The real story of the ports dispute

120 comments on “The real story of the ports dispute”

• Comments are now closed

1. Olwyn 1

   29 February 2012 at 5:57 pm

   Going by the toots on the picket line at Teal Park, these guys have far more community support than is credited by the media.
2. Steve 2

   29 February 2012 at 6:57 pm

   Oh shit, where’s my box of tissues?

   Tissues are in a container on a ship that is not allowed to berth at POAL.

   Using ‘Families’ for political gain is low
   • Te Reo Putake 2.1

     29 February 2012 at 7:20 pm

     Jeez, you’ll be livid at this then.
     • Steve 2.1.1

       29 February 2012 at 7:38 pm

       John Key was grandstanding then, just like Jacinda Ardern was the other day
       • thatguynz 2.1.1.1

         29 February 2012 at 11:56 pm

         Call me cynical but please give me an example where John Key presents something of substance OTHER than grandstanding?
          
         He’s a tremendous “face” of a PM, just a largely crap PM at having a clue and making a difference..
   • fender 2.2

     29 February 2012 at 7:21 pm

     You heartless piece of shit Steve.
     Put yourself in these families situations, would you still be such an ass?
     There are more people affected than just the guys working on the wharf you dickhead.
     You might be next Steve, good luck to you and your family (if anybody would have you).

     p.s. if I was moderator we wouldn’t be hearing from you again
     • Steve 2.2.1

       29 February 2012 at 7:33 pm

       You are not moderator – yet

       [I nearly did give you a two week ban for being a dump and run dickhead. Don’t tempt me….RL]
     • Steve 2.2.2

       29 February 2012 at 8:16 pm

       Are you ‘moderator’ yet fender?

       “You might be next Steve, good luck to you and your family (if anybody would have you).”

       ‘fender’ such a good name
       • mickysavage 2.2.2.1

         29 February 2012 at 9:39 pm

         RL Ban him.  He brings nothing useful to the discussion.
   • Eyes Wide Open 2.3

     1 March 2012 at 8:49 pm

     It ain’t low, its deplorable. They are innocents forced into an adult world they don’t understand. Let them be kids. You aren’t a man if you have to rope your children in to support you. Shame on all three men!!
3. appleboy 3

   29 February 2012 at 7:26 pm

   Get a life Steve – so you’d be happy to work on the basis of being on call, at any day, any shift with no guaranteed income?! This from a highly profitable company whose CEO is on $750, 000. Get real.
   • Steve 3.1

     29 February 2012 at 7:36 pm

     Been ‘on call’ most of my working life. What is your problem other than wanting to be hand fed 8 hours a day and only doing 75% of a days’ work?
     • Te Reo Putake 3.1.1

       29 February 2012 at 7:42 pm

       Do you get paid for being on call, Steve?
       • Steve 3.1.1.1

         29 February 2012 at 7:48 pm

         I get paid for the time I work Putake, I don’t get paid for the time I don’t work, nor do I expect it
         • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1

           29 February 2012 at 7:51 pm

           Are you paid for the time you are on call to your employer Steve? Yes or no?
           • Steve 3.1.1.1.1.1

             29 February 2012 at 8:02 pm

             No.
             Do you think I should be paid for doing nothing? Shit, I better join a Union RedLogix
             • RedLogix …

               29 February 2012 at 8:11 pm

               So your employer demands that you are ‘on-call’ to be available 24/7. This means you have to respond to a phone call anytime and be onsite within say 60 minutes. And your employer makes no guarantee of the hours you might work that week. It could be 10hrs, it could be 80hrs. You never know.

               You cannot commit to any other activity; family, sport, or social. You cannot make any plans that do not revolve around being ‘available’ to work.

               Your family will learn to never rely on you being anywhere, anytime. Been there done that myself… it sucks bigtime. But at least I got well paid for it.

               And your doing it for free? Mug.
             • Te Reo Putake …

               29 February 2012 at 8:13 pm

               Ha, you’ve been mugged. If you were in a union, you would be compensated for the disruption to your home life. Even the callowest of apprentices knows that. How come you’re so bad at negotiating?
               • fender …

                 29 February 2012 at 8:54 pm

                 Steve might be on call changing lightbulbs, takes him 45mins to change one, minimum callout of one hour results in him being paid 15 mins to do nothing, but he will be adamant he doesn’t get paid to do nothing.
                 • McFlock …

                   29 February 2012 at 10:04 pm

                   Assuming Steve’s telling the truth, he’s actually the epitome of the problem Labour and the left face.
                      
                   He’s being shafted and assumes it’s a fair deal.
                     
                   He honestly thinks he’s lucky to live life constantly prepared to drop everything at the whim of his employer.
                   • RedLogix …

                     29 February 2012 at 10:06 pm

                     Slave mentality. Remarkably common.
                   • fender …

                     29 February 2012 at 10:19 pm

                     The only truth in his vomit was in the first comment where he showed he’s heartless and nasty.

                     Oh and the revelation of being out of tissues, and we know why he’s all out, but it has nothing to do with a shortage due to industrial action at the port!
4. grumpy 4

   29 February 2012 at 7:36 pm

   Just now on Closeup, Helen Kelly accuses the Tauranga port contractor of being responsible for 3 deaths at that port. Even Sainsbury was horrified.

   Anyone here want to repeat that under their own names???

   Wait for the defamation case………………..
   • james 111 4.1

     29 February 2012 at 7:59 pm

     Very very silly shows how much pressure she is under trying to retrieve a pathetic negotiation process by the Union. Is parsloe still employed by the union? havent heard from him for ages or have the realised he isnt the best media front person. To much of the 1951 union style in him
     • Te Reo Putake 4.1.1

       29 February 2012 at 8:05 pm

       You didn’t see Close Up, did you, Jim Jim? And, clearly, you don’t listen to the radio, read newspapers or use the internet to Google search the news for Gary Parsloe before talking shit.
        
       Hello? Trolls ‘R’ Us? Another return, I’m afraid. Third one this week.
       • Jenny 4.1.1.1

         29 February 2012 at 11:59 pm

         Time for the Labour Party to step up?

         Mr Parsloe called on Auckland Council, which owns 100 per cent of the port, to dismiss the port’s senior management.

         “This is a rogue management with its own agenda and the council must step in to protect the interests of Auckland.”
       • Eyes Wide Open 4.1.1.2

         1 March 2012 at 9:03 pm

         James aint talking shit, Te Reo Putake. See below:

         Last night Helen Kelly went after Port of Tauranga on Close Up claiming it was an unsafe place to work. MUNZ are trouble making to try and discredit POT so that they don’t end up with POT taking the lion’s share of the work after this big fight is over. They know RMTU is the strong union in POT not MUNZ and they would lose control.

         However Helen “cry me a river” Kelly is claiming 3 people have died at POT recently. Let me put the record straight. People have also died at other ports around the country during the same period and on rail and she is not mentioning those ports or the rail industry.

         One wants to be most sensitive here because lives were lost and families horribly affected by these accidents. But let’s look at these 3 deaths:

         1.About 10 years ago a man was killed on POT Sulphur Point Wharf when he was struck and crushed by a hoist with a container on. Both people involved were NZL staff and were not part of Port of Tauranga’s own container terminal operations.
         2.The second death which happened in the last couple of years was a very experienced stevedore who was struck by a hoist carrying breakbulk cargo on Mount Maunganui wharf – not at the Port’s container terminal at Sulphur Point. The investigation into this death concluded that all safety measures had been taken by all concerned. It was a terrible and tragic circumstance of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
         3.And the most recent death last year, was a Fulton Hogan worker who was struck and crushed by a Fulton Hogan machine whilst doing work at the port. This man was not a port employee doing stevedoring or straddle driving, and neither MUNZ nor Helen Kelly got involved in the incident.
         None of this makes any of these death’s any less important but Ms Kelly is using these people who have living family members to try to promote the MUNZ cause just as she uses children.

         Helen Kelly – do you even know what a fact is?

         Here’s the dictionary definition:

         Fact [fakt] noun

         Something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
   • bbfloyd 4.2

     29 February 2012 at 8:14 pm

     don’t be such a nummy numms g…..i watched some of that….. not sure why kelly showed up at all….she must have known sainsbury was always going to gang up with the plonker who represented the management…..

     it was straight out of the tory propaganda handbook….. you know… the one they give you so that you’ll have steps to follow instead of having to think? as long as the paid actors follow their lines, and recite the memes smoothly, then who needs to know what’s really going on? certainly not the ones getting to pay for it with their livelyhoods aye?? ……well, not until it’s too late to do anything about it…. but then it will be… “that was then… this is now”….. sound familiar? it’s what i was hearing prominant political journalists saying in the leadup to the 2005 election when it was pointed out how much work was still required to rebalance the last national govt’s successful experiment in lunacy……..

     here’s reality for you… the economic policies touted by the national govt, and the propaganda dept, which is what tvnz has been reduced to, are being followed faithfully by head offices all over the country, and before this decade is out, new zealand will begin paying the cost of what amounts to a corporate raid on our infrastructure……….and we may never …..never be able to get out from under….

     so join with your old boys, and cheer hearty as our sovereignty sinks beneath the waves, and pray you havn’t sold your childrens birthrjght simply for a better position on deck….
     • grumpy 4.2.1

       29 February 2012 at 8:27 pm

       Like the Hobbit saga, Kelly is counterproductive when it counts. No-one forced or fooled her into saying it – she just didn’t think.

       At best stupid, at worst expensive.
       • Te Reo Putake 4.2.1.1

         29 February 2012 at 8:43 pm

         Well, I just watched it and Helen Kelly told the truth. 3 deaths at a contractor run port, none at POAL. Suck it up, Grumpy.
         • grumpy 4.2.1.1.1

           29 February 2012 at 9:06 pm

           Lets wait until tomorrow…………………..
         • Jenny 4.2.1.1.2

           1 March 2012 at 6:01 am

           ….none at POAL

           Te Reo Putake

           But at least one near fatal accident, with one of the Ports of Auckland Ltd’s contractors (that I know of). Resulting in horrific injuries for the young man affected. The port has been surreptitiously increasing their use of contractors over the years, above the objections of the union. And during the period of the signed contract, when the union is legally powerless to take action to stop them.

           This is now the sticking point. The Ports management are demanding to have the right to contract out the whole port operation including all the union jobs, during the period of the next collective agreement, written into the agreement.

           The union have drawn a line in the sand and said, no way.
           To agree to such a clause would mean the end of the union at the ports.
           To agree to such a clause would mean more distressing near fatal accidents among the port’s contract workforce. Some inevitably would become fatal.
     • thatguynz 4.2.2

       1 March 2012 at 1:01 am

       Agreed BB, nice synopsis..  It’s not my generation I care about – god knows we must have been complicit…  It’s what we’re leaving for my kids and right now, it looks pretty piss-poor and we should be ashamed..
   • fender 4.3

     29 February 2012 at 9:38 pm

     Don’t get too excited Grumpy, all she said was the contracting model was unsafe, and with 3 deaths how could you argue. She never defamed anybody, the model resulting in poor safety is ruining its reputation just fine obviously.
   • mickysavage 4.4

     29 February 2012 at 9:42 pm

     Grumpy 

     Wait for the defamation case …

     Fortunately corporates can only sue for defamation where it has suffered financial loss.  Unfortunately the deaths of three workers will not adversely affect the bottom line …
5. james 111 5

   29 February 2012 at 7:51 pm

   I heard the real story on the Radio the other day! Was most surprised to hear that the wharfies will all be offered at least 40 hours per week will know when their shifts are.

   They wont have to sit by the phone. Question is why are the even striking? Get back to work because you sure as hell arent winning the media war.

   No good throwing the poor families pictures in. They can easily come back with all of the Truck drivers families you are affecting as well as the staff in retail stores
   • muzza 5.1

     29 February 2012 at 9:42 pm

     Jimmy hows the research coming along mate? ACIL, SOI, PBE. You got it in memory yet?

     Nah thought not!
   • thatguynz 5.2

     1 March 2012 at 1:03 am

     Fucking clown.  I’m all for people that add value on the other side of an argument but you’re simply a twit.  Why you haven’t been perma-banned is surely a test of lprent’s good nature..

     [lprent: I wasn’t aware that I had good nature – I don’t have time at present. But I don’t tend to view him as a behavioural issue. I have even left him a few sarcastic/irate comments in the past in my occasional commenting alter-ego, and I think a couple informational notes when he has shoved his head so far up his arse in search of his own wisdom that he looks like a septic boil of misinformation. Neither is something that I tend to do with people with behaviour I’m monitoring. (Well not unless I’m giving a lesson about net civility to someone who thinks that they can disregard it. That is when I see how fast I can push them to an apoplectic state as a lesson in “how do they like it?”).

     James may be a bit foolish but I tend to think that is more of a function of his apparent age than anything else. Can’t think of a faster way to learn than having everyone tearing holes in his ideas. ]
   • Jenny 5.3

     1 March 2012 at 6:47 am

     Was most surprised to hear that the wharfies will all be offered at least 40 hours per week (and) will know when their shifts are.

     james 111

     James, they may be being offered permanent hours, they maybe being offered more money. (which they are).

     But the whole point of contracting out, is that the new jobs on offer will be, because of the very nature of contracting out, non-union.

     Even if the workers employed by the contractors are permanent employees, Even if they have guaranteed hours. Even if they are paid more than the current workforce.

     They will be non-union.

     If after starting work with a contractor a worker attempts to join a union they will be asked to leave site.

     Contract employees are non-union.

     Permanent employees or not, contract employees can be laid off instantly, with no legal recourse.

     They can be sacked/made redundant, if they join a union.

     They can be sacked/made redundant, if they attempt to get a collective agreement.

     They will be sacked/made redundant, immediately on standing up to the primary employer over safety.

     They will be sacked/made redundant, for seeking a redundancy agreement.

     As the employee of a contractor you will humiliatingly be removed from your place of employment at the whim of the primary employer at least a few times during your working life. This could happen at any time, for any reason.
     You will have no legal recourse to challenge this dismissal.
     After being frog marched off site by the primary employer’s security guards, your so called third party employer, can then legally make you redundant, (citing lack of work).

     This whole farcical process can be over in under an hour.

     Contract employees have no tenure at their place of employment. This legal loophole gives the primary employer tremendous power over their contracted out workforce.

     Power, that is regularly abused wherever contracting out is used.

     This is why contract workers take more risks with safety. This is why contract employees put up with more employer abuse. It is why contract employees don’t join unions. It is why contracting out is universally hated by those who have experienced both working directly for an employer, or for an employer through a contractor.

     Every contract employee knows in their guts, that they are more disposable than a paper tissue.
6. Steve 6

   29 February 2012 at 8:20 pm

   Going back to the original video clip, why didn’t they get Lucy Ryan to help them.
   After all she is in NZ and doing nothing
7. Te Reo Putake 7

   29 February 2012 at 8:29 pm

   You’re a bit creepy, Steve. That’s not the name she uses nowadays.
   • Steve 7.1

     29 February 2012 at 8:33 pm

     You have a ‘stage name’ Putake? or is ‘Te Reo Putake’ your real name?
     thought – must check Facebook.

     Is ‘Ryan’ not her family name?

     IrishBill: Stalking threats are unacceptable here. And a dangerous can of worms to open in a small town like New Zealand. You’re on notice.

     [lprent: Read the bloody privacy policy. Start speculating about who people are in real life and you completely lose access to comment. Somehow in 4 years of running this site we haven’t managed to release the details of anyone. But I have booted and banned many other dipshits who tried to push that stupid moronic bullyboy tactic. ]
     • Te Reo Putake 7.1.1

       29 February 2012 at 8:41 pm

       Stalker much, Steve?
8. Steve 8

   29 February 2012 at 8:37 pm

   Bedtime girls and boys, see if I am alive on this blog tomorrow.
   Lots of screenshots taken
   • fender 8.1

     29 February 2012 at 8:56 pm

     Woops better delay that sleep there Steve, there goes your phone!
   • Lanthanide 8.2

     29 February 2012 at 9:13 pm

     “Lots of screenshots taken”…

     Gosh, are we supposed to be scared, or something?
   • mickysavage 8.3

     29 February 2012 at 9:43 pm

     Ban him.  He brings nothing to the discussion and only wants to disrupt.  Classic troll.

     We should not be polite to these wankers. 

     [You’ve no idea how often I type out a ban, and then delete it before I click “Update”. It’s not easy trying to strike a balance between constructive robust debate and letting it degenerate into a clone of the sewer. Often I just let shit go and see how it turns out. Sometimes they get the hang of it…RL]

     IrishBill: if there’s anything I dislike more than trolls it’s commenters telling me how to moderate the blog. If you don’t like our moderation start your own blog and set your own rules.
     • thatguynz 8.3.1

       1 March 2012 at 1:07 am

       Ouch IB, bad day?  Given Mickey’s history here perhaps a bit OTT?
9. prism 9

   29 February 2012 at 9:13 pm

   The real story of the ports dispute. At the beginning are families and workers stating what they want out of life with soft background music. If facts were there I didn’t hold in there long enough to find them. However there have been other posts on it where no doubt I will find them, one I understand, being that they want to retain 8 hour days. That sounds a bit inflexible and old time.
   • thatguynz 9.1

     1 March 2012 at 1:11 am

     An honest question – do YOU enjoy a standard 8 contiguous hour work day?
      
     I do (well – may be a stretch to say enjoy) so why would I not wish the same for other workers?
     • prism 9.1.1

       1 March 2012 at 4:39 pm

       @that guynz Wish all you like you unrealistic twerp. Try thinking strategically about the way that employers needs and workers needs can both be met. Or drift away on something if that’s too hard.
       • thatguynz 9.1.1.1

         1 March 2012 at 9:15 pm

         “unrealistic twerp”?  That’s a new one.  Perish the thought that other people could enjoy the same type of working day that you enjoy.  Hypocrite.
10. Jenny 10

    29 February 2012 at 9:32 pm

    The ports of Auckland goes full steam ahead with the plans to de-unionise the waterfront.

    The Ports of Auckland is advertising for Australian stevedores while still claiming to be working towards a settlement with its striking workforce, the Maritime Union says.

    Union condemns ads for Aussie stevedores
    • Jim Nald 10.1

      29 February 2012 at 9:35 pm

      Surely not bad faith from Ports of Auckland ?!
    • fender 10.2

      29 February 2012 at 9:49 pm

      Yes but a spokesperson for the port claims it was done in error.

      The management at the port are clearly incompetent. Management need sacking, come on Len it’s time to intervene!
      • RedLogix 10.2.1

        29 February 2012 at 9:58 pm

        Which directly contracts what the ‘spokesperson’ is saying here:

        But a port spokeswoman said no decision had been made to contract out, although “both options are on the table”.

        “Any prudent business would test the market to see whether the options are available. We remain in a position of consultation with the union, our staff and prospective contractors.”

        She said the advertisement was already on Trade Me and would appear in other New Zealand media, and if a decision was made to contract out, existing staff could reapply for jobs.

        These pricks are just making shit up as they go along…
        • Jenny 10.2.1.1

          29 February 2012 at 10:30 pm

          From the same press release:

          In the event that a decision was made to implement contracting out, existing staff have the option to apply for jobs and any remaining positions could easily be filled from within the Auckland region.

          After laying off the union members, POAL claim the unionists would have the option of reapplying for the non union contract positions “the remaining positions could be easily filled from withing the Auckland region.”

          If POAL’s calculation of the labour available is true: Then why are they advertising in Australia?

          The double meaning is clear.

          They intend to run a blacklist.

          No delegates, or active union members need apply.

          Going by their own claim of having enough labour within the Auckland Region, only a shortfall of straddle operators and lashers created by a working blacklist, would necessitate the need to hire abroad.
          • mickysavage 10.2.1.1.1

            29 February 2012 at 10:58 pm

            Sadly Jenny I am afraid you are right …
            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.1

              29 February 2012 at 11:01 pm

              POAL are running from a very strong and very professionally advised (read: highly paid) playbook. I get the feeling that currently, MUNZ are critically short of leverage and power in comparison.
              • thatguynz …

                1 March 2012 at 1:14 am

                Completely agree CV.  The trick is to find out which PR advisor(s) it is that is offering their wisdom at the Auckland taxpayers expense.  (Think Timberlands and the West Coast for example)..
        • prism 10.2.1.2

          1 March 2012 at 4:44 pm

          They said something about a firm they were using Hudson was in Australia and therefore the ads got placed there accidentally. Another point – why do we give so much work to Australians? Here again NZs are being denied business in their own land.
      • muzza 10.2.2

        29 February 2012 at 9:59 pm

        Brown will not intervene….

        If it is true that they placed an ad, then I fail to see how that could be an accident…

        They really do need to be sacked. Having to pay for our local/central politicains, the CEO’s running public enterprises, the hangers ons the blatant nepotism, cronyism, and down right corrupt environment that is NZ inc, is beyond gaulling by now!

        The fact that so many people are in agreement that they are all doing a good job, is testament to the brainwashing!
11. David Cunliffe 11

    29 February 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Go the MUNZ workers and families!

    This strike is importtant at a number of levels:

    – for the sake of the workers and their families
    – as a stand against casualisation of a skilled and loyal workforce
    – because this attempt at union busting is part of a broader anti-worker agenda. Affco et al.
    – as a stand aginst the race to the bottom between NZ ports that is being orchestrated by the shipping companies
    – as a wake up call to Auckland Council.

    These families deserve our strong support.
    • RedLogix 11.1

      29 February 2012 at 10:02 pm

      David,

      1. Thanks for posting. Too few politicians have the nuts to do so.

      2. Agree totally with everything you have said… but oh dear what exactly IS Labour doing?
      • David Cunliffe 11.1.1

        29 February 2012 at 10:09 pm

        @ Redlogix Darien Fenton, Phil Twyford and I were on the picket line last Saturday and David Shearer, Darien and others were there Sunday. We know where our loyalites are. But we are not a party to the dispute as such. Does that help?
        • RedLogix 11.1.1.1

          29 February 2012 at 10:17 pm

          Yes it does. Full respect for being on the picket lines.

          While I realise that Labour cannot intervene directly in the dispute, and that is rightly so… at the same time Labour has failed to exercise leadership. From my humble perspective as a reader of newspapers and watcher of the tele, it seems to me that the Labour Party no longer really believes in the Labour Movement any more.

          To quote No Right Turn:

          But this shift has been going on for a while now. Back before the 2008 election I noted that the Greens were the policy innovators on the left, and in the 2011 campaign, Labour adopted Green policy wholesale. Many of Labour’s core policies in the campaign – notably the capital gains tax and $15/hour minimum wage, both of which they had previously opposed – were lifted straight from the Greens. And that’s a Good Thing; to mature parties like the Greens, its not “stealing”, but winning the argument, and its a Good Thing because it means that those policies are more likely to be implemented.

          What’s changed now is that the Greens are larger, and now around 50% of Labour’s size. And they’re willing to be more assertive about pushing their values.

          This is obviously going to raise some hackles in Labour, particularly among the apparatchiks who see their jobs and status under threat. But if you want to lead, you actually have to step up and do it. And absent a brief election campaign, the message of which looks likely to be dumped as quickly as it was adopted, Labour hasn’t done that. All we’ve seen from them in opposition has been weakness and indecision, a craven reliance on focus groups rather than their party’s values. They have basically vacated their political niche. They can hardly blame others for stepping in to fill it.

          I’m sure this is not what you want to hear. But frankly unless the ordinary people of New Zealand begin to hear the Left politically stand up for and openly express their belief in the modern Union Movement, then MUNZ is going to be isolated and then steamrollered.
          • fender 11.1.1.1.1

            29 February 2012 at 10:57 pm

            Denice Roche has spoken up on frogblog, I’m unaware of any other Green MP’s voicing support (?).

            Sometimes it seems as if Labour are afraid to commit themselves fearing a backlash. You can’t make all the people happy all the time like Lincoln said. But Labour showing support on the picket line is great and shows their support, keep it up!
          • Jenny 11.1.1.1.2

            29 February 2012 at 11:37 pm

            …..unless the ordinary people of New Zealand begin to hear the Left politically stand up for and openly express their belief in the modern Union Movement, then MUNZ is going to be isolated and then steamrollered.

            RedLogix

            How true.

            According to those who were involved in the 1951 Waterfront Lockout, it was the lack of support from the Labour Party and the Labour influenced trade union leaders who successfully to a large extent managed to isolate the watersiders and brought about their defeat.

            For the 50th anniversary in 2001,Bill Anderson who was on the Auckland Watersiders Lockout Committee during the ’51 dispute, wrote an introduction to the offficial anniversary booklet published by Greenleaf Press Avondale;

            “The facts cannot be erased from history irrespective of how much the anti-union forces may try to do so.”

            “It was crystal clear that any attempt to settle the dispute was futile and that the key strategy of the Holland National Government, the international ship owners (the Conference Lines) and the the leaders of the Federation of Labour was to smash the union.”

            Bill Anderson, Greenleaf Press, February, 2001

            Fortunately for this generation, As David Cunliffe points out Anderson’s last few words to this sentence are not true this time around. (Thank goodness)

            In 1951, without the support of the Labour Party, the FOL and the major Labour Party affiliated unions. All the ship owners and the government had to do, was starve out the wharfies.

            In 2001 Bill Anderson wrote that the reason the Watersiders were able to hold out for so long despite the attacks of the National Government and the employers and the “treachery of the FOL leaders” and the Labour Party was because of four factors.

            1)

            “They underestimated the militancy of the Waterside Workers and their loyalty to their union.”

            2)

            “They did not reckon on the Seamen and Miners rebelling against their right wing leaders and supporting the Watersiders.”

            3)

            “They failed to appreciate how many NZ people would see the fascist nature of the emergency regulations and oppose the Government on that basis

            (i.e. public support)

            4)

            “They did not estimate the volume of financial support that would come from Australia and overseas.”

            “So these are the historical facts and this is the hard evidence of why it took 151 days of state-organised violence and treachery of the FOL leaders to smash the NZ Waterside Workers Union.”

            Bill Anderson, 1951 Auckland Watersiders Lockout Committee Member, President National Distribution Union

            Greenleaf Press, Avondale, Auckland, February 2001

            After 151 days of defying the lockout, despite tremendous international support, the union had to concede defeat.

            It is becoming very clear, that this is becoming a matter of principle for the Ports employer. Just like in 1951, it seems the employer is prepared to suffer major losses to contract out the union member’s jobs, effectively de-unionising the worksite.

            Of course this time it won’t be Tony Gibson who will suffer any losses due to this dispute, he will continue to draw down his $750,000 salary. It will be us, the public stakeholders in the Ports who will pay.
            • Te Reo Putake 11.1.1.1.2.1

              1 March 2012 at 7:29 am

              Cheers, Jenny. A good summary, though it should be pointed out that not all FOL unions accepted the craven position of the leadership and even some of those that did so formally still assisted the wharfies informally, even though to do so was illegal.
              (And Andersen, not Anderson.)
          • james 111 11.1.1.1.3

            1 March 2012 at 6:09 am

            RL
            Totally agree with you here in fact I have said many times before that the Greens are becoming the voice of the Left.
            They are positioning themselves very cleverly in terms of taking contol of areas that were once Labour Heartland territory. They will be bigger than Labour within 10 years in terms of voter suport at this rate

            Comparing the two parties in the House so far I would say Greens 7 out of 10, Labour 4.5 out of 10, and yet to fire any real shots.

            You certainly have given David something to think about as he hasnt come back
        • Jenny 11.1.1.2

          29 February 2012 at 11:03 pm

          Thank you David for your kind words and solidarity in attending the picket.

          I must say that I am impressed.

          However, unfortunate as it may be, you are a party to this dispute through the Labour Party Mayor of Auckland, at least that is, while he still continues to claim Labour Party membership and endorsement.

          Maybe we could start an on line petition headed by yourselves, urging our Labour Party mayor to condemn contracting out at the ports.

          As the mayor of this city I’ve got a mandate and we certainly have the power because the company is 100% owned by our council on behalf of you all, and so I could get in amongst that.

          Len Brown.

          The Mayor admits he has the power to stop contracting out at the Port.

          Contracting Out is the elephant in the room that the Labour Party mayor of Auckland is doing his very best to ignore. While this issue is not resolved there is no end in sight. And this dispute can only get worse.

          The Mayor and his Chief Executive know this.

          Yet the Auckland Council chief executive Doug McKay has argued against the Mayor ending the dispute.

          “I don’t think any sort of political interference is going to progress this conversation very far and it’s better that we look for a negotiated outcome that both parties are happy with. And we remain confident that that’s still a prospect.”, Dough McKay.

          What planet is this guy on?

          What grounds does he think that there is any prospect of a “negotiated outcome that both parties are happy with” while contracting out remains on the table.
          .
          There is no middle ground.

          The union will never be happy with losing their jobs to contractors. The Chief Executive knows it and the Mayor also knows it.

          No negotiated outcome is possible while this remains a possibility.

          As long as the Port intends to contract out the workforce there is no chance at all “for a negotiated outcome” If the Mayor and his Chief Executive are being honest they would admit it.

          Why don’t they?

          The Labour Party Mayor of Auckland informs us by his own admission, that he could end this dispute tomorrow.

          All Len Brown needs to do, is say that he opposes contracting out the union members work.

          He doesn’t have to may a big fanfare of it, he just needs to go and talk to his managers and tell them that this is not a goer.

          Why is this even, still an issue?

          Len Brown while admitting he has the power to end contracting out, continues to ape Pontius Pilate in staying aloof. As Pilate was refused paradise because of his moral cowardness. The time must be rapidly approaching when Len Brown should be expelled from the Labour Party.

          Let us see how well he gets on in the upcoming Mayoral elections without our help.

          Maybe we could start a petition urging our Labour Party mayor to condemn contracting out at the ports, or if he refuses, a members only petition calling for his expulsion from the Labour Party.

          What say you David, Darien, Phil?
          • Colonial Viper 11.1.1.2.1

            29 February 2012 at 11:06 pm

            From casual observation, it appears that the moneyed Right Wing has more leverage over Len Brown and Auckland City Council, than the workers and the unions do.
          • muzza 11.1.1.2.2

            1 March 2012 at 7:19 am

            “I must say that I am impressed.” – Why are you impressed at that Jenny?

            It this sort of ninny attitude, in which the message needs to be made clearer..

            So they should bloody be there. Denise Roche was actually in the line with banner in hand rallying support, and she was there for hours.

            Facts need to be faced by Labour supporters, your party has desserted their roots, and won’t be coming back! Its been a poorly, or very well managed drift to the center, depending on wihch way you look at it.
          • David Cunliffe 11.1.1.2.3

            1 March 2012 at 4:17 pm

            @ Jenny: Thanks for your comment. In response I think it is past due that Len Brown made a decision to review the POA ROI requirement of 12% (double the POA actual of 6%, and POT’s 6.3%). He should also say that casualisation of the MUNZ workers is outside the Council’s good corporate citizenship requirements.

            12% is fantasy unles POA disposes of property, which they could only do once and which would be at odds with their strategy (reflected in Auckland Council’s draft Spatial Plan) for growing the Port.

            Attempting to meet it by short term fixes like sweating assets and staff until the wheels come off is not in the long term interests onof Auckland ratepayers. And it doesnothingto solve the underlying problems of dominance by shipping companies.

            I acknowledge the Council has its own processes to follow, but a statement of intent would be sufficient to give the Mayor breathing space. There is no middle ground left in this dispute.
            • muzza 11.1.1.2.3.1

              1 March 2012 at 4:26 pm

              David, what do you know about the ACIL Portfolio, being classified as a Public Benefit Entity (PBE), and what that actually means to the PoAL which resides inside the ACIL?

              I’ve not heard it being discussed in the open, and I had an interesting conversation with George Wood/Christine Fletcher about the PoAL, until I asked them about the PBE, at which point the conversation ceased, in particular with GW stating he could not discuss the matter further. Either he did not know, or did not want to go into it!

              The SOI does need to be looked at, however it seems that the classification of PoAL being a PBE , might also require investigation?
              • David Cunliffe …

                1 March 2012 at 9:01 pm

                @Muzza: ACIL is the holding entity that owns POAL on behalf of Auckland City. It’s Directors were initially appointed by Rodney Hide but can be removed by resolution of Auckland Council. The details are spelt out in an incisive and considered post by Mickysavage on Waitakere News today. Also worth googling Bryce Edwards’ NZ Politics Daily today.

                Your point about the need for clarification of the SOI and the implications of POALs algal status is well made.

                Reflecting on above I need to clarify that my earlier post did not mean to imply that Len Brown has directive authority over POAL, but that as leader of the Council he has significant influence in setting vision and direction for Council. I believe that we have reached the stage where, as well as urging all parties to reach a solution, clear statement of guiding principles is required. These include a review of the the rate of return expectations.
                • muzza …

                  1 March 2012 at 9:16 pm

                  The below response is from 27-02 , via Donna Jovejoy, on behalf of Len Brown…Its really just the standard line. I do agree that there should be some clarification by the council, in particular LB.

                  Thank you for contacting Mayor Len Brown regarding the current dispute at the Ports of Auckland. I am responding on his behalf, and please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you.

                  Mayor Brown’s position is to continue to encourage both sides of the dispute to return to the negotiating table and bargain in good faith on the collective agreement.

                  Both sides are aware of the need for a sustainable settlement because the Port is essential to the Auckland economy and delivers ratepayers a return on their investment. The two sides need to find a solution and this cannot be imposed on them from outside.

                  Mayor Brown supports retaining the port in public ownership and not privatising it, which means it is important that the port work as efficiently and effectively as possible for the people of Auckland.

                  Ports of Auckland Ltd is an independent company that is run and managed by its own board. It is not appropriate for Mayor Brown to step in on every industrial dispute as it is the two sides that need to come to agreement.

                  However, Mayor Brown remains concerned about the ongoing impact of the dispute on the Auckland economy, the return to Auckland Council and the working relationships on the wharves. He will continue to encourage both sides to enter mediation and resolve the dispute in a sustainable manner

                  Kind Regards,
                  Donna Lovejoy | Mayoral Correspondence
                  • muzza …

                    1 March 2012 at 9:22 pm

                    Below – Re Public Benefit Entity

                    This is really not an area that I’m familiar with at all, but I’ve been given the following definition from “New Zealand Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (NZ IFRSs)” published in the 2011 volume:

                    Public benefit entities are described as entities whose primary objective is to provide goods or services for a community or a social benefit and where any risk capital has been provided with a view to supporting that primary objective rather than for the financial return to equity shareholders. Most central government, local government, and not-for-profit entities are public benefit entities.

                    As an example, public service departments are not expected to charge for their services any more than the cost of providing them.

                    SOEs are somewhat different, in that they are required to behave in a more commercial manner while also meeting service delivery obligations.

                    For further information on SOEs, however, you would need to contact the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit at The Treasury, or look at the financial annexes in the individual annual reports of organisations like NZ Post.

                    Regards

                    —
                    Mark Holman
                    Senior Advisor, Integrity
                    State Services Commission
            • lprent 11.1.1.2.3.2

              2 March 2012 at 7:48 am

              That 12% ROI does appear to be the root of the problem. It is ridicuously high for the type of capital intensive industry that the ports industry is. Problem with such a dumb “aspirational” objective is that managers can use it to justify anything pursuing it. Including in this case essentially causing a reduction in capital efficiency (industrial action) pursuing low return labour productivity gains.

              Crap and unrealistic objectives given to managers are usually counter productive. Their optimal strategy is to stop doing the incremental optimizing work required to get actual productivity gains, and start doing flashy risky and radical “new broom” displays (that usually don’t produce any long term gains). Managers then find it easier to offload any subsequent failures to such things as union resistance, market resistance, difficulty with channels, etc etc. The usual litanies of project failures.

              Cutting the ROI back to something that is actually achievable wold certainly help with the behavior of management. Who came up with that dumb number in the first place?
    • fender 11.2

      29 February 2012 at 10:08 pm

      +1
      So true David, well said.
    • mickysavage 11.3

      29 February 2012 at 11:01 pm

      On ya …
    • Eyes Wide Open 11.4

      1 March 2012 at 8:46 pm

      Oh dear, an MP and not fully informed of all the facts! Deary deary me. Labour has been switching their voters off, not on and when you have shrews like Fenton and Beaumont front this campaign, you will never get support from the general public. I know people on both sides and am very well informed. Let me tell you something here Cunliffe. I have voted for Labour all my life, but because of Labour not wanting to get the truth and all the facts and that you condone people who lie on to the public (because quite honestly no side is squeaky clean – although MUNZ publicises that they are), you have switched my entire family off ever voting for Labour again! Congratulations, by the end of this campaign you too will probably be pissing on BBQ’s) such is the mentality of some of the people you are campaining for. Keep Kelly and those shrews out front to ensure MUNZ’s greatest loss!!
      • fender 11.4.1

        2 March 2012 at 1:58 am

        You can say “oh dear” again (at your rant)

        You claim David Cunliffe didn’t know the facts, but you failed to clarify any. Are you trying to build suspense?

        You then tried to pull the wool over our eyes by stating you were a life-long Labour voter, but that seems like BS to me as Labour have historically been strong supporters of Unions and it’s a virute that attracts life-long support. Be honest ffs.

        You then state neither side is “squeaky clean” but only throw mud at MUNZ. Your bias sticks out like a sore thumb. Be honest and like your name try keeping both eyes wide open, not just one.

        You will need to do some more work on your writing style if you want to fool anybody around here you idiot.
        • Eyes Wide Open 11.4.1.1

          2 March 2012 at 9:35 pm

          Oh Fender. You just don’t get it do you? People vote for parties because of the industry that they are in and how they supports those industries. I was (but no longer am) part of the film and television industry and labour was sympathetic to the needs of film, television, arts and culture. National is not so much but quite frankly I never gave a rats arse about politics until it affected me when it came to my industry of choice! I was disgusted to see Helen Kelly represent a small number of actors when the majority of film and television workers are techies. holding the many to ransom instead of the few – is this now what Labour stands for? Quite frankly, all political parties are puppets. They are ruled by the rich people that put them there and I have better things to do than to cater to the political heavies. My priorities in life are so far removed from politics (a man made class system) Clearly if nobody’s opinions marry’s up with yours then you call them an idiot! Blind life long support for a polictical party is like being braindead because you then turn into a follower and a parrot and are unable to formulate any original idea or indeed investigation of the truth, on your own. Then you have become so brainwashed that then you are incapable of differentiating between spin and truth. At least I can now rest in the knowledge that by not being interested in politics, that I am free to be able to enjoy all the worthwhile things in life without such prejudices that you have. However, you wanted facts so here they are:

          FACT #1.

          The first offer that the Company put to the Union (in writing) was a rollover of the current terms and conditions. There was a guarantee of no redundancies and a guarantee of no contracting out. There was also the goodwill gesture of $200 backpay with a 2.5% pay increase. (In this economic climate, thats not too bad). The condition from the company was that they wanted one year to talk to all their staff on how things could be done better. MUNZ came back and said that they wanted shuttle back and that they wanted the Company to get rid of the IEA’s. At this point, there was no mention of casualisation, selling off the port nor just wanting the same terms and conditions that MUNZ are now spouting over.

          FACT #2

          Helen Kelly recently went on television and said that the Port company had no substantiated evidence of wrong doing by MUNZ members. So answer this? How come the Company has evidence of racist notes being slipped under administrators door on CCTV, further evidence of racist and sexist articles published in the Union magazine and distributed to Port workers, further evidence of health & safety breaches by union members against non union members on CCTV, further CCTV evidence of bullying non union workers. Andrew Angus and Graham McKean were both dismissed on two of the above of the above offences and one is now in front of the court. All court documents are available for public to verify. Judges comenting on both cases were appalled at the content of which these men felt strongly about in terms of their racist and sexist beliefs.

          I will endeavour to get copies of these court documents for you, just as long as you are able to find a suitably intelligent person to interpret them for you (not Helen, she is a Hobbit Hater and I will never forgive her for lying so blatantly for ego driven self serving actors!) Sure I haven’t given you any facts from the Company but I was being over generous in the FACT that both sides have probably not played fair publically as neither you or I have sat at the negotiating table. Yes and clearly I am becoming more biased as I investigate the facts instead of accepting fluff and innuendo.

          David’s comments below:
          This strike is important at a number of levels:

          “for the sake of the workers and their families”
          (how? after FACT #1 – MUNZ wanted something different for the workers and their families – they wanted a shuttle service and the firing of people on individual contracts because they were NOT Union members)
          ‘as a stand against casualisation of a skilled and loyal workforce ”
          (how after FACT #1 – when there was a guarantee of no contracting out and NO redundancies? )
          “because this attempt at union busting is part of a broader anti-worker agenda. Affco et al. ”
          (where is his evidence?)
          “as a stand aginst the race to the bottom between NZ ports that is being orchestrated by the shipping companies”
          (once again, I fail to see the logic? All business are geared up for their customers, otherwise they wouldn’t have any- customers or a business – I didn’t realise it was a crime to want to make money so that you could put people in employment)
          • RedLogix 11.4.1.1.1

            3 March 2012 at 8:31 am

            I was disgusted to see Helen Kelly represent a small number of actors when the majority of film and television workers are techies.

            Sorry… I don’t see where you tell us which Union you belonged to? Are you expecting the Council of Trade Unions to represent people who are not union members?

            At least I can now rest in the knowledge that by not being interested in politics, that I am free to be able to enjoy all the worthwhile things in life without such prejudices that you have

            Not interested in politics eh? Fine… hopefully politics will long remain uninterested in you.
          • fender 11.4.1.1.2

            3 March 2012 at 1:49 pm

            Eyes Wide Open,
            I called you an idiot because you claimed D. Cunliffe didn’t know the facts but you failed to supply any,so a retraction may be in order, however your philosophy on whether or not to support unions or political parties seems to be based on selfish reasons rather than the greater good, so some idiocy remains. You also seem to be reading between the lines too much in claiming I am a “blind follower” of any party as I never declared any allegiances.

            D. Cunliffe said: “as a stand against the race to the bottom between NZ ports that is being orchestrated by the shipping companies” You say: “once again, I fail to see the logic? All business are geared up for their customers, otherwise they wouldn’t have any- customers or a business”
            While what you say is correct, it’s obvious the long term viability of the ports will suffer in a price-war situation, and as in this case it’s the staff who suffer.

            ” I didn’t realise it was a crime to want to make money so that you could put people in employment”
            You may be a little generous in claiming the motivation of employers is to employ people, as most would be happy to do without the people if they could still make the money.

            “At this point, there was no mention of casualisation, selling off the port nor just wanting the same terms and conditions that MUNZ are now spouting over.”
            It’s obvious the PoAL management have had an agenda of casualisation and MUNZ smashing from the start and have been acting in bad faith.
12. thatguynz 12

    29 February 2012 at 11:52 pm

    +1 – awesome….

    Even though WE all know the truth it’s long overdue that there was a “hearts and minds” campaign to get “Jo Public” to understand it…. Great video.
13. XTASY 13

    1 March 2012 at 12:24 am

    AS MUCH AS I SUPPORT THE PORT WORKERS, AS MUCH AS I SUPPORT OTHER WORKERS, AS MUCH AS I SUPPORT CHANGES IN SOCIETY, IMPROVEMENTS IN POLICIES AND FUTURE PLANNING, THE REALITY IS: HARDLY ANY BODY IN AUCKLAND OR NZ DOES CARE A RAT’S ARSE ABOUT THIS DISPUTE! THIS COUNTRY IS FUCKED, IT IS TOTALL SCREWED SO DEEPLY, THAT EVEN MOST ON THIS BLOG DO NOT GET IT. IT IS RUN BY CAPITALIST INTEREST, CONSUMERISM, COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, INTER DEPENDENCIES AND DEMANDS, IT IS FULL OF GUTLESS, DISEMPOWERED, YES DISEMBOWELED IDIOTS, WHO HAVE NOT EVEN THE GUTS TO STAND UP FOR ANYTHING, TO QUESTION THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AND REALISE THIER TOTAL DEPENDENCE ON A ROTTEN SYSTEM ABOUT TO COLLAPSE!

    JUST WAIT A LITTLE LONGER, THE OIL PRICE IS RISING, PROSPECTING IN THE ARCTIC, OFF SHORE NZ, EVEN THE ANTARCTIC IS SOON TO TAKE PLACE. MINING WILL ALSO BE MORE WIDELY USED IN THIS COUNTRY.

    THE GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTORS IS PARTLY DYING OUT, AND WHO IS TAKING PLACE IS LARGELY UTTERING PETTY ARGUMENTS, NOT EVEN KNOWING HOW TO GROW CROPS AND FLOWERS AT HOME.

    SO WHAT A WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO GO ON ABOUT THE PORTS DISPUTE. WHERE ARE ALL THE WORKERS AND SUPPORTERS DOWN THERE AT THE WATERFRONT? WHERE ARE THE LABOUR, GREENS, MANA AND OTHERS STANDING THE GROUND? I KNOW SOME ARE, BUT MOST ARE NOT BOTHERING.

    THAT IS NZ 2012, A COUNTRY OF COMPLACENT, CONVENIENT, LAZY, COWARDLY AND INDIFFERENT ARM CHAIR COMMENTATORS, WHO MAYBE BLOG A BIT, BUT COULD NOT BOTHER GOING OUT INTO THE RAIN.

    NZ IS SCREWED, IT HAS NOTHING MUCH TO OFFER, IS DEADBEAT, NOT SOLIDARIOUS, TOTALLY DIVIDED, FULL OF DUMBED DOWN IDIOTS, WHO WOULD NOT CARE, IF THEIR MOTHER OR FATHER DIED. PERIOD!

    [lprent: Don’t SHOUT. Bloody noisy and does nothing for your argument (whatever that was). Certainly doesn’t after I reduce it in size so it doesn’t hurt my (or anyone else’s) eyes. And read the policy so you can figure out what not to do here. I can’t be trailing around after you with some toilet paper cleaning up your crap every day and night. ]
14. XTASY 14

    1 March 2012 at 12:32 am

    What NZers should do is go on a general strike, but who would do so. OOh, I have an individual contract, Oooh no, I will lose my wage, I cannot pay my rent, groceries, power bill and so forth. SLAVERY is the common condition now, it is just not quite as bad as it is in other places, but the condition is there!

    So NOBODY is free, independent, has even the courage to be so, and there is NO solidarity, unions have lost membership, instead we have Facebook, MySpace and whatever. Have you seen my most recent photos, dear? Oh, look at my new hairdo, and oh, my new chummy boy or girlfriend, what do you think? That are the themes, hardly thrilling.

    It appears human beings are either so prone to conditioning, or they are by nature predisposed to total infancy, idiocy and madness.

    Get rid of this status, blow it all up, create mayhem, free yourselves from nonsensicalties and shit on the exploiting and manipulating crap society, to which NZ does very well belong and qualify.
    • Jenny 14.1

      1 March 2012 at 6:22 am

      XTASY, You are out of touch. Your misanthropic ravings confirm it.

      New Zealanders have mobilised themselves against injustice in the past and I am sure that they will do so in future.

      The fact that three serving Labour MPs have openly come out in support of the wharfies, is a very significant development. They wouldn’t do this unless they felt the ground was shifting.

      And I wouldn’t dump on the social media so quickly either. Remember the leading role this technology played in Egypt, and the other Arab countries fighting dictatorship and slavery and murder, even in Syria.

      Here’s a tip:

      How about some facts to back up you nihilistic rant.

      Let me ask you a question, What are you doing to help build the MUNZ public rally on the waterfront on March 10?

      Will you be there?

      Do you even know about it?
      • muzza 14.1.1

        1 March 2012 at 7:27 am

        Jenny, actually X is right, that is by in large what not only NZ, but the world has become. You can use blogs sites as another example of where people can feel lulled into thinking they are making a differnece when it could not be further from the truth.
        Note, blogs and social media have their place, but not as a one stop shop to think your contributing anything real. Voting every three years the same, its simply not enought in order to counter the ongoing attacks on workers, and society, but the right, who appeal to the vain aspirational wannabes who I believe X is referring to!

        Its not a big deal to have had some Labour MP’s turn up, or any of them for that matter, but its slightly better than nothnig. If they really wanted to show some balls then there would be much more powerful messages coming out of labour…Note I am not trying to bag labout here, but it has become very obvious that NZ has been taken away to the right, and the points X raises are a part of the explanation.
      • John72 14.1.2

        1 March 2012 at 10:29 am

        Jenny, I will not be at the union rally. There are times when “The Power of the People” is abused by one or two at the top. They use a thing called Mass Hysteria to manulipulate groups of people. Hitler was an expert. It has been used by many people over the last 1000 years. People who called themselves leaders but only used the people under them. It is being used again and this time we see the results, in writing, on the internet.
        Regards, John72
15. XTASY 15

    1 March 2012 at 12:48 am

    What the hell is going on on this website, I see a video by Whaleoil featuring a young Polynesian man complaining about racism from MUNZ members?! Then I wonder what else is happening.

    I feel that NZ is ready for CIVIL UNREST, given some hatred comments in this thread and also the major mainstream media commenting nothing but SHITE about what really goes on. Tame Iti may have been doing some constructive studies in the Ureweras.
16. XTASY 16

    1 March 2012 at 12:54 am

    The NZCTU urgently needs a more vocal, more resolute and determined leader than Kelly. She is too soft, a compromise and does not come acrosse well. Get her voted out and bring in a stauncher person!

    This is serious stuff, the labour movement will get nowhere with such softly, softly approach. Thay may have been OK in the years of near full employment during Labour a few years ago, NOT NOW!

    And get Trevor Mallard out of Parliament, he is nothing mor of a liability than of use.

    Ardern needs to sharpen up, same as some others, we are short delivered. Opposition I see only in Winston, NZ First and also the Greens, perhaps Hone at times (when he is in the HOuse)!
17. tc 17

    1 March 2012 at 7:24 am

    This issue is highlighting a few points IMO.
    The right are well organised and advised in their messaging and running the playbook in what is a very naive media construct, so it’s published without any critique or balance.
    There’s a lot of anti social, unsympathetic atitudes that this messaging plays to.
    The hypocrasy and disregard of fairness and due process is growing with each incident as the government stokes these flames with its attacks on workers rights, bene bashing and corporate welfare.
    The left have been missing largely and a lot of this stems from Labour having a leader who wears his guns on the inside, whatever that’s meant to mean, advised by the same strategists who ran the failed 2011 campaign and lacks media skills.
    Len browns is as lame as mallards strategic advice and a massive disappointment, maybe that Antoines dinner he raised support for his run at mayor cuts both ways.

    This is going to end in tears, the POAL holds the cards and the Hollowmen tells them how to play them, Gibson is no genius just a good lackey of the right uninterested in workers welfare just a balanced scorecard that leans way over to the blue end so he gets his bonus and the next trough lined up.
18. hobbit 18

    1 March 2012 at 8:50 am

    Hilarious viewing last night on Close Up. The show does a nice little article on how the unions are trying to change and be more public friendly… they interview a couple of wharfies who do quite well, come across nicely and quite smart.

    Then the incredibly stupid Helen Kelly gets interviewed and reverses all the good work.

    What a stupid munter she is.
    • Morrissey 18.1

      1 March 2012 at 9:49 pm

      What a stupid munter she is.

      Helen Kelly is a bright, engaging, tough speaker who has faced down bullies like South Pacific Pictures boss John Barnett, Employers Association boss Alasdair Thompson (who she bamboozled into making his idiotic anti-women remarks that got him fired) and just last week reduced Importers Institute CEO Daniel Silva to spluttering incoherence on National Radio.

      And now there is you, and your witty “stupid munter” comment.

      I think most people here can see who the “stupid munter” is.
      • mickysavage 18.1.1

        1 March 2012 at 10:05 pm

        Aye

        I think Helen Kelly is superb, one of the best leaders of the trade union movement this country has ever had.

        The persistent attacks on her by the right wing is evidence that this is so. 
        • Morrissey 18.1.1.1

          1 March 2012 at 10:20 pm

          Here she is dealing with a couple of fools who think they can bully her….
          
        • hobbit 18.1.1.2

          2 March 2012 at 1:10 pm

          She is indeed superb at what she ‘does’ – in fact I hope she stays in charge of the CTU.

          Maybe she is a business round table plant? No-one could be that self destructive, surely

          Then again, you lot can’t see it, can you. Half of you muppets still thought Goofy was a winner halfway though last year..
          • mickysavage 18.1.1.2.1

            2 March 2012 at 5:43 pm

            Well little hobbitses Goff was within a point or two of doing so.

            Why do you RWNJs hate strong principled women?
            • hobbit 18.1.1.2.1.1

              2 March 2012 at 7:43 pm

              No one hates strong principled women.

              It’s just disappointing for the left that Helen Kelly harms the cause she supports.

              If Kelly was a soldier she’d be done for aiding the enemy.
              • mickysavage …

                2 March 2012 at 8:03 pm

                Hobbit

                The thing is I am an unabashed but critical leftie.  If someone on my side needs a serve I will give them one.

                I believe that Helen has been bloody good.

                You are a RWNJ.  You do not desire to help the left movement.  You want to create mischief.  So whenever you come out with a sweeping conclusive statement I have one of two responses, both of which are not exclusive propositions:

                1. You are talking out of your arse.
                2.  You are saying things to try and hurt the left movement. 
                • Morrissey …

                  2 March 2012 at 9:37 pm

                  Here’s another valid response for the likes of poor old “Hobbit”….

                  1. You are talking out of your arse.
                  2. You are saying things to try and hurt the left movement.
                  3. You are way, way out of your depth.
              • Morrissey …

                2 March 2012 at 9:33 pm

                No one hates strong principled women.

                You certainly do.
19. John72 19

    1 March 2012 at 10:08 am

    The comments(?) read like Talk Back radio. Most of them diverge from the true subject. Remember, by stooping to personal criticisim (name calling) you are belittling yourself. The very nature of your comment destroys your case. It gets booring after a while so just stick to facts that you can proove and try offering a positive solution. Say something NICE about the other party. Show that you do get some pleasure out of life.
20. John72 20

    3 March 2012 at 9:56 am

    XTASY, MUZZA, congratulations. It is good to read someone capable of expressing themselves clearly and without childish recrimination.
    – “In every life some rain must fall.” So many people expect a fairytale life, no effort on their part, just eternal happiness.
    – ” It is the fire that tempers the steel.” (Old Welsh saying). A bit of hardship strengthens everyone. Every time we live through a hardship we enjoy the good times even more. (Or I do anyway)
    So do not let someone tell you that you are “Hard done by”. Do not brood on missery. Go out and find something that you enjoy. Try and make someone else happy, even if it is just with a kind word.
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      3 March 2012 at 10:18 am

      Wisdom.
    • muzza 20.2

      4 March 2012 at 12:27 pm

      Actually I think you might have read too much into my response above, so I will clarify.

      I am 100% behind the warfies, and other workers in this country who are now on the chopping block!
21. Madison 21

    4 March 2012 at 12:04 pm

    I don’t care what PR is coming out of both sides. After I survived a 1 year battle with a Union who tried to have me fired for being a foreigner and for earning more than their baby boy I don’t trust anything they say. I dealt with forged documents, false accusations of bullying and intimidation as well as threats which included getting the PSA monkeys at immigration to deny my residency and work visa requests so I would have to leave my wife and son here while I was kicked out of the country. I think most PR from MUNZ is Bullshit with a capital B too.

    I think they’ve got a serious line in the sand to draw about how people are employed, contract or permanent, but to lie about the rest of it is total garbage. I earn a pittance for the skill level and training I have and I still earn more than the bully bastards from the union in my workplace because I have better skills. The Union hasn’t bothered to help me, in fact they tried very hard to ruin me. Why would I believe the statements from MUNZ workers about the harassment they receive when in all instances I and my coworkers got the other traditional end of the stick. I know how rostered shifts work, the wharfies won’t be called in like that unless their friends are pulling too many sickies. I also think their idea about putting a cap on the number of contractors allowed is Bullshit unless you want to allow a cap on the number of Union members as well.
    • Colonial Viper 21.1

      4 March 2012 at 12:15 pm

      LOL I just couldn;t stop laughing

      After I survived a 1 year battle with a Union who tried to have me fired for being a foreigner

      Did you miss the small fact that many of NZ’s current and recent union leaders have overseas backgrounds and come from families of ‘foreigners’?

      Is it possible that maybe you’ve been targetted not as a foreigner, but as a trumped up self important it’s all about me a-hole?
      • Madison 21.1.1

        4 March 2012 at 12:35 pm

        Glad to see that the idea of risking splitting up families is funny to you CV. I know that the Unions, especially this one represent many foreigners. That’s what pissed me off. Any line they could take in an argument, not matter how absurd. I tried to fit in and do my job, help and train others where asked to and to work well in the team. When old Union Boy found out that I’d been in the industry for only 3 years he assumed we were equally experienced since he’d been in the industry 3 years. But all of his years were an apprenticeship while I had been working full time and had been a supervisor for the previous year. Since he took 3 years to pass a 2 year apprenticeship they took their crap argument to the negotiating table and used me as the benchmark. I was foreign, not NZ trained and same time in industry.

        Doesn’t matter that my training was better than his (some NZ schools do actually suck and his unfortunately was one) I had more quality experience and I had already started on an upward path. They wanted equal pay for unequal work. When they couldn’t get that the claims started appearing that I Was bullying this person and abusing them. That I was instructing them wrong when I was a supervisor and wasn’t helping them out enough, or a claim would appear that I was helping them too much and not teaching them enough. When I tried to teach I was told I was overbearing, when I laid off I wasn’t helping them succeed. I was in a no win, and despite all evidence and witnesses pointing to this being a beat up I had to deal with the lies, allegations and meetings for a full year. When he finally snapped and threatened me in front of 7 co-workers and walked off the job was the only time I was able to defend myself by filing my own complaint and since mine was the only one where witnesses and even the security camera footage matched it was upheld and the saga was over. The stress during this was enough that my wife kept asking me to leave my job just to let the useless bastards win.

        I still said I think MUNZ has a certain case but they’re asking for a hell of a lot. I also call bullshit on their claim that they care about families. They are happy to destroy other families unless they pay union dues. Like business owners, they’re mostly worried about keeping the money rolling in from the dues and respond only for those that give them money.
        • Madison 21.1.1.1

          4 March 2012 at 1:04 pm

          Let me sum up my crappy argument quickly, through my own experiences I’ve learned that the Unions don’t care about families, jobs or the average worker. They only care about keeping their members in work so that they keep raking in the dough, just like any employer wants to keep turning a profit. They’ll both do strange things and spin lots of questionable stories during an argument to try to win for themselves. Trust their PR with a grain of salt, destroying my family didn’t bother a union when it benefitted their member, I don’t think families are their biggest worry at the port but a cheap and quick pr stunt.
          • Colonial Viper 21.1.1.1.1

            4 March 2012 at 1:08 pm

            Hey dude I have an idea, since you have already got half a highly dramatic script written up here I think you should finish it and sell the rights for a TV movie!

            It’ll be worth all the trials and tribulations you have suffered mate lol
22. Madison 22

    4 March 2012 at 1:55 pm

    Nah, not enough drama, good guy won in the end without getting pushed to the full brink. But thanks for the sympathetic ear. Glad to know how much you’re on the side of the workers.
    • Colonial Viper 22.1

      4 March 2012 at 2:09 pm

      Whereas you’re only on your own side.
23. starlight 23

    5 March 2012 at 2:51 pm

    The goldman sachs team looked at the govt selling shareholdings in the ports of auckland
    and the port of tauranga,they suggest a 70-30 local-foreign owned split,a drop of $104mil
    in tax revenue.
    Summing up these benefits and costs together,we conclude that the govt stands to
    benefit to the tune of $306 mill.,in other word the govt would be 39% better off
    financially than the current shareholding.
    Goldman sachs argues that partial sell off could be used to fund hospitals,schools,or even
    distressed dairy farms,so where did key get his questionable revelation from? right from
    his team at GS,first it was to pay down debt,then it was to fund schools,hospitals,we
    didn’t hear about the ‘distressed dairy farms’ then though.
    Shonkey all the way.
    The pressure being applied to the ports at the moment are a controlled agreement with
    the port management and key’s controlling team inside the council,the crony’s he
    appointed.
    This is a direct corellation as to what is happening at the moment, the path is set.
    • Gosman 23.1

      5 March 2012 at 3:13 pm

      Why don’t you link to anything that backs this allegation up starlight?

      Any direct benefit from the sale of the Port companies will be to the owners (the local councils) rather than Government.
      • starlight 23.1.1

        5 March 2012 at 6:04 pm

        Do your own homework,its not that hard to find and its all facts.
        • Gosman 23.1.1.1

          5 March 2012 at 6:13 pm

          You mean like the lack of evidence that John Key is an employee of Goldman Sachs?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS