
    – Cactus Kate
    – Neil Gibson
    – Gosman
    –

    PS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Democrat_Union

    John Key belongs to the above group as a disciple of the rightwing policies that take away the rights of the working man and woman and replaces those rights with misery.

    • chris73 24.1
      13 January 2012 at 8:41 pm

      Sounds like they’d throw a decent party, can I get added to the list?

      • Jum 24.1.1
        13 January 2012 at 10:12 pm

        chris73,

        You use the word ‘decent’ in a post about NActMU, Cactus Kate, Neil Gibson and Gosman?

        Idiot. Try the word ‘crooked’ or even ‘vicious’ or even ‘greedy, selfish, megalomaniac’. Then I’ll know you’re talking about NActMU, Cactus Kate, Neil Gibson and Gosman.

  25. Geoff 25
    13 January 2012 at 7:41 pm

    Where’s the Labour Party?

  26. randal 26
    13 January 2012 at 7:49 pm

    where the hell is Len Brown.
    has he been paid off?
    why dont the council have a citizens originated referendum.
    the port belongs to the people not the management and it is incumbent on the mayor to listen to the people.

    • muzza 26.1
      13 January 2012 at 8:17 pm

      Well I can tell you a few things about Len Brown, as I have contacts in his exec team….

      So far as the contact with the council is concerned, from emails I have sent this week, I got a meeting request from Christine Fletcher, which I have accepted for end of this month…Jump in!

  27. randal 27
    13 January 2012 at 9:22 pm

    well ask her who owns the port.
    the people or the managers?

    • muzza 27.1
      13 January 2012 at 9:48 pm

      I have already put that to her, among other things, and will have it as a repeat question, which I had under the header of “conflicts of interest”

      Currently having an evening email discussion with George Wood, so they can be engaged, and I hope people are actually doing so, not spending all their energy writing only on this blog!

      Get invloved people, before the lot is gone and we are still paying rates, on top of privatized costs for services on infrastructure that will only ever send profits offshore, and look to undermine its workforce. And where is it going to end…WE have to put a stop to it, so get directly involved, if you’re not already!

  28. Jenny 28
    13 January 2012 at 9:30 pm

    As commentators have been asking, where is Len Brown, where is the Labour Party?

    From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    Article 23/4
    Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their interests.

    Council of Trade Union president Helen Kelly says the main factor holding up the dispute is the port company’s desire to get rid of the union.
    Ms Kelly says Ports of Auckland acknowledged in mediation that the union had put up a proposal which resolved their labour utilisation issues, but still indicated it wanted the union out of the port.

    Radio New Zealand. Friday, January 13, 2012

    According to this report (and other sources), the Ports management have admitted that this dispute is not about the wages and conditions of the union members.

    The company is even offering to pay the workers 10% more if they leave the union.

    If the union gave the Ports a 20% wage cut, the employer would still want the union out.

    This struggle is about deunionising the waterfront.

    Despite this fact, the conservative narrative is that it is all about wages.

    Is the line that this is a dispute about simply about wage levels and performance, (maybe just a little more heated than usual), a milquetoast excuse for some to sit on the side lines?

    Will Len Brown and the rest of the Labour Party use this excuse to avoid taking a hard line against the Ports of Auckland, for engaging in deliberate union busting as expressly sanctioned against by United Nations convention on human rights.

    Is it too much of an ask, for the modern New Zealand Labour Party and our Labour Mayor to make a stand on the United Nations Convention on human Rights, for the right of workers to be in a union?

    What’s this country coming to, and why is the Labour Party so compliant?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/95811/union-seeks-legal-advice-over-port-redundancy-plan

    • muzza 28.1
      13 January 2012 at 9:55 pm

      “What’s this country coming to, and why is the Labour Party so compliant”?

      Two sides of the same coin come to mind on this particular question – Remind me why Helen got a big job at the UN again?

      It matters not who runs the country, they are answering to others – Parliamentarians for Global Action, check it out to see which of your favourites is a member!

  29. Bored 29
    13 January 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Were I the majority shareholder (Auckland City is) I would be requiring my Board of Directors to:
    1. Assess and act on the managements integrity and their value to my business. If that was me I would fire them (Brown should require this).
    2. Review the tenure of the Directors for allowing this to happpen on their watch.

  30. First time caller 30
    13 January 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Hello all,
    Have MUNZ thought about forming their own company and having a go at the tender under their conditions? The most experienced men are already there on the job and would be ideal I think, and could be a good result for all, especially the workers.
    Just a thought, cheers!

    • chris73 30.1
      14 January 2012 at 8:52 am

      Wouldn’t work because they’d have to price competively and because they can’t work as productively (basically are lazier) as non-union workers they’d lose money

      [Blatant brain-dead trolling. Take a week off….RL]

    • mickysavage 30.2
      14 January 2012 at 9:02 am

      Wouldn’t work FTC.  The goal is to get the unionists off the site and even though there may be a transparent and fair process the unionists would never be allowed back.  Besides casualisation weakens workers rights so the Union should not go there.

      Chris73 you really are a piece.  I bet you would not recognize a unionist if you fell over one. 

      • nadis 30.2.1
        14 January 2012 at 9:40 am

        Micky I think the point people can’t get their head around is that the management behaviour is purely a result of the statement of intent given to POA by ACIL at the behest of the council. If the council changes the rate of return or ther requirements given to the port then this dispute changes completely.

        I wouldnt be blaming the management or board – they are acting in accordance with the wishes of their owner. Blame the council, blame the mayor. They have the ability to force a change onthe ports behaviour.

        The fact that they (and Labour) are completely missing in action on this would suggest they are quite happy to see the grip of MUNZ broken. From Lens perspective – he is thinking about all the (old) Auckland City and North Shore votes he needs to get. and probably the same reasonong for Labour – MUNZ is painted as an old style, red flag, brothers unite type of union – and Labour is terrified of being associated with that.

  31. muzza 31
    14 January 2012 at 8:30 am

    The parent body of Ports of Auckland is Auckland Council Investment Limited. A statement of intent has been prepared by Auckland Council that clearly sets out what the council requires as a return from the Ports of Auckland. That SOI is a public document which you could obtain a copy of of from Auckland Council.

    Auckland Council expects the board of Ports of Auckland to follow the same requirements as any other public company. It is important therefore that councillors do not become involved in trying to manage Ports of Auckland and leave that job to the board and CEO.

    Regards

    George Wood
    Councillor
    Auckland Council

  32. randal 32
    14 January 2012 at 8:33 am

    what I cant understand is how is it that the manager has been given the power to unilaterally dispose of something that is owned by the council.
    who is in charge here?

  33. newsense 33
    14 January 2012 at 9:13 am

    What’s with Brian Gaynor?

    Usually spot on in a lot of things, then goes using statistics like this:

    “One of POA’s biggest issues is its wage bill of $54.9 million compared with POT’s total employee expenses of $25.3 million, even though the latter is now the larger port.”

    BUT he then goes on to say, like he was a politician:

    “POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.”

    And the he says, oddly absent from the communications of the POA representative who came on this website:

    “But the poor performance of POA can also be attributed to the company’s board, management and politicians.

    The board’s capital management has been poor as dividend payouts have been too high. As a result, POA’s debt is much higher than POT’s and the former had net interest costs of $20.7 million in the June 2011 year compared with POT’s $10.6 million.

    POT’s senior management team has always been open, energetic and visionary while POA’s management team has been haughty and insular, and must take some of the blame for the company’s poor performance.”

    • Colonial Viper 33.1
      14 January 2012 at 9:30 am

      ‘experts’ who have a hard time constructing a coherant narrative, and who provide facts and figures which their narrative just does not support (so why did they reach it in the first place).

      Weird and sorta worse than useless.

  34. james 111 34
    14 January 2012 at 10:01 am

    Brian Gaynors article on POA this morning really throws a spot light on the problems at POA

    eg

    Wage Bill
    POA POT
    51.9 million 18.5 million

    Employee Benifts plus pension
    POA POT
    54.9 million 25.3 million

    Divdend Paid

    POA POT
    17.6 million 40.2 million (POT dividend is 128% more that POA startling)

    POA dividend to Auckland rate payers has gone from 34.5 million in 2003 to 17.6 million in 2011 a decline of 16.9 million

    POT dividend to its rate payers has gone from 22.8 million 2003 to 40.2 million in 2011 an increase of 17.4 million

    What company would you want to put your money into. This is all about costs ,and worker Flexibility, and if the union Culture wont change at POA. You can see why the company wants to bring in private contractors to boost productivity ,and the return to Auckland rate payers

    Obviously this cant go for the good of Auckland rate payers. No company can run a business like that where costs are ballooning out of control ,and profits plummeting

    • The Voice of Reason 34.1
      14 January 2012 at 10:13 am

      Yep, good call, James. Lets get rid of the dead wood at POAL that are driving the port under. Shall we start at the top? BTW, Gaynor’s figures leave out the cost of contracted labour in Tauranga, presumably so that the gullible like yourself will think there is a significant difference in wage costs between the two ports.

      • james 111 34.1.1
        14 January 2012 at 10:17 am

        No they dont that is included in the two comparitive wage bills

        • RedLogix 34.1.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 10:40 am

          Read the article:

          In 2010, POA had total employee expenses of $51.9 million compared with only $18.5 million at POT and last year employee benefits plus pension costs were $54.9 million at POA compared with POT’s $25.3 million.

          The big difference between the two companies is in terms of contracting out.

          POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.

          What do you think that means?

          • The Voice of Reason 34.1.1.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 10:52 am

            C’mon, RL, it’s not fair confusing James with facts. He doesn’t see this sort of honesty over at Whale’s site, so why should he be expected to deal with it here?

          • One Anonymous Bloke 34.1.1.1.2
            14 January 2012 at 11:11 am

            James, I just had a call from the cat. She’s got your tongue and is prepared to negotiate terms.

        • Frank Macskasy 34.1.1.2
          14 January 2012 at 10:52 am

          James, VoR and Redlogix have made a valid point. By no stretch of logic can the cost of contractors be left out of the labour costs.

          Paying contractors IS a cost. Hence it MUST be recorded as an outgoing by the POT. If POT isn’t showing that expense, then their balance sheets would be way out and no accountant in his/her right mind would put their signature to any profit/loss statement.

          So the question begging to be asked is; Where is the cost on contractors being recorded? Because if it isn’t recorded as a Labour cost, then POT is not able to present a true and accurate picture of their labour budget. That is not sound business practice.

          The other factor to consider is that POA is a bigger operation that POT. Hence more employees, hence a bigger wages bill.

          It’s the difference between a small, local building firm, and a corporation like Fletcher Building.

          Anyway, as I’ve pointed out before (and which you curiously have not commented on), according to that socialist satrap, the National Business Review, POA is actually in growth mode. So even if the Auckland Council is demanding higher dividends, POA is still delivering.

          Anyway…

          Funny ain’t it…

          All this talk about profits, labour costs, yields, etc… As if it’s the responsibility of the port workers.

          As always, the Right have this fixation with Responsibility – except when it applies to their own.

    • newsense 34.2
      14 January 2012 at 11:14 am

      Fuck James your reading comprehension is a bit shit isn’t it?

    • mickysavage 34.3
      14 January 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Hey James

      You should learn to read financial reports some time.  Here is the Tauranga Port’s annual report.  On page 30 is the answer POT paid $33.885m to contractors last year.  The total bill exceeds the Auckland wages bill. 

      • RedLogix 34.3.1
        14 January 2012 at 5:25 pm

        Which incidentally makes Brian Gaynor look more than a little stupid too.

        Normally the guy is pretty thorough but he’s slipped badly on this one. But I always had the impression he’s a fair minded person, I wonder if it’s worth contacting him over this?

        • Frank Macskasy 34.3.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 5:34 pm

          Perhaps Mickey Savage should write to Gaynor on this matter and seek a response? It is a matter worth raising on his Blog, as it effectively blows-out-of-the-water, arguments that PoT is more efficient.

          Mind you, I kind of suspected something like this, as it made no sense that contractors were not included in PoA’s financial statements. (Otherwise the reports would be misleading, and the Directors could end up in the docks like certain finance company operators.)

          Micky Savage – do you have a link to your info? I’d like a squizz at it myself.

        • mickysavage 34.3.1.2
          14 January 2012 at 6:30 pm

          Well knock me down with a feather Redlogix but the analysis gets weirder and weirder.  I have spent a bit of time this afternoon looking at the accounts for both POAL and Tauranga Port.

          There are two basic problems with comparing the two ports’ accounts:

          1.  Each entity uses different accounting standards and it is not easy mapping expenses against each other.
          2.  POAL has not released full figures for the past financial year.  I understand this is because of a question about the accounting standards to be applied but whatever the reason this does not help.

          But there are some very interesting features:

          1.  Revenue is similar in the past financial year, for POAL it was $177m, for Tauranga it was $185m.
          2.  In 2010 POAL’s spend on employees (whatever this covers) was 31.4% of income. 
          3.  Tauranga has three figures in its accounts, Employees ($25.3m),  contractors ($33.9m) and transport contractors ($5.8m).  If these figures are the same as POAL’s employee figure then Tauranga’s proportion of expenses was 35%, larger than POAL’s figure.  Even if you take out the cost of transport it was still larger (31.9%).

          Please can someone say why this analysis is not correct.  Otherwise this really looks like a manufactured crisis where the “inefficiency” is only a quirk of the accounting techniques.  
          POAL’s 2010 figures are here and the 2011 summary is here.  Tauranga’s figures are here.

          One further comment,  Catherine Etheredge said that POAL’s calculations did not include redundancies.  BUT the line item in the 2010 accounts says that the employee benefit expense “includ[es] restructuring costs and termination benefits” which must include redundancy costs.

          • mickysavage 34.3.1.2.1
            14 January 2012 at 6:38 pm

            Oops Etheredge’s comment is here.
             

            • RedLogix 34.3.1.2.1.1
              14 January 2012 at 7:12 pm

              Well done. I’m a bit ashamed I’ve been too distracted to do the obvious as you have done.

              As you say there’s plenty of wriggle room to argue the toss because the accounting systems are different… but then if that’s the case how can anyone make a valid comparison?

  35. james 111 35
    14 January 2012 at 11:12 am

    Frank

    At the endo f the day the bottom line trend speaks volumes which includes all relative costs . Tauranga rocketing dividend going up. POA has been in decline going down relatively fast. Costs are to high it has an out dated Labor model. My question is how many Unionised wharves are there left in New Zealand can they afford to lose Auckland because that is certainly the way its heading .

  36. RedLogix 36
    14 January 2012 at 11:24 am

    Oh yes there is no doubt that PoT with it’s ruthless contracting model has lower labour costs. The owners of that Port are making bigger profits at the expense of the people who do the actual work That is plain, it’s not in disagreement.

    PoT could be even more profitable by employing endentured slaves from Bangladesh, or wherever, and make even higher profits. And logically you’d have no objection.

    But really you are fighting yesterday’s argument. Events in the last 24hrs have confirmed that the dispute is NOT about labour costs or flexibility. The Union has met PoAL’s demands, but have been rejected.

    What PoAL are demanding now is that the workers leave MUNZ and signed Individual Employment Agreements (IEA’s). In other words the actual overt goal is to de-unionise the port.

    All the rest about costs, pay rates and labour flexibility was only ever a diversion.

  37. james 111 37
    14 January 2012 at 11:52 am

    Red
    How can that be POA profits,and dividends are going backwards at a rate of knots, POT are going up at a rate of knots. An alternative view maybe that the POA workers are screwing the company,and causing the profit errosion, because it isnt happening in Tauranga

    • Colonial Viper 37.1
      14 January 2012 at 11:56 am

      How is it that POAL profits are “going backwards at a rate of knots” but the pay of its directors and executive management keeps getting bigger at a rate of knots?

      Are they cutting their own pay, terms and conditions in order to lead their workers by example?

      • james 111 37.1.1
        14 January 2012 at 12:03 pm

        CV
        You may have a point there,and they shouldnt be getting a pay rise agreed fair is fair, but at the end of the day we are talking a problem in the 10s of Millions not a few hundred thousand. That is where the work force has to be much more flexible as the scale of the cost problem is very big

        • Colonial Viper 37.1.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 12:22 pm

          Its about setting the moral example as management and leaders of the company mate.

          By the way firing the Board and the CEO and replacing them with a workers council boosts POAL $19M pa profitability by $2M, i.e. 10.5%.

          That’s very significant.

    • muzza 37.2
      14 January 2012 at 12:04 pm

      James you are a fucken idiot! – I can’t even be bothered going into why!

      • james 111 37.2.1
        14 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

        Perhaps because I dont look at things your way Muzza. I forgot you are the Oracle and have all the answers.

    • RedLogix 37.3
      14 January 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Here is the fundamental flaw in your thinking James.

      Let’s imagine that the workers at PoAL improve their productivity by say 20%. In other words they reduce the time to handle a container from 1.2 hrs to say 1.0 hrs to match Tauranga.

      Logically then the average hours actually worked might drop from say 26 hrs to about 21 hrs. Now you’ve consistently said you want the workers to be paid ONLY for the hours actually worked. Bear in mind that PoAL cannot simply cut the number of people available, because it needs them to service peak demand.

      So at the new pay rate they are being offered on a IEA of $30 per hour (not including any night shift allowances).. this works out at about $32,000 per year. Not a great deal more than the minimum wage and … well even you might think this a bit of a drop from $91,000.

      This for skilled and sometimes arduous work and being required to be available to work any hour of the day and night 24/7/365..

      In other words if the workers step up and meet management’s demands … they finish up being punished for doing a better job.

      • james 111 37.3.1
        14 January 2012 at 12:17 pm

        Red
        Lets explore this a little further are you telling us all that the POT workers are only making just above the minnimum wage. Because its working down there for them ,and the Port Company

        • RedLogix 37.3.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 12:19 pm

          Do you have a problem with the above calculations, and in what way are they inconsistent with what you have been arguing for?

          • james 111 37.3.1.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 12:26 pm

            I dont believe the POT workers are only making $32000 a year on average I would think it much closer to $65000 per year. On that basis it works for everyone down there .So no reason why it cant work here

            • RedLogix 37.3.1.1.1.1
              14 January 2012 at 12:40 pm

              You misunderstand. I’m not talking about PoT workers… I was talking about Auckland.

              I’m using the figures for PoAL that we have already established and you have used in your own comments.

              If the PoAL workers accept the casualised rates on the terms you have insisted on… then $32,000 would logically be their base salary. Various add-on would certainly increase that a bit… but nowhere near $65,000.

              Yet the hilarious thing is … PoAL management have made it clear they really don’t give a rats arse about any of this, because the Union met their terms and were rejected.

  38. randal 38
    14 January 2012 at 11:57 am

    RED LOGIX.
    full marks dude.
    the whole damm thing was a diversion and still is.
    timed to coincide with the holidays so the grubby little managers and beancounters can play their tricks while everybody else is trying to have a holiday.
    thats the crummy way things are done around here and its time the Mayor LEN BROWN got of his arse and made a statement about who owns the Port Of Auckland and why the hired hands think they can take over the ownership of the peoples property.

    • james 111 38.1
      14 January 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Len has made a statement he wants a much better return out of the POA, he isnt happy with the dividend continually falling whilst Taurangas goes up. He wants that for the rate payers of Auckland a fair request I would have thought.

      • Colonial Viper 38.1.1
        14 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

        Sacrifice the community to improve the returns to the community?

        Yeah right. This is the kind of bullshit you get when you decide that short term financial measures are the only measures of importance in your business.

        I reckon Len Brown has been sold a bogus story by the CEO and the Board as to how easy it would be to make these changes to get the improved profitability that they no doubt hyped as very possible, and he is now trapped in a corner by that same story.

        • james 111 38.1.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 12:23 pm

          CV
          Sacrifice the community to improve the returns to the community?

          Well there are 1.4 million people in Auckland if he can improve the bottom line of POA by about 19 million a year. He has done the right thing the wishes of 350 people versus needing to support 1.4 million. Your equation doesn stack up really does it

          • Colonial Viper 38.1.1.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 6:38 pm

            Its not in the interests of the people of Auckland to have the ports run by fucking morons and incompetent managers!

      • muzza 38.1.2
        14 January 2012 at 12:25 pm

        Has he really James, and where would that be, as the only comments I seem to be able to find say nothing of the sort came out of LB’s mouth

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/6230039/Mayor-wants-port-dispute-settled

        Pick through this lot James… – Can’t see where Brown mentiones anything about dividends!

        http://www.nbr.co.nz/category/category/ports-auckland

        You can take my name out of the 1.4m people you refer to, as well as the other 1.399999m people who, even if they wanted do make a decision for themselves, would not be able to beause of the lies and BS, which people such as you lap up, and peddle outwards.

        What is it that prevents you from seeing what this is really all about – The local privatization of public assets, going the same way as the national assets, what is left of them!

        Mate you are not even a good troll!

        • james 111 38.1.2.1
          14 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

          Muzza
          Epic fail again see below Lens comment on Stuff

          ‘Everyone involved in the dispute is entirely clear of my expectation that it needs to be resolved. A competitive port returning a much better dividend to ratepayers is pivotal to Auckland becoming the economic powerhouse it needs to be.”
          What does everyone involved mean in your language?
          What do you believe a competitive Port returning a much better dividend to ratepayers is pivotal? means in your language

          Epic fail you fool

          • The Voice of Reason 38.1.2.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 12:34 pm

            Er, the epic fail is all your own, James. See anything in Brown’s comments about screwing the workers to improve the dividend? Nope, ’cause it ain’t there.
            Idiot.

          • muzza 38.1.2.1.2
            14 January 2012 at 12:41 pm

            “Better Dividend” – “Better means what exactly James?

            Its political double speak up there with – “Brown said ”both sides are very aware of what is at stake” and he wanted to reassure ratepayers he was doing all he could”

            By the way, you still have not answered a single question or provided any numbers of your own!

            • james 111 38.1.2.1.2.1
              14 January 2012 at 12:49 pm

              Well obviously much better than what they have which has been falling since 2003. I would also imagine in a Business sense that it needs to be a Return that covers capital employed, and is matching your nearest competitor which is POT. Im sure if they get near those numbers they will be happy. Business is all about trends POA profit has been trending down for at least 7 years whilst POT has been trending up. They will want to see the bottom line curve upwards again as Does Mayor Len in his Statement

              • muzza …
                14 January 2012 at 1:04 pm

                Public Business are NOT “all about trends” – are you a student James, I hope so as its the only possible excuse for your shit reading, poor interpretations and total lack of any understanding about what the world and its resoures actually are…NOT JUST MONEY DICK HEAD!

                Let me tell you what people want to see James – People want honesty, integrity and truth brought back into their communities, only they don’t know how to go about getting it back. Those such as yourself who clearly are all about the “bottom line”, have no fucken idea of how to create cohesive, work place, communities and all around more enjoyable cities to exist in because you only believe in cash, and fake material constructs – You have no idea how trapped you are, at least that is how your posts read!

                • james 111 …
                  14 January 2012 at 1:23 pm

                  Muzza

                  [For someone who has already been caught out this morning in a number of mistakes you had no answer to you are in no position to demand apologies. This kind of thing is the stuff of flame-wars. ..RL]

                  muzza dont know what sort of business you are in are you a Public service worker or a union delegate? Its an economic reality if the bottom lines continue to go down and into the Red Companies close workers lose jobs. Some how I dont believe you work in a occupation that has to make a profit

                  So yes I do have a very good idea about workplaces ,and what is required. You are getting very emotive ,and losing the plot. Len has asked for improvement in competitveness, and dividend he is asking that for all rate payers of Auckland. Perhaps you need to ask your mate on his exectutive team why Len would ask for such an abhorent thing.
                  Im not stuck just a realist some one who has moved on from the Labor relations of the 1950s what about you Muzza

                  • The Voice of Reason …
                    14 January 2012 at 1:46 pm

                    There is nothing abhorrent about improved productivity, James. But you are assuming Brown is talking about it in relationship to POT and that is not actually what he has said.
                     
                    BTW, for about, oooh,  forever, public servants have to meet budget in a business like manner, so your snide remarks about them are particularly stupid. And try and get your anti union prejudices up to date, too. Union delegates aren’t what you think they are.

      • Frank Macskasy 38.1.3
        14 January 2012 at 3:00 pm

        James, I note you haven’t addressed the quite significant points raised by Redlogix above?

        He has made valid points. You’ve skirted past them, it seems?

  39. Teo 39
    14 January 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Did the Question ever get asked who Mr gibson’s past employer was… he was a manager at MAERSK……

  40. james 111 40
    14 January 2012 at 12:44 pm

    VTR
    Its says everyone involved (which includes the Union) improving the dividend which involves the Union. Its all about accountability you are part of the problem so you have to at least try and be part of the Solution
    I said Len has made a statement where he wants a better return from POA and as proved what I said was entirely true. This was what Muzza was responding to in my message 38.1
    So yes VTR it is an epic failure by Muzza will accept his apologies humbly of course

    • The Voice of Reason 40.1
      14 January 2012 at 12:54 pm

      Nope. Here’s what you claimed Brown said:
       
      “Len has made a statement he wants a much better return out of the POA, he isnt happy with the dividend continually falling whilst Taurangas goes up”
       
      The simple fact is that he did not actually say what you claim he did and your bullshit is a hell of a long way from being “entirely true”. Muzza 1, James 0.
       
       

      • james 111 40.1.1
        14 January 2012 at 1:06 pm

        VTR
        Read into it what you like Im sure Len wouldnt be unhappy with the Dividend going up.He wants a competitive Port (this implies he doesnt think it is at the moment other wise why make the statement) He wants a better dividend (This implies not good enough at the moment pathetic when compared with Tauranga)
        What I dont understand is how Muzza didnt know that Len has said this as he openly states on here that he is in contact with people in Len Browns executive Team

        • The Voice of Reason 40.1.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 1:16 pm

          Of course Brown wants a better dividend. Who doesn’t? But that statement does not ‘imply’ anything regarding the dispute or relativity with POT. The implications are entirely in your own head, dude, which is what both Muzza and I are trying to get through to you.

    • muzza 40.2
      14 January 2012 at 12:57 pm

      “Tony served as Managing Director of Maersk, New Zealand for three years. Most recently he has pursued his own business interests as a director and then Chairman of ERoad, a road-user charge solution provider. In 2008 he was appointed by the Minister of Transport to the Road User Review Group.”

      Len Brown did mention the word dividend James – So when will you be disputing the figures or logic above, and why are you so seemingly staunchly in favour of the union being busted, and the workers being screwed harder?

      I bet you’re in favour of leveredged buy outs too right, cos it all about the debt!

      • james 111 40.2.1
        14 January 2012 at 1:14 pm

        Muzza
        I want the Union to get real and the workers keep their Jobs. I dont believe the Union is facing the economic reality at the moment that the Port has to deliver. I am not against Unions I am against bloody mindedness that loses workers Jobs. As I have already stated my Grandfather was a Wharfie, My Uncle was a Wharfie, My Best Man a Wharfie. I dont care about Leveredged buyouts what I do care about is a good performing wharf in Auckland.

        [your idea of ‘economic reality’ is a profitable business imposing a 20% pay cut on its workers to make more profit and reduce its charges to foreign shipping lines. That’s not decent Kiwis’ idea of reality. Zet]

        • james 111 40.2.1.1
          14 January 2012 at 1:29 pm

          Tell me Zet if they took a 20% paycut would that put them on the same Level as POT workers ?

          ie $91000 x 20% minus =$72800 average
          This is still very good money in anyones mind. If it makes the wharf efficent and improves the dividend keeps their jobs. Why is it such a bad thing. I know its a bitter pill for the Union to swallow but they have obviously been on the pigs back for a few years that is why the profitability is falling ,and the port is losing business to POT

          [well, when your boss comes along tomorrow and says ‘the business is making money but we want to make more money, so you’ve got to take a 20% pay cut or loss your job’, let us know how you react. Oh, and it doesn’t make the port more efficient – it takes the same amount of working time to unload a container, its just that the cost of downtime is lumped on the employee rather than the employer. Kind of like your boss stopping paying you if there’s no work to do for a couple of hours but expecting you to be ready and willing to starting work again at the drop of a hat 24/7/365. Zet]

          • james 111 40.2.1.1.1
            14 January 2012 at 2:12 pm

            Zet following the 87 crash I took a 20% cut when the company wasnt performing along with other staff. Believe this crash is worse than 87. Sometimes no gai nwithout pain

            • Frank Macskasy 40.2.1.1.1.1
              14 January 2012 at 4:40 pm

              “Zet following the 87 crash I took a 20% cut when the company wasnt performing along with other staff. Believe this crash is worse than 87. Sometimes no gai nwithout pain”

              James… ???

              Do you really believe that cliche?

              Considering that during the Recession, whilst you took a 20% cut (I assume you are being honest in this), the top 150 NBR Rich Listers INCREASED their wealth by 20%. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/171212/rich-list-shows-rich-getting-richer)

              You took the cut.

              They took the money you gave up.

              Unless you happen to be one of those 150 rich listers – what possible benefit did you get from them getting wealthier at your expense.

              I honestly don’t get this kind of thought-pattern. It’d be like a starving Somalian giving up his meal for an obese Westerner – because the Westerner feels slightly “peckish”.

              This is utterly alien to me.

              • Colonial Viper …
                14 January 2012 at 5:05 pm

                James is an astroturfer. Or a financial masochist. Who knows which. One thing is certain though: the top 0.1% think that he is a useful sucker in making them richer.

        • RedLogix 40.2.1.2
          14 January 2012 at 1:34 pm

          Over the last few days our friend James:

          1. Has demanded that productivity must improve to at least match Tauranga, ie a 20% improvement. This logically implies the current 26hrs per week would drop to only 21hrs hours worked per week.

          2. Has insisted that workers are only paid for the hours actually worked, regardless of what time of the day or night, and the need to be on standby to meet the employers requirements.

          3. Has insisted that PoAL’s offer to increase the pay rate from $27.40 to $30 per hour is a ‘generous’ 10% pay increase.

          4. Logically then the workers would receive if they moved to casualised contracting: 21hrs * $30 *52 weeks = $32,000 pa.

          On his own terms.

          • james 111 40.2.1.2.1
            14 January 2012 at 1:44 pm

            Catherine Etheridge
            Stated average Pay for a Full time worker with more than 1 years service was $91000 including holiday pay this came from Payroll information take off 20% as Zet has stated the company is after. You end up with $72800 which is more than double the number you are quoting. I think I would believe the Companys payroll information. This is still very reasonable money in any ones terms

            • RedLogix 40.2.1.2.1.1
              14 January 2012 at 1:51 pm

              No.. I am using your own logic. Point by point. And so far you have failed to show where it is wrong.

              All you are doing is extrapolating back off the discredited $91k figure that was always inflated with a bunch of non-cash ‘benefits’. Remember if the PoAL workers are turned into contractors they won’t be getting annual/medical leave, trauma and medical insurance, or superannuation.

              Besides all I’ve done is use your OWN logic and suddenly you don’t like the answer it comes up with…do you?

              • james 111 …
                14 January 2012 at 2:00 pm

                Red the $91000 k figure has not been discredited every company looks at all benefits that a worker receives in a year as income. That is what is provided to IRD. Please show me your evidence that is better than the POA payroll info where the average full time POA worker doesnt receive this much money. Are you calling Catherine Etheridge a liar, and all the information that she gracioulsy revealed to all on here false? I f so what are you basing your information on.
                I am saying that $72800 for a full time worker is still a good wage

                • RedLogix …
                  14 January 2012 at 2:07 pm

                  You are becoming incoherent. I’ve only used exactly the same figures YOU have repeatedly used in comment after comment.

                  I’m not talking about what PoAL workers are paid now, I’m merely using your own numbers and applying your own logic to them.

                • Frank Macskasy …
                  15 January 2012 at 11:27 am

                  I am saying that $72800 for a full time worker is still a good wage

                  Really?

                  That’s big of you.

                  It’s worth considering that any sum paid to maritime workers will be derided as “greedy” by reactionary right wingers.

                  Ironic isn’t it; criticise the top 150 NBR Rich Listers for increasing their wealth by 20% – and right wingers respond with “politics of envy”.

                  Those same right wingers think nothing of deriding workers, doing a hard, dangerous job, as “greedy”. Evidently it’s not “politics of envy” then. As I pointed out to you above James,

                  “Zet following the 87 crash I took a 20% cut when the company wasnt performing along with other staff. Believe this crash is worse than 87. Sometimes no gai nwithout pain”

                  …

                  Considering that during the Recession, whilst you took a 20% cut (I assume you are being honest in this), the top 150 NBR Rich Listers INCREASED their wealth by 20%. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/171212/rich-list-shows-rich-getting-richer)

                  You took the cut.

                  They took the money you gave up.

                  Unless you happen to be one of those 150 rich listers – what possible benefit did you get from them getting wealthier at your expense.

        • muzza 40.2.1.3
          14 January 2012 at 1:37 pm

          James I think you need to go do some reading about morals and ethics, what they are, and where they can add value to society (not in monetary terms only).

          Why is it “bloody mindedness” of the unions – can it not be “bloody mindedness” of PoAL board etc?

          Telle me about economic reality James – Is that the one where globalization has fucked all but the top tier of professional services to the wall!

          Yes I do know people close to LB, and I assure you he is being used as a political football, internally by factions inside the council, and externally the same way.I am not making excuses for the guy by any means, because frankly he should know exactly what the situaiton is and where the agendas and lies are on both sides, that should be his intentions, he has the hot seat and has to deal with it! – I did not vote for him, or anyone else, but imagine the shit that would be rained down on the union if John Banks was mayor!

          Maybe go show some solidarity to your family and friends who you claim to be warfies, because your posts dont show much in terms of loyalty bro, cos if you think your best man is part of the problem, well that speaks volumes eh!

          • james 111 40.2.1.3.1
            14 January 2012 at 1:56 pm

            Muzza you Say
            can it not be “bloody mindedness” of PoAL board etc?

            Well actually no the board know the Port is not performing you only need to look at the comparitive figures submitted by Brian Gaynor in the Herald today.
            The board also has duty of Governance they have been asked by the Mayor of the city to make the Port more competitive,and improve the Dividend. That is the direction they have been given. They are now putting a process in place to achieve that objective there is no great conspiracy. They are just responding to the economic realities

            • muzza 40.2.1.3.1.1
              14 January 2012 at 2:37 pm

              Its one of BG’s worst articles, I think Frank & RL at 35.1 and 36 already explained the flaws!

              I have stated before, and in emails to the council, about the lack of transparency around the interaction between PoAL, MUNZ etc – How are you so certain that either party has full disclosure of relevant details, because I for one am not!

              See below from George Wood – Posted higher up in the blog – have you read the SOI to back up your statements James?

              _______________________________________________________________________
              The parent body of Ports of Auckland is Auckland Council Investment Limited. A statement of intent has been prepared by Auckland Council that clearly sets out what the council requires as a return from the Ports of Auckland. That SOI is a public document which you could obtain a copy of of from Auckland Council.

              Auckland Council expects the board of Ports of Auckland to follow the same requirements as any other public company. It is important therefore that councillors do not become involved in trying to manage Ports of Auckland and leave that job to the board and CEO.

              Regards

              George Wood
              Councillor
              Auckland Council
              _______________________________________________________________________

              The email below was a reply from Councilor Mike Lee to Christime Fletcher and below that Christines initial response to myself

              ______________________________________________________________________

              Thats nonsense Christine – you are deliberately or through ignorance confusing the current dispute with the issue of ownership – which is quite another matter. You claim the port needs to be ‘returned to profit’ – this is either ignorant ( read your agenda) or the propagation of a deliberate political lie. The port is profitable – and relatively efficient (compared to other regional ports such as Botany Bay and Melbourne).
              That being said It could be and needs to be more efficient and more profitable.
              Talking about selling the port business and keeping the land is politically fraudulent. Virtually all the publicly valuable port land eg Westhaven, Britomart Quarter, Wynyard Quarter,
              Queens Wharf has been transferred out
              of POAL by the ARC (Wynyard Quarter which has enabled the current ongoing development), purchased by Auckland City Council, Westhaven, Halsey Street Wharf, harbour Park (by bridge) Teal Park) or purchased from POAL jointly by ARC and Government (Queens Wharf). The ‘land’ remaining is the reclaimed rubble laying half a metre under the tarmac upon which is located all the incredibly valuable cranes and infrastructure you want to sell. This asset belongs to the people of Auckland. They deserve to be told the truth not spun artful lies

              _______________________________________________________________________

              Thank you for your email. I appreciate the opportunity to make clear my position.

              I believe that there are two stages to the current situation.

              Firstly return the port to profitability and put in place whatever measures are required to maximise the value of this ratepayer business that is so critical to the economic growth of Auckland and employment for Aucklanders. The council have been advised by the board of the port that there will need to be an improvement to the organisational structure and greater labour market flexibility. There needs to be a step change in customer service and productivity levels if the Port is going to be competitive in a difficult market.

              Only when this has been achieved we should seriously and carefully consider the best structure for the Port. It is premature to suggest what is the right structure at this stage but I have long personally believed that having an investment partner with council for the commercial operation of the port could be a workable possibility.

              For the record I have never suggested nor would I support privatisation of the total commercial business of port and I would not support the sale of port land which is strategic to the development of Auckland.

              Sincerely

              Chris Fletcher

  41. RedLogix 41
    14 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

    James..you keep blathering on about the need for workers to take pay cuts and be more flexible.

    Yet when MUNZ offered exactly what the PoAL has demanded… they were rejected.

    You’re running yesterday’s argument. Events have moved on.

  42. muzza 42
    14 January 2012 at 2:42 pm

    More info from George Wood, just received now, to my questions first, followed by response from GW
    __________________________________________________________________________

    George,

    :Who appoints the Management/Board/CEO etc?
    :When you say “follow the same requirements” – What exactly do you mean, and whom exactly decides the “requirements”
    : Do you have any involvement in POAL, directly, indirectly or otherwise?
    :At what point is it decided that the Board/CEO have failed in the roles, and who would make that decision?

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    Auckland Council appoints the board of ACIL who in turn appoint the board of Ports of Auckland. This is the requirement under the Auckland legislation.

    Auckland Council decides the requirements for all its subsidiaries. Ports of Auckland is just one subsidiary.

    All Auckland Council members are involved in setting these directives. Therefore all councillors have involvement.

    George Wood
    Councillor
    Auckland Council

  43. Ross 43
    15 January 2012 at 8:23 am

    I asked a question earlier of James which he avoided. What do MPs get paid and how many days do they appear in the House?

    Well, a backbench MP gets paid almost $142,000. Parliament sits for 93 days (or about 1.8 days per week). Of course MPs do some electorate work. But by international standards, it is apparent that MPs do not spend as much time as they could on parliamentary business. It is also apparent that in comparison with wharfies, MPs have got by far the better deal. MPs’ sick leave provision, for example, is far more generous than that of wharfies.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/4970907/What-me-work-Fridays

    • james 111 43.1
      15 January 2012 at 8:58 am

      Ross

      I avoided nothing I said that MPs were working their electorate office ,and working in their community when not in Parliament.

      My Mp works way more than 40 hours a week. He doesnt get paid for sitting at home waiting for the Phone to ring or watching TV.

      Not many people do these days times have changed. If his hourly rate was calculated for hours actually worked versus paid hours. Im telling you it would be wayless than the $62.50 the POA workers currently receive for the same measure

      From where I sit everything the Union ,and the Standard are throwing up are Red Herrings it isnt going to change one thing,
      Fact
      1) POT is working very effectively much more profitable than POA
      2)POT returns a dividend to its rate payers that is 128% greater than POA
      3)POT wage costs are significantly less than POA
      4)POA profit is much less than POT yet it has more revenue from vessels coming in
      5)POA profit ,and dividend has been sliding since 2003 whilst POT has been rocketing
      6)The mayor has asked for greater productivity ,and dividend return at POA
      7)POT workers do not get paid for being at home POA workers do
      8) POA have a private contractor running their business who is doing a very good job for the community, and returning them a great dividend
      Why wouldnt you if you were the POA of Auckland employ the same private contractor to run POA.They know he is going to get the Port working properly again.

      You would have rocks in your head if you believe that POA workers can hang onto any conditions that they have over and above POT Workers this isnt going to happen.

      Both Ports are competiting against each other very comparable businesses .So their costs ,and profits should be very similar POA is underperforming versus its competition it needs to be sorted as a Business.

      So that rate payers get the return they deserve.Of course Mr Dickson is going to end up running POA, and many of your current union members there will end up working for him.

      There will be some redundancies but in 5 years the Port will be in a significantly better place in profitability, and dividend wise than it is now.

      The only thing that can save the Union is if they accept every condition without exception that has been put before them by POA. As said in one Newspaper article yesterday the Culture at the POA has to change who do you think they are talking about there.

      • mickysavage 43.1.1
        15 January 2012 at 9:04 am

        James you are really hard to argue with because you have this list of slogans which you keep repeating like self fulfilling truths and you refuse to debate the details.

        Try this one:

        POT wage costs are significantly less than POA

        They are actually greater if you add on the contractor costs.  This is a relevant consideration isn’t it?

      • RedLogix 43.1.2
        15 January 2012 at 9:10 am

        James.

        Turns out one of your ‘facts’ isn’t quite so obvious after all. Yesterday mickysavage did a little rather obvious in hindsight comparison of the actual 2011 Annual Reports for the two organisations.

        1. Revenue is similar in the past financial year, for POAL it was $177m, for Tauranga it was $185m.

        2. In 2010 POAL’s spend on employees (whatever this covers) was 31.4% of revenue or $51.9m. The figure for 2011 does not appear on POAL’s website.

        3. Tauranga has three figures in its 2011 accounts, employees ($25.3m), contractors ($33.9m) and transport contractors ($5.8m).

        If these figures are the same as POAL’s employee expense figure then Tauranga’s labour costs as a proportion of revenue was 35%, larger than POAL’s figure. Even if you take out the cost of transport it was still larger at 31.9%. To make this abundantly clear it appears that POAL spent $51.9m on employees in 2010, and Tauranga spent $59.2m on employees and contractors excluding transport contractors in 2011.

        To make this really, really simple it appears Tauranga spent more on its workers to get about the same revenue.

        Both reports are on the net. You can check this out for yourself quite easily. Unfortunately the two companies use different accounting and reporting systems, which makes direct comparison less than straight forward.. but that is a sword that cuts both ways.

        • james 111 43.1.2.1
          15 January 2012 at 9:20 am

          If you guys are so right and the workers at POA are so efficent , and their Productivity is so good which is completely opposite to Brian Gaynors article Yesterday.

          Why do you think that POA is running toward private contracting at POA at million miles an hour.
          They obviously believe it has huge benefits to the Wharfs profitability.

          In regards to where the contractors costs fall in the POT P&L they must be accounted for otherwise they would be filing illegal returns are you saying they are?

          Right now then accepting that they arent all costs are accounted for in their Annual Returns this shows them far more Profitable than POA, and giving a dividend that is 128% greater than POA. There is obviously room for huge improvement at POA that is what the board is looking at.It has to be competitive with its nearest competitor ,and it isnt. I still make my claim that POA will move to a private contractor to gain some of these low hanging fruit. Also that many of your current workers wil lend up working for them

          • mickysavage 43.1.2.1.1
            15 January 2012 at 9:29 am

            James 111

            Care to argue the figures?  It looks like Tauranga spends MORE on employees and contractors than Auckland spends on employees.  You have spent the past few days parroting the company line but it looks like the company line should not be believed.

            Go on argue the figures.  Otherwise you are just wasting everyone’s screen space. 

            • james 111 43.1.2.1.1.1
              15 January 2012 at 9:37 am

              Micky
              I am arguing the figures
              All of the costs have to be included in the Annual report including all contracting costs otherwise they would be illegal. These reports wil lbe audited standard practise. That being taken for granted the two Annual reports when compared with each other show POT performing much better than POA.

              Divdend Paid

              POA POT
              17.6 million 40.2 million (POT dividend is 128% more that POA startling)

              POA dividend to Auckland rate payers has gone from 34.5 million in 2003 to 17.6 million in 2011 a decline of 16.9 million

              POT dividend to its rate payers has gone from 22.8 million 2003 to 40.2 million in 2011 an increase of 17.4 million

              You show me your report for POA that increases its profit ,and for POT that decreases its profit otherwise you are living in Disney land

              • RedLogix …
                15 January 2012 at 9:41 am

                James,

                Your entire argument is based on the idea that LABOUR costs at Auckland are higher than Tauranga. And that therefore MUNZ has to accept lower wages.

                This has nothing to do with dividends.

                Now go and look at the Annual Reports. Please.

                • james 111 …
                  15 January 2012 at 9:53 am

                  Red
                  Have you have ever been in Business it has everything to do with dividends! If one company has significantly mor Labour cost than the other company on directly comparable business. Then their return profit/ dividend wil lbe lower. That is the case here that is why they are looking at altering their cost structure

                  • RedLogix …
                    15 January 2012 at 10:06 am

                    Are you telling us that labour is the ONLY input cost for a business?

                    Please say yes… it would explain a lot.

                    • james 111 …
                      15 January 2012 at 10:11 am

                      No im not saying that at all but its a big part of the problem at POA I guess this statement says it all really.

                      In 2010, POA had total employee expenses of $51.9 million compared with only $18.5 million at POT and last year employee benefits plus pension costs were $54.9 million at POA compared with POT’s $25.3 million.

                      The big difference between the two companies is in terms of contracting out.

                      POA has 522 employees whereas POT has 160 permanent and 30 casual employees and, at any one time, a significant number of contractors working for it. These contractors are not included in the employee expenses quoted above.

                      There is little doubt that the employees/contractors mix at POT works

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 January 2012 at 10:15 am

                      Now add in the cost of labour contractors at PoT

                      Tauranga has three figures in its 2011 accounts, employees ($25.3m), contractors ($33.9m) and transport contractors ($5.8m).

                      That adds up to…go on you can add can you?

                    • james 111 …
                      15 January 2012 at 12:28 pm

                      Red
                      Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working. At the end of the day Managment have decided they need to get much more productive at a lower cost. The Mayor has also asked for it. The wharf will change whether you and the maritme union like it or not. It will get more productive. There will be a private contractor brought in there is no doubt about that the writing is on the wall.
                      I remember well when Talleys took over Affco all the problems that Affco use to have with the meatworkers union they couldnt fix it. Never hear about any problems now at Affco do you ? because Talleys have sorted it ,and got more productivity out of the plants. The same will happen at POA ,and the maritime union will lose its biggest base of workers because of bloody mindedness. At the end of the day one of us will be proven right one will be proven wrong lets see what transpiers .Given what has already happened at Tauranga,and how well that business is operating. I know where my cards are stacked

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 January 2012 at 12:46 pm

                      Both organisations have similar revenue. For POAL it was $177m, for Tauranga it was $185m. Call it $180m for both

                      For both organisations total labour costs amount to about the same, call it $55m, or about 31% of total revenue. Which can only mean that the big difference in profitability must be due to costs OTHER than labour.

                      Or as Brian Gaynor went on to say (the portion of his article you selectively chose not to wax lyrical about ):

                      But the poor performance of POA can also be attributed to the company’s board, management and politicians.

                      The board’s capital management has been poor as dividend payouts have been too high. As a result, POA’s debt is much higher than POT’s and the former had net interest costs of $20.7 million in the June 2011 year compared with POT’s $10.6 million.

                      POT’s senior management team has always been open, energetic and visionary while POA’s management team has been haughty and insular, and must take some of the blame for the company’s poor performance.

                      In other words PoAL management are attempting to drive down workers pay to cover up for THEIR failures.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      15 January 2012 at 12:54 pm

                      In other words PoAL management are attempting to drive down workers pay to cover up for THEIR failures.

                      Bail outs and limousines for the wealthy, austerity and “belt tightening” for everyone else.

                    • RedLogix …
                      15 January 2012 at 1:14 pm

                      Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working.

                      You keep repeating this bit of nonsense. As one of our other commenters last night pointed out here most people do not work every hour that they are paid for:

                      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?

                      In other words almost all occupations run at about 75% utilisation. The 60% at PoAL is lower, but then this can be fully expected due to the extremely variable nature of the workflow operating over a 24/7/365 operation.

                      Besides, MUNZ have repeatedly offered to work with management to improve that number and have been rejected. Therefore it’s not the issue at stake here.

              • mickysavage …
                15 January 2012 at 9:43 am

                /bashheadontable

                I am saying that Tauranga spends more and your response is that they have to report the figure because they have a legal requirement to do so?

                And then you discuss the employee cost figures by talking about dividends??

                You are trolling, aren’t you. 

          • Colonial Viper 43.1.2.1.2
            15 January 2012 at 9:32 am

            Nah all that is just a smoke screen of flim flam.

            The final goal here is of total, unconditional and untramelled control of the work force.

            Therefore breaking the union no matter the cost is a necessity.

      • muzza 43.1.3
        15 January 2012 at 9:11 am

        FFS James can you read!

        Thats nonsense Christine – you are deliberately or through ignorance confusing the current dispute with the issue of ownership – which is quite another matter. You claim the port needs to be ‘returned to profit’ – this is either ignorant ( read your agenda) or the propagation of a deliberate political lie. The port is profitable – and relatively efficient (compared to other regional ports such as Botany Bay and Melbourne).
        That being said It could be and needs to be more efficient and more profitable.
        Talking about selling the port business and keeping the land is politically fraudulent. Virtually all the publicly valuable port land eg Westhaven, Britomart Quarter, Wynyard Quarter,
        Queens Wharf has been transferred out
        of POAL by the ARC (Wynyard Quarter which has enabled the current ongoing development), purchased by Auckland City Council, Westhaven, Halsey Street Wharf, harbour Park (by bridge) Teal Park) or purchased from POAL jointly by ARC and Government (Queens Wharf). The ‘land’ remaining is the reclaimed rubble laying half a metre under the tarmac upon which is located all the incredibly valuable cranes and infrastructure you want to sell. This asset belongs to the people of Auckland. They deserve to be told the truth not spun artful lies

        _____________________________________________________________________________What part of being lied and spun to dont you understand! – Have you read the SOI yet, you did not answer the question!

      • QoT 43.1.4
        15 January 2012 at 2:13 pm

        I said that MPs were working their electorate office ,and working in their community when not in Parliament.

        And I said “Two words: Alamein. Kopu.”

        I am well aware some MPs do a hell of a lot of work, well over 40 hours a week. But some don’t. So care to start applying your own “logic” to their pay packets? Or going to continue avoiding that question too?

  44. muzza 44
    15 January 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Red
    Labour cost is one problem at POA factored with much lower productivity than POT because auckland has to pay their staff 30% of their hours when they arent even working. At the end of the day Managment have decided they need to get much more productive at a lower cost. The Mayor has also asked for it. The wharf will change whether you and the maritme union like it or not. It will get more productive. There will be a private contractor brought in there is no doubt about that the writing is on the wall.
    I remember well when Talleys took over Affco all the problems that Affco use to have with the meatworkers union they couldnt fix it. Never hear about any problems now at Affco do you ? because Talleys have sorted it ,and got more productivity out of the plants. The same will happen at POA ,and the maritime union will lose its biggest base of workers because of bloody mindedness. At the end of the day one of us will be proven right one will be proven wrong lets see what transpiers .Given what has already happened at Tauranga,and how well that business is operating. I know where my cards are stacked

    _________________________________________________________________________________

    James what is your interest/incentive to be so staunchly in favour of the breaking of the union?

    • james 111 44.1
      15 January 2012 at 12:56 pm

      Muzza
      Absolutely none at all. I just wish they wouldnt lead their workers down the Garden path.I saw exactly the same thing happen on the New Zealand Coast with the Seamans union ,and The Coooks & Stewards. If they had been much more flexiable we would have more Kiwis working on the Coast today. Its funny the only thing we dont learn from history is history

      • Colonial Viper 44.1.1
        15 January 2012 at 1:04 pm

        Hey james you given up 10% of your pay packet to give to your boss yet? He’ll appreciate it. It’ll make your employer much more ‘efficient’ and ‘competitive’.

      • muzza 44.1.2
        15 January 2012 at 1:15 pm

        So by your rationale James, we should all bend over, get fucked, then repeat..

        Great way to improve peoples lives mate – Glad you dont represent me in any way!

      • Jum 44.1.4
        15 January 2012 at 3:01 pm

        james 111,

        No what we never learn from history is that the employers are always greedy for more profit and see the employees as costs.

        Family on the other hand sees the employee as Mum, Dad, sis, bro, etc. etc.

        What we never learn from history is that NAct is comprised of greedy people who never see employees as people. If they did they would never treat them like serfs, which is precisely what they are doing now and always have and always will.

        That is why in order to get elected they have to lie, swallow dead fish, import an American flunky pretending to have some sort of interest in the place, NZ, where he was born and given plenty of government support to and who intends to serve New Zealand and New Zealanders up on a plate to those other greedy people that inhabit the black lagoons.

  45. james 111 45
    15 January 2012 at 1:16 pm

    CV
    Told you yesterday work for myslef have to adjust my rates accordingly its all about flexibility at the end of the day.Something I believe POA is looking for from the workforce!

    • Colonial Viper 45.1
      15 January 2012 at 1:24 pm

      Flexibility for the employers

      Tied to the phone waiting for a call on standby for workers

      Your kind of ‘flexibility’ sucks

      Hey are you on 24/7 standby for your clients at no cost to them? Sucker!

    • muzza 45.2
      15 January 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Ok, so you do have some sort of chip/agenda then….. You have to lower your rates downwards to compete with the ever increasing pools of labour force in the market for an every decreasing pool of available jobs, shit system isn’t it!

      This is where your attitutde comes from!

    • RedLogix 45.3
      15 January 2012 at 1:34 pm

      OK so seeing as how you refuse to answer the points above lets go back to what you have already outlined in terms of what YOU are expecting from the workers in terms of ‘flexibility’.

      In various comments you have insisted that:

      1. Productivity must improve to at least match Tauranga, ie a 20% improvement. This logically implies the current 26hrs per week at Auckland would drop to only 21hrs hours worked per week to handle the same number of containers.

      2. Workers are only paid for the hours actually worked, regardless of what time of the day or night, and the need to be on standby to meet the employers requirements.

      3. PoAL’s offer to increase the base pay rate from $27.40 to $30 per hour is a ‘generous’ 10% pay increase.

      Logically then the PoA workers would receive if they moved to casualised contracting: 21hrs * $30 *52 weeks = $32,000 pa.

      And as casualised contractors (the model you think works so well at Tauranga) they would get no annual or medical leave, no superannuation, no insurance.

      Care to show us exactly where I am wrong?

    • McFlock 45.4
      15 January 2012 at 1:40 pm

      That’s it exactly, James! Finally you have it.
      You “work for yourself”, you adjust your rates as needs be. Sometimes they go up, sometimes they go down.
      In the case of extreme profit, you will be paid accordingly. You take the risk, you get the reward.
        
      People who work as employees of others typicaly don’t have that salary fluctuation. Employers are very keen to lower salaries, not so keen to raise them other than throwing a few crumbs such as a one-off bonus or a party. The bulk of the profit is kept by the employer, because they take the risk.
       
      PoAL are attempting to increase their workers’ “flexibility” so that PoAL get the reward in the good times, but their workers take the risk. 
      Glad you finally get it.