POAL pay facts
Inventory2 has blogged at Keeping Stock the comment left on another blog by Ports of Auckland Ltd relating to the earnings for stevedores or wharfies. The key points are:
- average remuneration for a full-time stevedore $91,480
- average remuneration for a part-time (guaranteed 24 hrs a week) stevedore $65,518
- 53% of FT stevedores earned over $80,000 and 28% over $100,000
- The highest annual remuneration was $122,000
- Stevedores also get 15 days sick leave per annum (triple the minimum) accumulating to 45 days (two months if continuous) and five weeks annual leave
- All training for stevedore tasks is done in-house, paid for by the company
- Stevedores who earned the average $91,000 worked an average of 43 hours a week, or 49 hours a week if you factor in leave.
- 35% of hours paid are for when there is no work to be done, so those 43 paid hours, on average only 28 hours are actually worked.
- This means the effective pay per hour worked is an average of $62.50 per hour ($91,000/52/28).
- At Port of Tauranga which has an 80% labour utilisation rate, stevedores get paid from when the ship arrives to when it leaves. At Auckland they get paid in eight hour blocks, even if the ship is only there for two hours.
- These figures are not inflated by redundancy payments
Incidentially POAL, in response to a question about how Cactus Kate had these figures, revealed that she simply e-mailed and asked for them.
This highlights for me the value of blogging. Because Kate took the time to send a simple e-mail, now most New Zealanders know about the average pay of wharfies in Auckland, as the figure has been widely reported since she blogged it.
I have to say $62.50 an hour is a pretty good pay rate for a job where all training is done on the job – no qualifications or skills needed. One can see why the union is fighting so hard to keep a system where you get paid for 43 hours a week, despite there being only 28 hours of work. It forces POAL to hire more people than they really need, and ironically penalise POAL for being efficient. If they turn a ship around more quickly (say by investing in better cranes), they still have to pay staff for eight hours work.
What I would do if I was a clever stevedore is offer POAL a contract where if they finish a ship early, they get paid a bonus, or a higher hourly rate. That way they both win.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
January 11th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
“Incidentially POAL, in response to a question about how Cactus Kate had these figures, revealed that she simply e-mailed and asked for them.
This highlights for me the value of blogging”
Because only bloggers can send emails.
[DPF: No because bloggers have the motivation to ask for information beyond that which appears in press releases]
January 11th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Nope, Daigotsu – because bloggers, as opposed to journalists, tend to find out the facts with a little more diligence.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
I think Daigotsu has it exactly right. The question we need to ask is why journalists are too stupid to send e-mails. Are they captured by their preconceptions, do they only want to report what is handed to them on a plate, or do they just not know how to use a computer?
Sure, other people other than journalists can send e-mails – I could have e-mails POAL and asked for the info, but I’m not sure how anyone else would know the results of my e-mail – whereas Kate posted it on her blog.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Or maybe journalists want to report information that will have the general public *braying* .
BTW…
I wonder if they need a tea lady…
January 11th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Given that MUNZ have gone on and on about the strike being about “job security” – if a number of the workers do get the boot, I wonder if they’ll shout Parsloe a beer before they go? I think not.
There is nothing more satisfying than seeing a bully being taken down, and that’s what MUNZ is. A bully from top to bottom – from the strike to the no “secret ballot” on it. Thugs through and through.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Jeez, on those pay rates, I’m tempted to apply myself – and I know nothing about stevedoring.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
A “clever stevedore” would pay double time when the wharfies were not working.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“..and I know nothing about stevedoring”
Not necessary adze.
Training on the job on full salary.
Just pay Parsloe and the union the usual percentage and they’ll sort it.
January 11th, 2012 at 5:54 pm
If you were on that package and someone wanted to take it away I’d probably be a little upset too. But if the choice was to take an overall 10% cut (like POAL is really offering) so I was paid actual hours instead of a minimum 8 hr block or to lose it all I’d take the cut.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
91,000 is a pittance, when considering the obscene amount the likes of WestPac CEO George Frazis who gets 5.4 million a year. That is more in a week than a wharfie makes in an entire year. Still, its more fun kicking real workers around isn’t it.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
What I would do if I was a clever stevedore is offer POAL a contract where if they finish a ship early, they get paid a bonus, or a higher hourly rate. That way they both win.
This could possibly (outside chance at the mo) escalate into an all out union vs contractor national stoush across all ports. If that happened then ILO repercussions could follow for exporters. Possibly.
IMO the unions have been disappointed in the last term they weren’t able to play havoc with the workforce last term since there hasn’t yet been a really good excuse, before this. IMO this is just the unions opening gambit to give this Parliament absolute industrial hell and damn the consequences to the economy, it’s the cause, dummy.
I’m not suggesting this will be a massive all out industrial stoppage throughout the country tomorrow. I’m suggesting this is the first in what will become numerous, protracted and damaging disputes conducted as part of a deliberate destablisation campaign. If Liarbore didn’t have those plans in place before this broke out, they do now. And let’s just wait and see.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Yoza
you are a prat
what Frazis is paid is irrelevant to this discussion
January 11th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
The figures quoted are at odds with the information provided by Matt McCarten in his column last Sunday: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10777330
An extract:
Now c’mon DPF: if you want us to believe a blog, especially your blog, is a good source of reliable information, how about clearing up the differences between the narratives.
I’ve got no skin in this game but I would like to know who is lying here, and since you have dipped your toes in the water, how about getting a little deeper.
[DPF: It's simple. You trust the person with first hand information over McCarten's third hand information.
If POAL's figures were incorrect I am sure MUNZ would have said they were wrong. They have never said POAL figures are a lie (as they know POAL can prove them) - they have just tried to confuse things with other pieces of data]
January 11th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Yoza
And….
David Beckham gets US$40 Million a year and Jeremy Clarkson gets 3.9 million.
What’s your point?
January 11th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Luc…is that the same Matt McCarten who can’t even get his unions taxes sorted out?
January 11th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Matt Mccarten whose missus is on the council supporting the wharfies, and shes an ex school teacher ,(you can almost see a pattern here-) yep thats the one Luc, so please
At least Yoza admits he a troll on his web page.
January 11th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Yoza: “91,000 is a pittance, when considering the obscene amount the likes of WestPac CEO George Frazis who gets 5.4 million a year.”
Obscene? Really?
Apply for his job, then. But I’m not sure that your (posted) background as a builder’s labourer is quite the professional background Westpac would be looking for…..
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa
January 11th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Sounds like you overeducated posters are jealous.All that study for a nothing degree from Vic or wherever has not got you into the real money.Remember study dosnt always make money in John Keys NZ, but being in the right place does ie the CEO of CHCH, golf ,australia , and you dont even have to live in the city.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
luc,
those figures come directly from POAL’s Catherine Etheridge. You can read the orginal comment on The subStandard by going to this comment and following the link.
Are you saying that McCarten is correct and that POAL is lying?
January 11th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
You tell me, Mr FE, sir (tugs forelock). I was actually asking exactly that question, who is lying? I’m certainly not going to take any figures at face value, from either side. Surely a hotshot like you can help me out here, sir?
But I would suggest sides are indulging in what we call these days, spin.
And I would also remind people that at some stage port bosses granted the workers the conditions they currently enjoy. It takes two to tango.
And it’s arguably duplicitous of the POA to inflate the hourly rate by excluding time when, if a ship was available, the workers would be required to work.
Also, we have no idea of the real productivity of these workers, but we have been told for years now how efficient the Auckland port is. I guess things can change quickly, but surely there are international benchmarks a full analysis would examine to get to the truth of the matter.
By the way, I’ve caught up with the earlier thread now, but my challenge to DPF remains the same – get some real analysis done instead of this knee-jerk ideology masquerading as information.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Frazis’ pay would be relevant Yoza if he was on strike.He isn’t. And if he was we would all be laughing at him similarly.
The reason I highlighted their pay was simple. The stevedores were bludging on public sympathy in a “poor me” fashion. It is quite clear, poor relative to other NZ workers they are not.
Incidentally shortly after the POAL post I posted highlighting lawyers pay from a pay survey. Guess what?
Not one lawyer complained to me when I did.
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-zealand-lawyers-suffer-most-in-low.html
January 11th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Luc
How about you do a little work and go to the POAL yourself and do the work if you wish to rebut figures they have given and verified as correct? They’ve answered questions in The Stranded thread already.
Just because you don’t want to believe the numbers doesn’t make them incorrect.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Oh, and sorry DPF, neutral observers don’t blindly accept one side of the story. Biased people do, however.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Dont the lefties get naaaasty when some inconvenient facts emerge? Of the many things I learned in my short time in parliament, the fact that the lefties will downright lie – I am not talking about spin – when the backs are to the fire…even the men of the cloth…
January 11th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Come on David…give us some names mate:)
January 11th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Biased people do, however.
Luc I’m just wondering, if actual real and true proper facts do in fact emerge which doesn’t suit a particular bias, what happens then?
January 11th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
luc,
You were repeating points raised by others on the other Ports thread. The other commenters are accusing the bloggers and POAL of lying about the figures. Both Cactus and then Whaleoil have both published the figures, then POAL itself joined in on The subStandard.
Hell, the loonies over there were even accusing Whaleoil of being paid by POAL to blog on their behalf!!
Now you come along, also referring to McCarten’s figures and ‘questioning’ the POAL figures that have previously been blogged about. I don’t accept that you were ‘questioning’, I believe that you were, like your other lefty cohorts, dissembling.
Just go and read what is written and you will understand just a little better.
Like Cactus said, just because you don’t want to believe them doesn’t make them incorrect.
EDITL: Ha ha ha ha!!!! You? Neutral? Please stop, it hurts!!!!
January 11th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Luc
Post the proof that the POA figures are incorrect … and no the opinion of a left leaning avowed socialist union leader is not proof. And spare us the faux neutrality and ‘no skin in the game’ attempts at being non partisan – just admit it, you feel sympathy for the union. Its ok to be a lefty just stop trying to pretend you’re above partisanship.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Cactus, this can go on forever. Read my comment, above, again. It appears the devil is in the detail. What I see is the usual mudslinging and hot air that accompanies all these kinds of disputes and then it gets settled, work resumes, the air clears, and life goes on.
It’s obvious that you and others here have a clear world view of this dispute: greedy workers bad, saintly bosses good.
But featherbedding is a great and honorable tradition far more prevalent in management than on the shop floor. Like I said, it takes two to tango.
Since you are already in contact with POA, why don’t you do the work I suggested and find out how Auckland does for efficiency on the international stage?
I’m not taking sides here. But I am interested in the full story, and it’s obvious to me that just looking at carefully selected figures, from either side, will not provide that.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
KIA
My working life has been split roughly 50/50 between being a business owner, at times with tens of workers, and working as an employee.
The latter is much less complicated.
reid
That sort of stuff doesn’t go down to well here. Everything must conform to one particular bias. You can guess which one.
Mr F E
Yessir. Whatever you say sir. May I have a second helping, sir?
January 11th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Of the many things I learned in my short time in parliament, the fact that the lefties will downright lie
Now you would never say or do anything dishonest, would you Mr Garrett?
January 11th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Luc
How about you go do that? I don’t work for the POAL despite Stranded claims. I’ve done what was required, if someone wants to refute the numbers then go ahead. Be my guest.
Do we have to send in Peter Kiely and Mike Williams in front of a Judge to do a count of the employees payslips and average them out? Seems fair.
Do you write to journalists every time they produce a story asking where they got numbers from then when the source even confirms publicly do you ask them to ask again and again? No. Of course you don’t. You want the full story?
Read everything and work it out yourself.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
“Now you would never say or do anything dishonest, would you Mr Garrett?”
In b4 Garrett claims you’re a coward for not posting under your real name.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
@ Luc; PoAL has made the figures as fair to MUNZ as possible, by not including stevedores who left during the year, and who may have received a severance or redundancy payment. That of course would have inflated the average, which doubtless would have strengthened PoAL’s case, but instead they have issued a conservative set of numbers.
Contrast that with the figures that MUNZ has banged on about for over a week now; average annual incomes of $60k, when the actual average is over $90k, and the best-paid stevedore earned $122k. At the end of the day, I know which figure I believe, and MUNZ’s silence has been deafening since Catherine Etheredge dropped the bombshell this afternoon.
January 11th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Luc: Are you aware F E is a DEFENCE lawyer? That means that he doesnt actually have to like the scumbags (for the most part) he defends, but defend them he does… and no doubt gets acquittals of the guilty… (I have no idea who he is btw)….Why this Dickensian language regarding his comments?…Such disdain for moi is of course much easier to understand from guys like you…me being a class traitor and all…
January 11th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
The point of comparing the wharfies pay to that of one of New Zealand’s highest earners was to highlight the hypocrisy that exists on the far-right extreme. As there are so many professionals gorging themselves on the surplus created by the labour of an increasingly marginalised majority, they should not complain when a group of those workers demand a bigger slice of the pie.
The thing that rankles the right is the example the wharfies set for other workers, it is a horrifying thought for the whackos on the likes of the Business Round Table to see workers demanding a fair share of an economy that would not exist without them.
The more successful the wealthy are the greater the suffering inflicted on everyone else, especially those at the bottom end of the demographic spectrum. The disastrous consequences of the neo-liberal experiment, that kicked off in New Zealand with Rogernomics in the eighties, are now coming to fruition. The class structure in this country has become palpable to the point the fortunate few need to run a perpetual PR campaign to justify the excess in which they dwell. This latest attack on the wharfies is just one manifestation of that PR onslaught.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Caught once again in the headlights, the lefty’s arguments fall apart under the strain of examination but they don’t accept that at all and the reason is: reality
is wronghas been misinterpreted.January 11th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Yoza: Jesus…keep writing that well and it’ll be an A+ for you in POLS 202 “The basics of Marxist theory”…or have they done away with “heirarchical constructs” like grades since I went through the Academy last century?
And just of pure curiousity…..have you ever actually MET any of the “whackos” at the Round Table? Or bothered to hear them speak or read anything they publish?
January 11th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
As there are so many professionals gorging themselves on the surplus created by the labour of an increasingly marginalised majority, they should not complain when a group of those workers demand a bigger slice of the pie.
Yoza is the Maritime Union, a union or a political movement? Your statement refers to a political not workplace goal that’s all and why do unions need to consider that as a factor when they consider their response to a wage offer in a place of employment?
January 11th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Aw, the truth is out, we’ve been ousted.
What can we do?
Can we do a “Natasha Miller”?
No won’t work…?
OK.
Smear the opposition.
Deny, deny, deny…..
January 11th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
This is MUNZ’s position:
“The company says workers are getting $90,000 per year for 26 hours work. This is simply wrong, and management has not provided any supporting data to back up this claim
“A stevedores guarantee for 40 hours per week is $1,090.40 = $56,700.80 per annum @ 260 shifts per year. To earn the money being quoted by Mr Gibson, stevedores would have to complete an extra 1,377 hours. Stevedores are required to work days or nights, weekends, public holidays – basically any shifts 24/7 often 16 hour shifts.
“Much of the work is skilled, and many staff have multiple qualifications. It is dangerous, cold and tiring work. Workers regularly work many hours of overtime. As one worker pointed out in a letter to the Herald recently, in a “good” week he worked 64 hours. For this he took home $2000 gross. A week of 64 hours is more than 1.5 jobs.”
This information was posted a couple of days ago. There is obviously a direct conflict between the two sides over these basic facts. Given the detailed breakdown quoted by POAL, it would be helpful if MUNZ addressed that.
However, even if more information emerges, I’m pretty sure those commenting here will tend to maintain their current views.
The dangers inherent is such working hours are obvious and the union believes the Port needs more workers and that overtime should not be a regular requirement. Moreover, when workers have refused to do overtime, turmoil has ensued and ships have been delayed. The union has long believed that the current overtime based model is unsustainable, and looks to management to recognise this problem and act to resolve it.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Luc: “why don’t you do the work I suggested…?”
Clearly you don’t like the figures as researched by Cactus and confirmed today by POAL, so just do the work yourself.
Yoze – Rather than trying to “highlight the hypocrisy that exists” all you’ve done is confirm that envy is alive and well in your land as a leftard builder’s labourer. Most right leaning folk don’t give a stuff who earns what – because the solution is really simple: If you want more money in your pocket, then you have to get off your arse / get a decent education / get a better job because you are the best candidate (rather than a Union appointed flunkie) and the monetary rewards will come your way.
In fact, your comment: “The more successful the wealthy are the greater the suffering inflicted on everyone else….” is simply proof that you haven’t got a clue about how business works.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
This is MUNZ’s position:
mm, you insult us all by obfuscating. We all know what MUNZ’s position is: no casualisation. They see it even at (I think) 15% as a foot in the door and they won’t accept it.
We all know this is the issue. Yes, we do. We also all understand what you’re trying to defend and we all know the positions on both sides so why the heck does one, knowing that we know all this, attempt to lay down what is complete and utter obfuscation? Why do this?
What’s the point mm, given we all know this, and we all saw you post just go splat on the floor.
Unless you want to explain your justification for your claim?
January 11th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
David
I don’t care what F E does – he adopts a patronizing tone and that’s red rag to a bull stuff.
You are a class traitor? Have you fallen from great heights? Oh, sorry…
I see I’m under attack form all the ideologues just for asking for simple clarification. I actually accept the headline figures but they are not the end of the story, unless one has a personal bias, or animosity, if you will. Lawyers, of all people, should know that!
Both sides have an obligation to represent their stakeholders. There is no need to demonize anyone. I know that won’t stop the crazies from doing just that.
Cactus, I just don’t have the time. Why do you think I post so rarely? I do think it’s entirely fair to ask you to dig a little deeper – much of what you posted has been in the public domain before all this; I guess some people don’t read.
I admire the energy you put into your blogging, if not the content. I do look forward to when I can suck on the taxpayers tit at last (it’s called retirement) and then I will do just as you suggest.
You may be waiting a while.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
reid
Given so much comment here about the POAL figures, I just wondered whether MUNZ had said anything. That’s all really.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Elaycee: But he’ll get a bloody good mark in POLS 202 !!
January 11th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Yoza says:- “it is a horrifying thought for the whackos on the likes of the Business Round Table to see workers demanding a fair share of an economy”
I don’t agree Yoza. The business round table wants to see workers well paid for the very simple selfish reason that those workers will then go out and buy their goods and services.
But at the same time other basic economic principles must be followed within the context of a free market in order to achieve that end. So if your labour force is unproductive, inflexible and expensive you lose market share.
POA is now worth only half what it was 10 years ago, so there is something fundamentally wrong that needs addressing. This is a classic case of an inflexible and bloody minded union having its bluff called to the ultimate detriment of its members.
January 11th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
A combined MUNZ / NZCTU release, dated 8 January 2010 claims lower salaries. This stance is supported by other unionists via their call to arms to try and defend the indefensible strike action by the militant Maritime Union.
But these lower numbers were totally debunked today when the POAL confirmed the exact average salary levels first researched and posted by Cactus Kate several days ago – figures taken from payroll stats prepared by the POAL. Indeed, its a logical assumption that the same POAL bases their PAYE, FBT, ACC levies etc on the same salary numbers originally provided to CK and confirmed today by the POA.
Now, who do you think has got it right?????
January 11th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
“[DPF: It's simple. You trust the person with first hand information over McCarten's third hand information.]”
Thanks for the laugh, David. You really are guillible. I’m reminded of when Anne Tolley said the average salary for teachers was $71,000. Of course it turned out to be bullshit. But you fell for it. I thought you might have learnt your lesson.
[DPF: Provide a reference to your claim Tolley was wrong. And keep on the refusal to believe anything that doesn't fit your world view. You guys are the equivalent of political scientologists]
January 11th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Given so much comment here about the POAL figures, I just wondered whether MUNZ had said anything. That’s all really.
OK mm thanks for clarifying and apologies for my jumping the gun.
What then is the case: re casualisation? Is it or is it not the sticking point and if it is, then is anyone trying to obscure the debate by talking about anything other than that: e.g. wage rates?
January 11th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
~Usual balanced and reasonable response from GARRETT and ELAYCEE is see~.
Why not deconstruct his argument if you disagree with it?
January 11th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Yoza,
Actually you might find that surplus is really now created through the application of technology in the process, not labour. Why even the wharfies now use cranes instead of block and tackle with rope and some elbow grease.
Are you suggesting we should be handing the profits to the machines? [Incidentally that technology didn't come free. It was paid through the capital invested by someone. And it wasn't the labour.]
January 11th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Catherine Etheredge seems to have knocked off for the day. Good for her. Maybe tomorrow we can expect her response to the following questions.
1. How much does Etheredge get paid and how many hours is she required to work to get paid this figure?
2. What skills (if any) are required for her job?
3. Does she get paid for supplying blogs with personal information about stevedores?
4. Has she supplied blogs with personal information about her own pay and working conditions? If not, why not?
5. How much annual and sick leave does she receive?
6. Has she received any bonuses since being employed by the Ports of Auckland? If so, what were the amounts of these bonuses and why did she receive them?
7. Is there any other information about her employment by POA which she would like to disclose?
8. What would have been the total wage bill of the POA’s first offer to wharfies? How does that compare with the POA’s most recent offer and how does that compare to the current wage bill?
9. How many wharfies at the POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
10. How many middle or senior managers at POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
11. What is the hourly base rate for a full-time wharfie at the POA?
12. What does Etheredge mean when she says that the company is not covering its cost of capital?
[DPF: I'm sure Catherine will answer these one you supply your full name and address. You are hardly in a position to demand anyone give you any information as you don't even post under your full name.
Also if you do not understand the difference between supplying information about average earnings for a group of workers, and individual salary details - well more fool you]
January 11th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
reid
Yes, I agree the dispute is about casualisation. The money is important, of course, but what we don’t really see is what both sides want – hourly rates, how many hours worked and when those hours would be worked, etc.
ross
Your questions are off on a side track: only 7, 8 and 11 have much relevance.
January 11th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
The problem in this country is people get successful and the next thing everyone is trying to rip them down.
Socialists.
January 11th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
ross
Sorry, only 8,11 and 12 seem relevant to me.
January 11th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
“And I would also remind people that at some stage port bosses granted the workers the conditions they currently enjoy.”
Well, quite. The bosses were recently proclaiming workers’ higher productivity and have suggested that productivity has increased significantly over the last 5 years. I recall DPF banging on about how workers needed to increase their productivity before they could expect pay rises. I never believed him and his comments here prove I was correct. How dare wharfies ask for a 2.5% pay rise…notwithstanding that productivity has increased significantly.
[DPF: They are refusing to amend a system where for 35% of the hours they get paid, there is no work to do. That is not called being productive. That's called money down the drain.
Anyway it doesn't matter. The employer, as is their right, is going to sub-contract out the stevedoring, and I suspect they will then get massive productivity gains.]
January 11th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
what we don’t really see is what both sides want – hourly rates, how many hours worked and when those hours would be worked, etc.
mm, if one asked your average Labour or Gween voter if they’d like what the wharfies get and are being offered, what do you think they’d say?
Are the wharfies special, in that no-one else ever can do it because it’s so complicated, or is something else happening?
I’m just trying to understand.
January 11th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Luc
Here is an idea. Why doesn’t a journo do that? And you go bitch at them for doing it? That’s what they are paid for. I will publish anything I want and there is no better source than the source itself. What proof have the Unions got of their figures? How can they prove them other than Matt McCarten and Helen Kelly saying so? Union is just running interference bla bla standard practice.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Ross says
Ross you wuckfit, why don’t you do a cursory search of the MoD site before making a fool of yourself -
January 11th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Luc @ 7:38: – “I’m not taking sides here.” I simply can’t accept that. Everything you have said has an underdlying theme of justifying the MUNZ position. It’s quite acceptable to support the stevedores if that’s what you choose to do, but please spare us that facade of neutrality.
Luc @ 8:37: “Cactus, I just don’t have the time. Why do you think I post so rarely?” This must surely be at least “tongue-in-cheek” from someone with 3,239 posts alongside his name. More likely, it’s blatant dissembling.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
I don’t think the difference is all that mysterious, despite Luc et al trying to paint this as being complex.
1. Luc/Matt M/mikeinmind/MUA claim 40 hours work returns $1,090, = $27.26 per hour = $56K per annum
2. DPF/Inv2/POA claim 49 hours work returns $93K. 49 hours at $27.26 = $69,500. So a gap of $23K
3. So that leaves a gap of 30%
4. 7% of that is superannuation contributions (refer POA information), some percentage must be medical insurance contributions (call that another 3%). That leaves 20% to find. Presumably overtime loadings (so overtime hours might be at time and half?) and presumably not everyone gets the base $27.26 – maybe some get hazard loading, or get more than the bare minimum
The key point here was that these folks are getting paid on average for 49 hours, but actually working 65% of that (32 hours). The impression here is that the roster is set in advance, so it’s not like they come to work for 8 hours and sit around, then oops a ship turned up, better unload it. Actually, the ships are scheduled in advance, so you know when to come in and leave. The outrage that these folks are working 49 hours to get this $93K is manufactured, they are only at work for 32, maybe a handful more if ships arrive late I guess.
5 weeks leave also sounds pretty good – that extra week is equivalent to a 2% pay rise (if compared apples to apples with someone who only gets 4 weeks, and takes unpaid leave to get the fifth week). Sick leave is interesting, if you don’t get sick then presumably no value, but of course if you take ‘mental health days’ or whatever euphimism we’re using these days, there’s another 2 weeks leave – worth 4%.
What the port is offering isn’t brilliant – we’ll give you an hourly rate increase, but we’ll only pay you for hours worked. So your pay would go down for sure. But if you didn’t already have the conditions that they have, and someone came and offered you that job, would you take it? It’s not a bad deal.
January 11th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Scott Chris 8:45 “I don’t agree Yoza. The business round table wants to see workers well paid for the very simple selfish reason that those workers will then go out and buy their goods and services.”
You would think that would be the case, even Henry Ford understood his workers needed to be able to afford the cars he was producing. The idea that workers are sufficiently remunerated to the point that they can make a meaningful contribution to purchasing the national productive capacity no longer has credibility, and it is worse in countries that have adopted economic policies to the right of New Zealand’s. The US is a prime example of a country that has all but destroyed its primary market, its domestic population, through implementing the kind of policies the Business Round Table champions.
The Business Round Table incessantly demands workers should be more productive, but industry in New Zealand tends to rely on forcing ageing plant to augment higher dividend extraction to placate foreign investment – the wholesale fleecing of New Zealand Rail by Wisconsin Rail and Fay/Richwhite is only the most egregious example. Another way to increase productivity is to invest in training and education programs, this is not as common as it once was – organisations like Telecom once ran their own technical colleges, not anymore. Demanding increases in productivity without taking steps that would contribute to that increase is a failure on the part of management not labour.
Which brings us back to the wharfies, if they were as unproductive as many here portray them they would have never arrived at a position where they were able to demand the terms and conditions they do. The assault on the conditions, which the wharfies have achieved through years of struggle, is one of ideology rather than necessity, it is an unnecessary consequence of managerial arrogance that has led to the current stand off. Higher productivity would have been more easily achieved through investment in more modern infrastructure in association with more advanced training programs.
The obsession with publicising the remuneration and conditions of the wharfies only highlights the premise that this is about the business class being seen to exert its dominance on the working class. If anyone wanted an example of how class warfare is waged in New Zealand, this is it. This is how the dominant class subdues dissent from below, through a carefully orchestrated PR campaign and the threat of economic sanctions. The class war does not become a class war just because the workers fight back; the class war exists when the dominant group, through coercion and out right violence, thrives on the productivity of that population they dominate.
January 11th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Fucken hellCrikey Yoza, if you’ve paid more than $5 for whichever studies you’ve ever had which have taught you that, you’ve been had.You poor thing.
I know it took ages to put together.
Sorry.
Google “Commanding Heights” for a complete and more accurate alternative.
January 11th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
calendergirl
I can’t agree with your summation. I know that stevedores have always had a very good deal – that’s why I tried to become one in my twenties! Sadly, I couldn’t even get a sea gulling position!
I have made two reasonable points:
1. As an employer, which I have been, you can’t make an agreement then heap all the blame on the employees for accepting that deal when you want to resile. So let’s stop the blame game.
2. Featherbedding is not restricted to shop floor workers. Surely we can all accept that.
e.g. I think working two hours into overtime and getting paid for 8 is OTT and I’m not surprised the port wants to grab that back – but the port bosses did sign up for it so the reasonable thing to do is to buy out that clause. It’s not uncommon.
PaulL
I don’t claim anything. Those are the figures presented to us. Drill down a bit and you find it’s not as simple as either side would have you believe.
But on Kiwiblog, the RWNJs have their ideological spasms and frenzy of ejaculation/orgasm fluid as the old time bosses/workers divide shows some things never die!
Sheesh. So much for new age co-operation.
January 11th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
when you want to resile.
Whose wanting to resile from what Luc?
January 12th, 2012 at 12:39 am
Hang in there lefties stick to your guns. Great to watch from the sidelines. Like so many others…. keep at it.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:16 am
reid 11:05 “… Crikey Yoza, if you’ve paid more than $5 for whichever studies you’ve ever had which have taught you that, you’ve been had.”
Study? I would have thought it were glaringly obvious to anyone, willing to take the time, to observe which group is responsible for implementing public policy and whom that policy benefits. As is regularly celebrated in the media – the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer – it is not difficult to understand which group ‘public’ policy favours.
Practically all establishment institutions, and most especially those involved in higher education, are geared to require the preponderance of their participants to internalise the value system of the ruling elite. This isn’t a statement that is in the slightest bit controversial, as there are no ruling groups in history whom willingly accept threats to their positions of authority and privilege. The ‘necessary illusions’ propagated throughout the education system are the exact opposite of any ideas to which I would subscribe.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:33 am
Oh here we go again – more ‘Happy Mischief’ etc.
So, can anyone inform me, (or should I go and find out myself?) is there the slightest chance this will go to some kind of efective, and binding arbitration, or are we going to be wittering on about it ad nauseum in his glorified kangaroo court called the blogosphere?
Would arbitration infer some kind of central government involvement, or some knid of input from teh political parties (you, know, those actually elected to look after us) or are we just running a media-fuelled circle-jerk of some kind here? If by some miracle this were to register on the Government’s radar, are we already apprised of their political view of the dispute courtesy of the sock-puppet brigade.
I’m starting to wonder how the world survived before we invented blogging. Or have we always danced to whatever tune some self-elected pundit chooses to deliver?
Start the car. . . . . and cue froth-storm of accusations about ones’ ability to handle ‘the truth’ for having the audcity to ask questions whihc might be in danger of taking this circular discussion beyond the ‘Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad’ range of political discussion. . . .
January 12th, 2012 at 7:43 am
@Yoza – OK I will bite on the Westpac CEO comment even though it’s off point and shows more about envy than having any relevance to the POL dispute.
Personally I have no problem with the CEO of a $60 billion company by capitalisation being paid large amounts of dosh because if he can increase the capitalisation by 1% then his entire salary is only about a 12,0000 th of that – that’s right not noticeable. Also, I’ve worked in large corporates and the senior managers have typically worked obscene hours under pressure that I would never accept (and I’ve owned my own business) and the top ones have huge ability so it’s not like they get paid for being down the pub or sitting in a large comfy chair. Many are monomaniacs and do it because they love it I believe but it’s no walk in the park and they often have no personal lives as the job is their life.
This is a case where the market fails btw as the research seems to indicate that there is no correlation between EXCESSIVE executive remuneration and shareholder returns. There may well be a -ve correlation and I stick with Mr Buffet on this as he avoids companies where the executives are excessively paid as he believes they don’t work for the good of the company, rather they work for their own rewards. We are talking US excesses here though – hundreds of millions.
But that’s not my decision – it’s their money and if they believe it’s worth that then they can pay him.
On pay though why not comment on other pay? I think …… many middle management civil servants are overpaid as many are frankly useless. Their main ability is to cover their backsides in case they accidentally make a decision. The market has failed there too despite the increases from the Clark years. A lot of corporate middle management is the same. Nurses are underpaid but then again too many people want to become nurses so it pushes the price down. Bad schoolteachers are overpaid but they avoid performance related pay as we all know. Good schoolteachers are underpaid. Police are probably paid about right. Judges are probably paid about right as they’re well enough rewarded so as to avoid corruption. Footballers are paid obscene amounts that seem ludicrous for kicking a ball around especially as there are so many who can kick a ball well. Film stars get paid silly amounts but they seem to generate the returns for the Film companies.
But that’s all off point and just a personal opinion. I don’t get jealous because if I wanted large amounts iof dosh I would have played the game, stayed in the corporate world and worked my up and not moved to NZ and went in to business for myself. Someone is always paid more, lot’s more, than me. Furthermore the market does not necessarily reflect what I or many personally value jobs at and fails sometimes.
Pay reflects supply and demand and it wouldn’t be that hard to find replacement steveodores who would work for less based on these figures. The unions are playing the sympathy card and are losing precisely because people intuitively understand that from a market perspective they’re doing fine.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:51 am
PaulL
Thanks for your 10.27pm comment – I think it comes as close as anyone has here to presenting a fair view of the information provided by both sides in the dispute.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:20 am
“The employer, as is their right, is going to sub-contract out the stevedoring, and I suspect they will then get massive productivity gains.”
I didn’t think you were so slow, David. The wharfies have given their employer massive productivity gains over the last 5 years.
It’s disappointing that Ms Etheredge has been unable or unwilling to answer any of the questions supplied and she’s neglected to mention that wharfies are looking at taking a pay cut in real terms. In the year to Sept 2011, inflation was 4.6%. Their pay clearly won’t be keeping pace with inflation. So despite massive increases in productivity, workers are going to be worse off. It’s a damn shame the company is refusing to tell the full story.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:24 am
“So, can anyone inform me, (or should I go and find out myself?) is there the slightest chance this will go to some kind of efective, and binding arbitration, or are we going to be wittering on about it ad nauseum in his glorified kangaroo court called the blogosphere?”
I don’t believe there is any binding arbitration, though it raises the issue of whether there should be. There is mediation but the company bosses have seen fit to thumb their noses at that process. Any reasonable person would think that the company doesn’t want to resolve the dispute.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:39 am
“DPF: I’m sure Catherine will answer these one you supply your full name and address.”
You’re on rare form, DPF. A full name and address are not required…as you well know.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:05 am
That would explain why POA value has only tanked by 50%. Yikes, where would it be otherwise?
yoza
This is how it works.
Wharfie strolls up (infrequently) and supplies hands, feet and a degree of human motive power. Pay rate = $x. That is the wharfies share of the wealth in exchange for what they think is work, but would likely not appear to be work to people who spend the night cleaning your shit off your employer’s toilet for $13.50 /hr
The owners of POA, Westpac whatever, supply capital, assume risk, provide entrepeneurship via people they indirectly employ. But most importantly, the owners of businesses are perfectly entitled to do whatever the fuck they like with their businesses provided it is within the law. If they want to pay their CEO a $gazillion, that’s their business.
If your lazy fat cat wharfies don’t like the pay that’s offered, then they are pefectly at liberty to fuck off and work somewhere else. Perhaps they would prefer to clean your shit off your employer’s toilet at $13.50 /hr.
Their “rights” to that employment are contractual and specific. There is in fact no hand-wringy moral or social right to that job. There is no moral or social entitlement to get paid the big bucks for doing fuck all. There is no moral or social right to work at any job full stop.
If you and your lefty mates think that employers are arseholes, then you are pefectly within your rights to go out and start your own businesses, just like plenty of others have done. Then you can employ each other and play hugga mugga with the cheque book and share the fruits of your labour. But it wouldn’t quite work out that way would it yoza, because ultimately it would replicate Animal farm.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:11 am
“[DPF: Provide a reference to your claim Tolley was wrong.]”
Tolley was clearly wrong, as was pointed out at the time she made her ridiculous comment. But without hesitation you fell for it. If a union member had made a similar claim, you would’ve spent hours checking its accuracy. I’ve attached two links, the first showing how this mythical figure was arrived at. However, it was pointed out at the time that the top of the secondary teacher pay scale was, and is, about $68K. So Tolley’s claim was quite clearly bullshit…but hey it appealed to the right wing nut bars who thought, and think, that teachers are overpaid. The second link shows that teachers are not well paid compared with their overseas counterparts. Maybe, David, you’d like to devote as much time discussing the pay of white collar workers are you spend discussing the pay of teachers and wharfies? You seem to have an unhealthy obssession with the latter.
http://www.educationreview.co.nz/pages/section/article.php?s=NZ+Teacher&idArticle=20141
http://www.odt.co.nz/73228/nz-teachers-paid-below-oecd-average-australian-counterparts
“You guys are the equivalent of political scientologists”
I find you resort to insults when you can’t debate the issues. In this case you’ve been shown to be wrong. (But then you were shown to be wrong over the debate about the DPB but you never acknowledged that.)
January 12th, 2012 at 9:20 am
Same market rules apply to kiwiblog Ross.
If you don’t like, then you are pefectly at liberty to just fuck off.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Thanks for that erudite and sophisticated comment, davinci.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:22 am
“Thanks for the laugh, David. You really are guillible. I’m reminded of when Anne Tolley said the average salary for teachers was $71,000. Of course it turned out to be bullshit. But you fell for it. I thought you might have learnt your lesson.”
Being well aware what entry level and senior teachers earn (I am marrying into a family of them), I can assure you that sounds about right, even a little on the low side.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:24 am
“If your lazy fat cat wharfies…”
Don’t hold back, davinci, tell us what you really think about wharfies. LMAO
January 12th, 2012 at 9:26 am
My pleasure.
I’m often surprised at the fact that people become so embroiled in argument only to lose sight of the big picture when it can be so glaringly obvious.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:48 am
“average remuneration for a full-time stevedore $91,480
average remuneration for a part-time (guaranteed 24 hrs a week) stevedore $65,518
53% of FT stevedores earned over $80,000 and 28% over $100,000
The highest annual remuneration was $122,000″
And so the hell what???
Why’s it your business what people get paid, David? Have you set yourself up as Nanny State’s wages-commissar?
How much do YOU get paid? Are you going to share that with us? If not, why not??
Bugger me, if this ain’t “politics of envy” I don’t know what it.
Anyhow, didn’t John Key rabbit on about raising wages, way back when in 2008? Oh yeah, he did; “We will be unrelenting in our quest to lift our economic growth rate and raise wage rates.”
Seems to me that the Maritime Union are simply carrying out this government’s policies.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:49 am
Eisenhower says: “Ross you wuckfit, why don’t you do a cursory search of the MoD site before making a fool of yourself – Between March 2000 and March 2010, overall average teacher pay (salary plus allowances) in state and state integrated schools increased as follows. Secondary teachers’ average pay increased 45.4%, from $47,764 to $71,110.”
Ross, are you at home? Did you read Eisenhower’s comment?
Nah – of course not. Just like the POAL figures, its very hard to dispute facts.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:50 am
thedavincimode (2,725) “Same market rules apply to kiwiblog Ross. If you don’t like, then you are pefectly at liberty to just fuck off.”
Or not.
And if yer precious “market rules” apply, then the wharfies are perfectly entitled to get whatever they can negotiate . It’s could democracy. The wharfies at Danzig did the same thing to the commo government back in 1980. Of course, the Polish workers were our heroes then. Funny that, eh?
January 12th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Elaycee (2,029) “Eisenhower says: “Ross you wuckfit, why don’t you do a cursory search of the MoD site before making a fool of yourself – Between March 2000 and March 2010, overall average teacher pay (salary plus allowances) in state and state integrated schools increased as follows. Secondary teachers’ average pay increased 45.4%, from $47,764 to $71,110.” ”
Someone else fascinated by what others earn.
What’s your salary, Elaycee?
January 12th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Speaking of salaries, I’ve long felt that tax returns should be published. Government salaries used to be public infomation about 20 years ago and that principle could be extended now without doing any harm at all.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:12 am
@ Ross 9:11 (what an appropriate time for posting a disaster…)
You comment “top of the secondary teacher pay scale was, and is, about $68K” omits or deliberately ignores all of the allowances that state school secondary teachers get. Moreover you omit to say that 2/3 of teachers are already at that base salary level of $68,980.
Allowances are made up of units, which recognise teachers’ leadership and professional responsibilities; management allowances; role-related allowances; and incentive allowances. The annual cost of these allowances to Government is over $200 million. On average, allowances add about $5,600 to a teachers’ base salary.
Teachers also get payments for Recruitment, Retention and Responsibility (3R payments), with the objective of enhancing educational outcomes. The 3R payments are $2750 for primary and up to the value of a unit for area and secondary teachers. Teachers may be allocated more than one payment.
There are also various superannuation policies that teachers qualify for, for example, the Government Superannuation Fund – the employer contribution is either 6.5% or 7% of the gross salary.
Those allowances and employer contributions take the Group 3+, 4 and 5 net income to nearly $81,000
Instead of using second or third-hand sources for your dodgy claims and your dissembling, try looking at the Ministry of Education website where all of these facts are spelled out in plain English. Here’s the link:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/EmploymentConditionsAndEvaluation/TeacherPayAndConditions/BaseSalaryandAllowances.aspx
January 12th, 2012 at 10:14 am
“And if yer precious “market rules” apply, then the wharfies are perfectly entitled to get whatever they can negotiate . It’s could democracy”
LOL very true. The point is they put this up for public debate, mislead about what they earn and then go for sympathy.
and youre right, it is market rules and we are in a democracy so POAL has every right to fire their asses and contract out the work
There is also the fact that they have fucked with other struggling businesses at the most important time of the year.. not cool. but fuck em, the monkeys will pay in the end.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Exactly Frankie. I agree wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately in this instance, Long John Pursloe appears to be about to negotiate them into redundancy. But that is their right and that is as it should be.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Actually milky, that’s none of your business. So you publish yours if you want to by all means, but leave the rest of us out of this.
There were no breaches of individual privacy here, which is what you advocate, and the lame-arsed arguments regarding the POA woman are just that. Suggest you pop that idea where the sun doesn’t shine.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:34 am
Francis_X says: “Someone else fascinated by what others earn. What’s your salary, Elaycee?”
Actually, Francis_X – as I’m a partner in a private Company, my remuneration is none of your business. But now you ask, I’m actually happy with it – thanks.
But you really need to buck up – had you been watching, you would be aware of ross’ constant bleating about wharfie salaries – and of course the average salary has been confirmed at over $91,000 per annum by the POAL themselves.
Latterly, ross challenged the numbers posted re teacher salaries – he was adamant that teacher salaries had not increased to over $71,000 per annum and Eisenhower did the research from the Ministry themselves and debunked that claim too.
So do keep up. It may prevent you from making a prat of yourself again.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:15 am
@Yoza
The CEO of Westpac is paid what the Shareholders decide is the price for the job.
Westpac is a publically owned Company not an Auckland Ratepayer Owned one.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Paulus
There is no argument to distinguish POA and Westpac. The mere fact of a community shareholding doesn’t oblige Auckland ratepayers to take a lower than market rate of return on an investment that is held on their behalf by mad Len, Mike Galaxy Lee, that dreadful bloody thing that McCarten shacks up with, et al. Nor does it oblige Auckland ratepayers to suffer the extraordinary loss of value achieved to date in an industry where Tauranga and Napier have rocketed ahead.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Anyone notice that the asian shipping companies are heading for a horrific 4th quarter, they are going to screw everyone this year as it is a fight for their very survival, I have no idea how it will all pan out except that whatever happens, it will not be pretty, everyone is fighting over a decreasing pile of cash.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
“he was adamant that teacher salaries had not increased to over $71,000 per annum and Eisenhower did the research from the Ministry themselves and debunked that claim too. ”
Reading is not your strong point, is it LAC. It was confirmed that average teacher pay was well below $71K. Is this simple enough for you to understand or would you prefer smaller words? LMAO
January 12th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Catherine Etheredge may be having a long day, what with mediation at POAL and all…assuming the company bosses have bothered to turn up. But I’m surprised she hasn’t attempted to answer my questions, which are straightforward. I’d like to think she is trustworthy but I am beginning to wonder.
1. How much does Etheredge get paid and how many hours is she required to work to get paid this figure?
2. What skills (if any) are required for her job?
3. Does she get paid for supplying blogs with personal information about stevedores?
4. Has she supplied blogs with personal information about her own pay and working conditions? If not, why not?
5. How much annual and sick leave does she receive?
6. Has she received any bonuses since being employed by the Ports of Auckland? If so, what were the amounts of these bonuses and why did she receive them?
7. Is there any other information about her employment by POA which she would like to disclose?
8. What would have been the total wage bill of the POA’s first offer to wharfies? How does that compare with the POA’s most recent offer and how does that compare to the current wage bill?
9. How many wharfies at the POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
10. How many middle or senior managers at POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
11. What is the hourly base rate for a full-time wharfie at the POA?
12. What does Etheredge mean when she says that the company is not covering its cost of capital?
January 12th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
ross,
you are an idiot. POAL did not disclose the individual income of any of its stevedores by naming that person. Nor should it name the income of Ms Etheridge, nor should it.
Moreoever, Ms Etheridge has made no appearance on KB, therefore I would expect no answer to your questions because she most likely hasn’t seen them. Therefore, your derogatory comments about the lack of a reply are churlish.
But that is what we expect from you, so carry on.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Ross – either you are full of your own importance or continually trying to deflect from the facts that the Ports of Auckland striking Union Members are overpaid and greedy or stupid. Probably a bit of all of the above.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
@ ross: You’re simply being a muppet trying to deflect away from the real issue – the POL has published average salaries and you (together with the Maritime union and their flunkies) are furiously trying to create a diversion. FAIL!
Last time I looked, Catherine Etheredge wasn’t on strike. Her salary and qualifications are totally irrelevant. The issue here is the salary levels of the striking wharfies. And please stop talking crap – NO personal details were supplied by the POAL. Not one. So don’t tell porkies – and I know it’ll be tough as I’m asking you to change the habit of a lifetime!
But make sure you remember that the POAL confirmed that the average wharfie salaries were just north of $91,000 per annum for the 2011 year.
And all of your hot air / your posturing / your bleating and your obfuscating won’t change the facts.
January 12th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Poor ross; defending the indefensible is such a burden
January 12th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
HAHAHAHAHAA!
Really?
Do you really not know what that means?
January 12th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
“Ms Etheridge has made no appearance on KB…”
Hmmm, I’m not sure where you’re going with that, F E Smith. Ms Etheredge has appeared on your beloved Standard and may well have appeared on other blogs. She has happily supplied information to bloggers/commenters about wharfies’ pay and has indicated that such pay is unsustainable. She hasn’t substantiated the figures given nor has she provided any context for her comment about wharfies’ pay, which is purely speculative.
January 12th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
ross,
is it ignorance or arrogance with you?
Firstly, I do not like The subStandard at all. Secondly, don’t you know where Ms Etheridge has posted or not? I suggest that you actually take up Cactus’ suggestion and do some of your own investigation for once. The world is not beholden to you and nobody owes you any sort of explanation of anything. Just because they do not bother to reply to your questions does not mean they have no credibility.
Or perhaps your problem is narcissism?
Yes, because she is the Communications Manager and therefore such is within her field of employment for POAL. She is their employee, after all. And the company is probably subject to LGOIA, so the information given out is available if you ask. As Cactus and Whaleoil did.
That is a ridiculous point. Ms Etheridge works for POAL and has provided figures on their behalf! What do you want, an individual breakdown of income, worker by worker? Go and look the POAL’s books. Others have.
Her point about the stevedore’s pay is POAL policy, so of course she will advance it. It may not be her personal view, but she is not paid to give her personal opinion, she is paid to communicate what POAL wants communicated. That is her job as an employee.
But, again, you have no right to have others just serve it up to you. Even if they do, as Ms Etheridge did on The subStandard, you still disparage it. Go do your own digging and then come back with your point. So far, however, you have made no positive contribution to any part of this discussion.
Sheesh, it is like talking to a brick wall!
January 12th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
“Do you really not know what that means?”
Yeah, I have a fairly good idea what it means. It suggests that the company is not making the sort of profits it would like. The implication is that the company’s management is not as good as it might be. Business commentator Brian Gaynor made the same point yesterday.
January 12th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“I do not like The subStandard at all.”
Yeah I thought my comment would go over your head. You don’t do sarcasm very well, do you.
“Ms Etheridge works for POAL and has provided figures on their behalf! What do you want?”
I have provided a list of easy questions for her to answer. I’m sure you’ve seen them.
“…she is not paid to give her personal opinion”
I wouldn’t have thought she was paid to post comments on blogs either.
“…you have no right to have others just serve it up to you.”
Absolutely. And readers can draw their own conclusion as to Ms Etheredge’s trustworthiness.
January 12th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
ross,
your arrogance is phenomenal. And your comments are inane.
January 12th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Thanks for that helpful comment, F E Smith.
January 12th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Ross, when I left school the works or the wharves were both options due to family and neighbours, but I realised that by the time I was 16 I could think for myself and wasn’t intimidated by half pissed poms so I moved on.
If you want to see the Auckland waterfront at work just go to The Schooner Tavern any work day at 8.00am when it opens and you will see the wharf at work, entire shifts drink there all day and get paid . Even recent union meeetings have been held there.
My fervent wish is that a wholesale sacking happens soon, with the OJT it wont take long to get a new work force. I know the Aussie ‘brothers will boycott ships etc etc but that wont last long. It would be too much like hard work
January 12th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Our secret microphones were present at today’s meeting of the Executive of the Maritime Union -
Union President: Okay brothers, this strike has been a disaster! if we give in now we look like dickheads – dickheads with no balls who caves into the bosses, and we can’t have that, can we?
Union Members: No comrade
Union President: Okay – so instead of facing realities we need to up the anti. Get onto our underlings in the media – all the marxists at the NZ Herald, Dominion, TV3 and TVNZ- tell them this is our next stand against the exploiting capitalist bosses. We will ask for even MORE than ummmmmmm you know ummmmmmm 2 grand a week. If the capitalist exploiter bosses do not agree we will say, and our media people will tell everyone, this is evidence of them wanting to grind the faces of the poor into the ground. We live in grinding poverty! on $2000 per week! we need help! otherwise all our members will starve.
Union Members: ummmmmmm…?!?!?! (wtf???)
Union President: Do not start that capitalist crap with me! comrades! okay let’s take a vote – all loyal union men over here; all scabs over there. And by god if I say our members are starving to death on $2000 per week then by goddammit that is true! I am a union man! so there!
A Union Member: but comrade, isn’t that kinda dumb and -
Union President: You capitalist pig! you exploiter! you who hate the poor and the workers! how DARE you claim we are not in poverty on $2000 per week?!?!?????? you are an evil, evil scab! and our media will tell everybody so.
ETC
ETC
(you get the general idea)
January 12th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
HOLY FUCKIN SHIT ROSS!
I just had a look at statistics.govt.nz and they have a table which discloses the average and median weekly income for all people, aged 15 years and over!!!!
WTF?!?!?!!!
What about PRIVACY?!?!
They get this power through the Statistics Act of 1975, so the corruption goes all the way to the top!
I have posted 2 dozen questions for the PM of the day, Bill Rowling, on a random Facebook wall and, tellingly, have not heard a single response.
January 12th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Latest from the CTU:
“Despite Port employers acknowledging in Mediation today that a proposal tabled by the Maritime union went “a considerable way to meeting its labour allocation issues and was big in a financial sense to the Port” the Port employers rejected the opportunity to settle this dispute unless the workers concede complete managerial discretion to the employer over the manner in which they are employed.
“CTU President Helen Kelly, who attended the mediation today, said the management were now acting irresponsibly “today they effectively acknowledged a deal was on the table but they unwilling to settle. The workers at the port now have no choice but to continue campaigning to protect their regular employment, which will inevitably include industrial activity.”
“To put this asset owned by the people of Auckland in such a precarious position, for no obvious reason, is negligent in the extreme,” said Helen Kelly.”
January 12th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
mikenmild,
Thanks for that. Ms Kelly’s purely objective and unbiased views on the matter is the just what we all needed
Incidentally, POAL have made it clear previously that their own offer does deliver the flexible work practises they require and it also offers the wharfies substantial productivity bonuses. I’m sure the objective and unbiased Ms Kelly would be the first to say that MUNZ and the workers have been acting irresponsibly in not accepting that generous offer…
January 12th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
More from our secret microphones at today’s meeting of the Maritime Union -
Union President: okay brothers, we have all sorted our media campaign against the heartless, cruel capitalist exploiter bosses; now we shall deal with their treatment of widows and orphans!
A good loyal union man was killed on the job! the capitalist pig bosses cast his widow and orphaned children out into the snow! how evil!
A Union Member: There is no snow in Auckland comrade
Union President: Don’t start that crap with me! TV3 and the Dominion are cumming in their trousers with this story!
A Union Member: ummmmmmm comrade President, ummmmmmmm the payout from the life insurance company was $1.2 million dollars. And what snow in Auckland are you talking about????
Union President: You cruel heartless capitalist expoiting pig! How dare you???? If I say this widow was cast out into the snow (on a day Auckland temperatures were 28 degrees) then it is so! and read the Dominion, NZ Herald or watch TV3 and you will see everyone agrees with me! The evil bosses threw her out of her house -
A Union Member: ummmmm she paid off the mortgage with the $1.2 million life insurance payout
Union President: – into the snow. Shut the f**k up comrade!
A Union Member: comrade President – what if the media report the true story? we have been telling lies for a month but I am sure most widows would love to be exploited with $1.2 million in their pocket.
Union President: Oh so you are talking about red herrings are you? capitalist lies! bosses lies! read the papers – they believe me! they are on our side! they do not do anything capitalist like ummmmm you know -checking facts or telling the truth; we will win this fight comrades so long as we stick to our story….
(ETC)
(ETC)
You get the general idea…
January 12th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
FE Smith
Its all the left have to fall back on as they lose this debate hands down. They know that the figures Ethridge posted at The Standard are correct – the fact that the MU have not challenged them is significant. So all they have is the usual tactics of the left – obfuscation, distraction and lies:
* Posting made up income figures
* Claiming the POA lied
* Raising red herrings (ineptly as personified by Penny not so Bright conflating consolidated accounts) about management salaries and director’s fees – completely separate issues
* Alleging Whale, David and Cactus are all on the take from the POA (a case of projection if ever their was one)
* Making threats to Whale and David
All of the above is designed to distract attention away from the PR nightmare that their strikes has provoked, the fact that the union and their water carriers have been caught fudging the figures and to try and cling on to their featherbedding practices.
Labour’s silence is deafening. Key et al ought to be goading Shearer into a response.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I agree with everything except your last sentence KiA; Labour is taking such a pasting from the far Left that National doesn’t need to do a thing; just sit back, and watch the resultant carnage.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Keeping Stock
True but I reckon the Nats could throw down the odd banana peel just to add to Labour’s discomfort. Plus middle NZ doesn’t listen to or care for the far left so their brickbats at Labour fall into the puzzled disinterested category-the nuances of this internecine fight on the left is only of interest to junkies like us. Senior National backbenchers could ensure this issue becomes even more of an electoral liability for Labour by goading Shearer and others on their front bench into a Nash like “neither for or against” 1951 type trap. Holland turned the Waterfront lockout into electoral gold – Key could so the same on a lesser scale.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
It appears that Ms Etheredge is not going to respond to my questions. I suspect that’s because her spin was dishonest and deceitful.
http://www.munz.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/poal_labour_strategy.pdf
This document, undated but prior to 30 September 2001, indicates that the company always intended to casualise its workforce. “There would need to be an 8-12 week timeframe for contractors to commence operations…[t]he current workforce…is insufficiently flexible to meet the challenges of our business and for many years there have been many service failures.”
The document says that the company’s current wage bill is $30 million which is 33% of total costs. If staff hours per container were the same as Tauranga, “we would spend approximately $6m less.” Hmmm that suggests that the company were, and are, wanting to shave up to 20% off the current wage bill, though there is no indication that there would be cuts to the pay of middle and senior managers. It is also unclear why wages are being attacked, since they comprise only one third of total costs. What about the other two thirds?
At no stage did Ms Etheredge say that the company wanted to reduce its wage bill by 20%. In fact she said that hourly pay rates would increase by 10%. Her spin was so good she wouldn’t be out of place in parliament.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
This document, undated but prior to 30 September 2011…
January 12th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Among POAL’s 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.
So POAL people will 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. Too late for that. The company’s credibility is in tatters.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
You are desperate ross.
This is just so sad.
By this account, all picketers should be sacked.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
As for this GOTCHA!, well the labour utilisation rate difference between Auckland and Tauranga is what? 15%? And thats generous by the sounds of it. So is your next question going to be where the other 5% is going to come from?
But you should answer this question first,
How much do you earn?
January 12th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
No, Kimble, my next question relates to POAL’s costs. About $30 million is spent on wages, and another $60 million is spent elsewhere. What does this $60 million comprise and what attempts (if any) has POAL taken to reduce these costs?
January 12th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Oh do fuck off ross.
What is it in any of that that POA has breached? Was it just saying NO? Was the only way that POA could meet its ethical standards to say YES?
Oh, oops, did the POA CEO call Long John Pursloe a dickhead? And just from the perspective of evenhandedness, exactly what is it about the Maritime Mafia that evidences any commitment to this value -
Sorry, how many woman get the “work fuck all and suck up the big bucks gig” in the Maritime Mafia? Do the people cleaning the shit off Long John Pursloe’s bog at Mafia HQ get $91 k pa?
Bribes .. inducements … credibility in tatters?
Pffft.
You’ve now just gotten so truely truely pathetic I can only assume you have a bit of skin in this game.
But wait, there’s more ross.
This is the worst bit. Nobody actually gives a shit about the Auckland wharfies, including the person that cleans Pursloe’s bog for $13.50 an hour, apart from the losers who seem intent in dying in the ditch over this such as you, the wharfies and the sad-arsed union hacks.
Even your pinko party doesn’t give a stuff.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Ross
Get hold of a book called ” Last Exit To Brooklyn” by Hubert Selby Jr. Read the chapter called “Strike”, read about Harry, the shop steward. It is simply the best piece ever written about a union man, what is written is universal. Union scum.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
So you concede the answer you gave to your previous question was in error, then.
This question can be dealt with simply as well; it doesnt matter.
Though I do like the fact that you insist all other suppliers take a pay cut before your guys. Selfish.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“What does this $60 million comprise and what attempts (if any) has POAL taken to reduce these costs?”
Well they spoke to their suppliers and they happily accepted a 10% increase in what they are paid.
Telecom were quoted as saying “what a fucking sweet deal”
You’re a sad little unionist Ross
January 12th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
ross now asks: “What does this $60 million comprise…”
Er, read the Annual Report. You can work it out. Just look at the numbers line by line and see the cost line they represent. You know you can do it…..
But if you can’t understand the numbers, then ask Penny for help – she is clearly a real whizz when it comes to understanding figures from the financial section of Annual Reports! And equally as ‘good’ when comparing and contrasting the number of votes she receives, to the margin of error.
In fact, you’d suit each other.
January 13th, 2012 at 8:30 am
Ross
You’ve been reduced to clutching st straws. Your list of questions posed to kiwiblog but aimed at the POA’s employed staff member are as relevant to this debate as debating the salary packages of Mayor Len Brown and each Auckland City Councillor. Your attempts at arguing against the POA from implimenting Tauranga style efficiencies at their ports is like farting against thunder. The wharfies are plumb on the wrong side of history and middle NZ is not on their side. With only 15% of workers unionised this has become a pathetic internal squabble on the left as a supposedly new Labour Party looks to winning back support from the swinging voters who deserted it and who overwhelmingly condemn the standover tactics of the MU, and is under attack from the purists and ideologues on the left like you. You’re trying to re-arrange the deckchairs on your own Titanic.