Port of Auckland to contract out workforce
Well this is called playing the trump card. Ports of Auckland have said:
Ports of Auckland has advised the Maritime Union of New Zealand – Local 13 (MUNZ) that it does not find the counter-offer tabled on 6 January attractive, and that while it will continue with collective bargaining, it is proceeding with a proposal to contract out its labour force. …
“I welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters further with MUNZ when mediation resumes on Thursday. However, we’ve run out of time. Without rapid changes towards substantially more efficient labour practices, more customers and more jobs will be lost in the coming weeks.
“We’ve worked now for 11 months to achieve the changes needed, but the Union does not appear to be taking the issues seriously,” he said.
Gibson says the Port’s last offer remains its best and final offer. It includes a generous 10 per cent rise on hourly rates, performance bonuses of up to 20% on hourly rates, and the retention of existing benefits and entitlements in return for a new roster system that will provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance.
As it signalled before Christmas, in parallel with the collective bargaining process, the Port is progressing plans for redundancies as a result of the loss of the Maersk and Fonterra business, and will begin a consultation process this week over a proposal to contract out its labour force.
Mr Gibson said that if the proposed contract labour model was to proceed, he expected that the majority of affected employees would continue to work for the Port as employees of the selected contractors.
The average wage for a wharfie there is $91,000 a year. It is likely to exceed $100,000 a year under the POA offer. Many people would kill for such a job.
Labour wants to change the law so Ports of Auckland do not have the option of contracting out its labour force if this is more efficient. Their policy is that any contractor should be forced to offer the same terms and conditions. This would mean that the union (which is affiliated to the Labour Party) remains much more powerful.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
January 9th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
“The average wage for a wharfie there is $91,000 a year. It is likely to exceed $100,000 a year under the POA offer. Many people would kill for such a job.”
This figure has been claimed, counter-claimed and disputed by all and sundry. Does anyone out there have any indisputable evidence out there that this figure of $91,000 is wrong or right? Neither MUNZ nor POAL seem to want to release details and this is a major stick in the craw for Joe Public if the Wharfies are receiving this yet won’t negotiate their contract.
It seems a reasonable thing to ask.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Now THAT is an ultimatum.
Excellent.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
That 91,000 claim is bullshit and has been disproven my more than just matt mccarten, though his is the most easily googlable disproof.
Anyone with half a brain or connections also knows that Fonterra are being used as a trump card by the port, it’s complete bullshit that a company like that would just up and leave, they would’ve been costing it and considering it for months, same with Maersk.
Nice job though, disinformation seems to be winning. Still harping on about how nice the port are etc etc, even in the face of the fact that their offer of more money WAS REJECTED by the union because THEY DON’T WANT MORE MONEY, JUST JOB SECURITY.
I hope some of the union bashers here get put into positions where a union could’ve helped them, but instead they end up worse off.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Such good news – the business will become more efficient and therefore will serve the interests of the business of Aucklnad, the consumers of Auckland (and New Zealand) and indeed the ratepayers of Aucklnad better.
the union will now lose membership (great) and a lesson will be learned by other unions that at the end of the day you can only push so hard before greed will destroy you.
I hope the union officials are now going to explain the consequence of this to the workers who they have used a a pawn in their political game. Stuff the union and their stupid self important representatives.
Now to deal to the teacher unions and maybe NZ could be an even better place to be.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
And somewhatthoughtful falls foul of the union spin. What they want is for the union to have a monopoly over the work done by the ports. Union members should support unions, not expect organisations to hand them an exclusive right to provide services. Why should the ratepayers of Auckland be subsidising a union that has the cash to make donations to political campaigns?
January 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
somewhatthoughtful (316) what a crock of shit! They are obviously paid well and the offer they were given was more then reasonable yet they continue to hijack not only their employer but also the council and ultimately Auckland ratepayers. If you play with fire then you will get burned and they are going to find that out the hard way. Bet they will be wanting their job back once they have been laid off.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@somewhatthoughtful: Before you parrot the Maritime Union spin, best you first read this article by Cactus Kate. (Warning – it contains facts and figures relating to salaries):
http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2011/12/dirty-rich-prick-wharfies.html
January 9th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Well this seems fine for all. As POA does not feel capable of managing a large workforce, they will contract out that function to another company. That company will probably end up negotiating collectively with the MUNZ.
January 9th, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Why does the union not agree to release the award documents and let us see the level of income available?
Matt is a commie bastard and lies for political gain
The figurer of 27 dollars an hour is wot the starting rate, the rate with all skills posable ,the average rate ?
how much do shift meal and other allowances add to that ?
bring on ‘Massey’s Cossacks’
I am sure we at KB could mount at least a platoon
January 9th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
@ somewhatthoughtful
This is the 21st century – there’s no such thing as job security. Only unions in NZ and Australia continue to believe in the fantasy that the changes in the marketplace should have no effect whatsoever on how a business operates.
January 9th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Sean,
True, but I wonder… how have these “changes in the marketplace” affected the salaries of corporate executives?
January 9th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
somewhatthoughtful
Matt McCarten is not an independent commentator on this subject. He will ALWAYS take the union side in these disputes. He not only works for a union (UNITE – that failed to pay its PAYE btw) but he openly espouses hard left socialist policies and was an admirer and supporter of known radical and lefty John Minto when he ran for the Mana Party. The union could prove their claim by releasing the full award list in their last collective contract and compare that to known average hours worked. They haven’t because they know it will undermine their cry of ‘poverty’.
The POA were left with no option. Len Brown gritting his teeth (and reading some internal polling showing overwhelming public opposition to the MU’s strike action) and backing the POA Board was all Gibson needed to pull the pin. Good job! Welcome to the 21st century Mr Parsloe.
January 9th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
So somewhatthoughtful (an ironic title), does it seem believable to you that an independent entity and business, such as Fonterra would allow the potential for its profit margin to be in any way endangered and, in doings so, obviate their duty of care to their shareholders and the country et al, by letting another company use them for an agenda and purpose that has little to nil dollar benefit for them?
The logic astounds me. If you need more tinfoil for your new hat business, please see me. Christchurch maybe a little shaky but our port is fine and will be happy to organise supply for you.
January 9th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
The next step for the Union is to call a general strike with the teachers and other public service employees going out in sympathy. POAL was probably moving to this point anyway but the Union thought they were bluffing.
January 9th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
Aah…the fine print after the posturing.
‘Mr Gibson said that if the proposed contract labour model was to proceed, he expected that the majority of affected employees would continue to work for the Port as employees of the selected contractors.’
If Mr Gibson is telling the ‘truth’ this time, the lads will be made redundant and then get their jobs back at the generous rates port has made in their final offer and will be working for contractors. Of course the naughty workers will be fully ‘modernised’ without a militant bone in their body. And that was the story of the naughty dockers and good boss Gibson, turn off the light. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
January 9th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
As I said (in reply to Adolf Finkelstein) several minutes ago on an earlier post about this issue:
“I‘m surprised you got away with that back then. As you likely know, in those days Wharfies were right up there with the Boilermakers Union for that sort of system-rorting and for the Heavies. I’ve been in rooms where men spoke proudly of how the Union made a “co-op” agreement with the Service Workers Union so that if Union X (choose one of 2 above) went on strike, the tea ladies and Caf girls would go out … thereby forcing the rest of the unions to support. Yup, real good faith bargaining that.”
It pleases me no end to see these jobs being contracted out after months on unproductive talks.
January 9th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Except this time Nostalgia the lads wont be able to hijack the commerical plans of countless companies small and large with their strikes. Then you and the boys can have a beer and wax on nostalgically about the good old days of the Federation of Labour and a Maritime Union that got what it wanted while those of us who generate wealth in the real economy can get on with the job of growing our companies, hiring new staff and adding to the GDP of the country not trying to destroy it with 19th century class warfare tactics.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
kiwi in america, nothing like over confidence in the grand stands or at the weigh in. Now, if you’ll explain how the militancy factor is eroded in the same labour force however it might be structured, despite the obvious fact that there’ll be no need to press any issues because they’ll be so much better off because of dear Mr Gibson’s generous offer.
I also happen to work for myself so don’t confuse yourself that because somebody wants a productive and sucessful port that they must be pro management or pro union for that matter. You are the one that wants to keep reaching back into the past and see old battle lines drawn while I want to see the economy grow and Mr Gibson misleading the public on something that rate-payers own is a concern.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Simple Nostalgia – the POA writes performance targets into its contracts with the sub contractors – if they are not met then they lose the contract. If their employees want to be militant they get shown the door. Loading and unloading containers isn’t rocket science – its not a skill set that is that hard for other workers to learn. The companies that do the work for Port of Tauranga and other ports are used to modern performance based contracts and they can easily step up and manage some of the work in Auckland. The lazy and militant will buck up or be forced to expore other employment opportunities. Ask the current and former CEOs at the Port of Tauranga – they’ll walk you through how it works.
Your proclamation of self employment in no way alters your obvious union bias although like some on the left, you refuse to admit it and go through the charade of trying to persuade that you’re nothing more than a moderate non partisan centrist. A moderate non biased centrist would see the union action for what it was and applaud the POA’s action – like I’d imagine the vast majority of the people Len Brown’s people polled on the matter think.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
This has a familiar ring for those of my vintage. In the 80′s, after rolling over for years to ever greater union demands, the freezing companies finally said it was time to adapt and change, or the big works would close. It happened first in Patea, but the brothers never believed it would happen elsewhere where they were better “organized” (i.e. where the lumpen proleteriat were more easily intimidated than the Taranaki farm boys working at Patea).
Long story short: The owners of Christchurch’s largest works at Islington gave a similar ultimatum- accept our final offer, or the works will close. The union laughed at them, and told the brothers it would never happen. Islington closed the following week. When I was last down there it was still deserted.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
One great thing about any new performance based contract for port labour provider it will include a safety clause so that all injuries and accidents will be black marks against the provider.
That way the workers wont need to get three weeks sick leave each year as they currently receive for doing a job that is easier and less hazardous that any site construction worker.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
XChequer (311) Says:
‘January 9th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
So somewhatthoughtful (an ironic title), does it seem believable to you that an independent entity and business, such as Fonterra would allow the potential for its profit margin to be in any way endangered and, in doings so, obviate their duty of care to their shareholders and the country et al, by letting another company use them for an agenda and purpose that has little to nil dollar benefit for them?
The logic astounds me. If you need more tinfoil for your new hat business, please see me. Christchurch maybe a little shaky but our port is fine and will be happy to organise supply for you.’
Price is always on the table and often price structuring over a certain period. If a price was offered 6 months out on an assumption that labour costs will have fallen by then (and this is all about labour costs,) on the basis that current prices would hold and drop at some time that would co-incide with new labour contracts or terms that didn’t eventuate – then Fonterra would walk. Alternatively, as there is no secret about the unrest, Fonterra could be inclined to seek better terms or say they’d walk now – nothing like pressure. Either of those 2 scenarios could prevail without risk to Fonterra shareholders, indeed to their benefit because they already have willing alternatives. Overall, it could work a lot less subtlety than that..
January 9th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
The Fonterra pull out was signalled months ago when Fonterra decided to establish a marshalling yard at Frankton (which coincidentally is equal distance from Auckland and Tauranga). Notice was given to both Ports that the best price wins the business. POL was not able to be competitive.
As to the Union they have now apparently lost Len’s support – unexpected I would think, but this was inevitable because Auckland is a ‘merchant’ town, always has been. The Mayor would be particularly stupid not to support business interests. Mike Lee is in a different category – a committed lefty who has already done irreparable damage to the port business through his mismanagement of the ARC. Let’s see if he marches with the downtrodden 300.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
‘kiwi in america (1,605) Says:
January 9th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Simple Nostalgia – the POA writes performance targets into its contracts with the sub contractors – if they are not met then they lose the contract. If their employees want to be militant they get shown the door. Loading and unloading containers isn’t rocket science – its not a skill set that is that hard for other workers to learn’
You’ve got a big qualifier ‘if’ there, and still if the labour force is the same you expect compliance while holding the big ‘if.’ Much like your over confidence, and still no remedy of a smoothly operating profitable port. Nice daydream, we should also pretend there’ll be no reactions from unions overseas regarding ships sailing to Auckland, no efforts to stop truck or rail movements. All so easy it’s a wonder it didn’t happen years ago. But you may well be right, all as easy as falling off a log.
January 9th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
The big problem with conspiracies though, Nostalgia is that people are involved in them. Given that you are asking questions of conduct between Fonterra (and, come to think of it, Maersk who seems much more likely but you aren’t pickin on them) and POAL, that would mean that the conspiracy details would be known to more than a couple of people. And where there are people keeping secrets, especially in a country so large and populous as New Zealand, is that the secret will always get out. Look at Winston and Owen Glenn – two people wielding enormous (that’s a relative term, of course) power – and they couldn’t keep a secret too well, could they?
And given the nature of the dispute, which has hit business headlines all round the world for all the wrong reasons, don’t you think that that sort of publicity would hurt our commodity exports hard. A market that is tracked and adjusted on a continual basis, where a minor drop can affect the fortunes of our farmers – and given the ratio of GDP that it represents – thereby the country??? We would see immediate results.
And we have.
Two global companies have pulled out. That is a direct result of the action. It is also an the action that would be expected by the international community.
The potential impacts of a conspiracy discovered are too great for Fonterra to jeopardise.
It makes more sense if the “tin foil hat” part was taken out but still fairly unlikely.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Slap slap slap slap
Hear that? It is Uncle Len slapping himself about the face and asking himself “why am I such a fuckwit?”
January 9th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
But playing devil’s advocate here for a moment….the one thing that puzzles me about this is the union is on record saying it is NOT about money; that in fact they would take a pay CUT in exchange for shift security… that is very unusual; it is almost always about the money….POAL says that they have the advance notice of rosters that the union seeks in the proposal….does anyone know if that is in fact right? Is there some anonymous unionist here brave enough to tell us the full story??
January 9th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Poor old Len; he rushes back from his Waiheke holiday to give the Union an ‘ultimatim’. Gibson of POA takes this as implicit support and pulls the plug on the Union. Now, in a radio interview (1ZB this evening) Len is backpedaling at 100 kph. So much for decisive leadership. This is all so reminiscent of the Christchurch Council/ Lytellton fiasco; Unions see left wing Councils as gifts from God; sheep to be fleeced.
David, in response to your question the unions want exclusive coverage (in perpetuity) and some jobs that are now contracted out returned to Union coverage. Not about money but certainly about power.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
“The next step for the Union is to call a general strike with the teachers…”
Yes please! Time to get rid of the crap in one fell swoop. Brilliant!
January 9th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Elaycee: except general strikes and strikes “in sympathy” with another union have been illegal for many years…Yes, they could do it illegally, but there are no Jock Barnes’ or even Pincher Martin’s around any more..
January 9th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
XChequer
No conspiracies. We already have the information above that Fonterra have an inland port in Frankton, from which they’ve been bargaining for better rates. I have some doubts about the time factors of the two different routes, but nevertheless recognise that Fonterra play one against the other and that isn’t a conspiracy, there was a signal in advance of what they were going to do.
Something else overlooked here is that even if some lovey dovey contract is let for POA, Fonterra or Maersk, would need to be enticed back to Auckland at considerable expense.
Just as this conversation overheats a little. I’m confident that the the turn around time Hamilton to Auckland is around 1.25 each way. I think Tauranga is at least half an hour more than that. I should also mention, the costs and the quality of the trucks returning empties from Auckland to Tauranga as being is highly questionable. I said yesterday on the same subject that the road freight of containers is overlooked by the casual observer and it appears little account is made of that. Additionally, while dealing with road freight, Tauranga to Hamilton to Auckland doesn’t work, but would work Hamilton to Tauranga for Fonterra who are not an importer, also the trip from the Bombays is lengthened now by new speed restrictions, all of which has an impact.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
David Garret. of course its about the money without actually saying so. Shift security. Sue, lock in a roster a month out and when a boat is delayed then everyone gets paid for not working and when they are needed they get called in on overtime because they were not rostered on.
They already only work 27 hours in a 40 hour week on average.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
From what I know of Fonterras exports the whole idea is to export loaded 20 ft containers without putting them on a truck ever. you can put I think) 5000 kg more in a 20ft er if its on rail. Pallets of bagged milk powder mainly.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
trout and David C: thanks….the explanation about the locked in roster and the delayed ship makes perfect sense…perhaps our unionist visitor would care to comment on that point?
January 9th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
Well that certainly doesnt help.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
One of the stupidest things by Gibson is that at a time when Auckland could be ticking over as an efficient port and profit from the value of that, he continues an entrenchment that denys the opportunity for Auckland to present itself as a safe and well equipped port at a time when Tauranga has experienced difficulties that have brought international attention. There’s something about timing that obviously escapes the management of POAL, probably inexperience and a display of a lack of skills set.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
So is THAT why the Union rejected all the offers? They figured that commercial pressure would be on POAL to settle? So the Union isnt looking for fair pay, it is looking for more than fair pay. This must be the case, because without the commercial pressure they would be willing to take less.
Which would mean, in reality, it is the Union’s desire to enrich their members beyond a fair level which has cost Auckland.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
No? You must have hit the nail DavidC…
January 9th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
That is the sort of attitude which is dooming the Unions to a well deserved oblivion: management is stupid for not giving us what we want. Sure we’re looking for more than what we’re worth…
January 9th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Now Socialist Aotearoa is accusing Len Brown of being a “scab”. So much for the caring, sensitive Left, who always berate the Right for being nasty
http://socialistaotearoa.blogspot.com/2012/01/len-brown-is-scab.html
January 9th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
‘Kimble (2,877) Says:
January 9th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
There’s something about timing that obviously escapes the management of POAL, probably inexperience and a display of a lack of skills set.
So is THAT why the Union rejected all the offers? They figured that commercial pressure would be on POAL to settle? So the Union isnt looking for fair pay, it is looking for more than fair pay. This must be the case, because without the commercial pressure they would be willing to take less.
Which would mean, in reality, it is the Union’s desire to enrich their members beyond a fair level which has cost Auckland.’
Read the headline, Gibson rejected the offer of no wage increase. Keep up.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
“Gibson rejected the offer of no wage increase.”
Yes he did, because it came with a very big string attached – no flexibility.
If Gibson sticks to his guns and gets the contracting-out through, he’ll never have to buy himself a beer again. He could run for Mayor and get the job for life.
January 9th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
KS: I really thought that level of class warfare rhetoric had died out! Plus ca meme chose… I guess….right down to the poor spelling and inaccuracy…I particularly liked the bit about the wharfies “fighting for a living wage…” !! I’d be ecstatic to be earning $91k at the moment…. they must have bloody expensive “living costs” !!
January 9th, 2012 at 9:51 pm
My instincts are to favour the company, but there is too much bigotry in these comments, and the debate overall.
In the old days, reasonably impartial journalists would have helped the public decide the rights and wrongs of complex issues like this. They are gone. Now, where do we get impartial and trustted information?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
NOW FOR THE WORKERS’ SIDE OF THE STORY!
http://www.munz.org.nz/ports-of-auckland-dispute/
“Port of Auckland Dispute Fact Sheet, 8 January 2012
Prepared by NZCTU and MUNZ
A PDF version of this fact sheet can be downloaded here.
What has happened in this dispute?
The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) and Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) have been negotiating to renew the collective agreement at the port since 6th September 2011. The previous collective agreement was reached on the 01/07/09 and expired on the 30th September 2011.
The parties were close to settlement based on the current collective agreement including extending the use of the productivity tool ‘TRACC’ which is already working successfully in some parts of the Ports to assess how productivity improvements in the stevedoring sector can continue to be achieved at the Port.
However Port management pre-empted this exercise by demanding a short time frame based on a hybrid TRACC based assessment. The union is still prepared to work with TRACC in the belief that it may well contribute to improved performance in the Port.
Retaining the conditions is primary to the union especially as during the term of the previous collective the Port Company attempted to contract out substantial areas covered by the collective agreement (Crane driving, Straddle driving, lashing etc)
In regards to this, a major outstanding issue between the parties was the union’s concern that management, during the term of the last agreement, did succeed in contracting out the jobs for driving four shuttles used for moving containers in the port. Management did so with a predetermined agenda and a farcical consultation period with the union. The Shuttles move containers between berths. The work of these shuttles has been contracted to a company Conlinxx which is 90% owned by the Ports of Auckland. Port Company employees sit on the board for this company.
The union wants POAL to agree that stevedores employed by it and covered by the collective agreement will operate the shuttles and not be disadvantaged by the contracting model. This issue led to the union’s first strike notice
Subsequently, the company’s position changed dramatically. While still refusing to end the contracting of the shuttles, it has demanded a new agreement and is now saying this new agreement is its final offer.
This new agreement completely changes the way that workers in the Port are rostered. The company are saying it will give it flexibility. The workers are saying it effectively reduces security of employment altogether.
A small group of non-union members on the Port have signed new individual agreements, which contain these changed conditions. In exchange, their wages have been increased by 10% but under the new rostering arrangement, they may/will end up earning less than the current arrangements. The union position is clear. It does not want the 10%; it wants secure, ordered and transparent rosters for its members.
The union has been committed to good faith bargaining throughout and wants to reach an acceptable new agreement. In particular, it has sought negotiations throughout the Christmas period. The company has not made itself available to bargain in that period.
The company says it has made nine offers, but none has been acceptable to the union because the offers have simply been variations on the unacceptable new terms. On the main issue – rostering – management has not moved its position at all. The union wants to retain its current agreement, the substance of which it is prepared to negotiate, but it will not sacrifice the employment security of its members – neither should it!
Union members are committed to the success of the company, and to building on the performance improvements already achieved and recognised in the company’s annual review. Such improvements do not require the casualisation of work demanded by the company.
In order to settle MUNZ have put the following proposal to the Port for settlement:
The existing container shuttles on the Ports of Auckland waterfront to be operated on a 24/7 basis by Port employees. The union accepts that arrangements for the handling of any “overflow” can be negotiated.
A realistic wage increase (2.5% for a 6 month term), with the current collective agreement and all terms and conditions including rosters rolled over for the term of the agreement.
The parties agree to use the TRACC methodology to investigate any changes that can be agreed to improve productivity and rosters over the six month settlement period. This can include other issues such as the sunset clause
AA’s to have access to overtime in the lash as per previous policy.
The Company will not contract out jobs during the term of the agreement.
The Company agrees to negotiate a schedule into the Collective Agreement that covers the planners, controllers and cargo officers.
The Union will agree a drug and alcohol policy that is based on Saliva testing in line with its “Not at Work Mate Policy”.
Casuals will not be used to drive machinery.
Management is yet to respond to this offer. ….”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Penny Bright
waterpressure@gmail.com
January 9th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Game set and match…Penny is the public face of the union!!
January 9th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
http://www.munz.org.nz/ports-of-auckland-dispute/
“Port of Auckland Dispute Fact Sheet, 8 January 2012
Prepared by NZCTU and MUNZ
“How much do these workers get paid?
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.
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.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Penny Bright
waterpressure@gmail.com
January 9th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
“Game set and match…Penny is the public face of the union!!”
errrr…. no David.
I have provided information directly from the union – so people can read it for themselves.
In order to assist informed debate on Kiwiblog.
(I know – how WILD is THAT?
‘Natural justice’ /’freedom of expression’ / hearing both sides of the story FROM SOURCE – sort of thing……
Kind regards
Penny Bright
waterpressure@gmail.com
January 9th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
How many people here work only 40 hours a week?
Out. Of. Touch.
How many people here get paid overtime?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
What kind of “straddle” do you drive when you are at the wharf Penny?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
“Fact” and “Penny Bright” are mutually exclusive.
January 9th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
..and that’s very big of the bruvvers to agree to workplace drug testing….it wasnt so long ago that Andrew Little MP was vehemently opposed to such an invasion of workers rights….for people maintaining aircraft at Air NZ FFS…
Local 13 [they must have been watching too much TV] of MUNZ is indeed progressive…. Probably best if you absented yourself on drug testing day though Penny….or at least carry your prescription with you at all times…
January 9th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
MUNZ are munted.
cheers
David Prosser
January 9th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Since you are apparently “the horses mouth” (God, dont lets go there….) Penny….do you work a particular wharf with your straddle, or are you able to cope with a number of positions…and roles?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
“the business will become more efficient and therefore will serve the interests of the business of Aucklnad”
At the end of the day, Monty, that is and has always been the narrow view of the political right and their cronies. To hell with workers and their quality of life.
Thank god for the hard slog of workers/unionists over the years. It’s funny that in industries where unions are weak, workers and their pay and conditions have suffered immensely. However, in industries where unions have remained strong (teachers, nurses, doctors, miners, wharfies, rail, etc), our pay and conditions have remained strong or have continued to increase.
January 9th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
“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.”
Do the math penny tarnished 104000 per year! shit were do I sign.
There IS a difference to being at work and working.
January 9th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
FYP
January 9th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Red Sam: (Points for honesty at least)…do tell us…what sort of “worker” are you” What industry?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
How much better would education, health, mining, our ports, and rail (!) be if resources were able to be allocated more efficiently?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Come on Sam, dont be shy… this isn’t The Stranded…no-one is going to ban you here…as long as you dont defame people and keep the trolling in check…perhaps you could explain that “we are all for free speech as long as you agree with us” leftie thing while you are over here…
And Penny…are you back at Trades Hall (or whatever they call it these days) getting a briefing on what to say next? Come back!!
January 9th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Or are you working the wharf Penny??
January 9th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
So Penny; do you agree with Socialist Aotearoa’s description of Len Brown as a “scab”?
January 9th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
I always thought a scab was part of the healing process
January 9th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Beautox: No, apparently not…the kind and caring folks at socialist aotearoa have helpfully provided a drawing of one for our edification….if you have read your Dickens, “lickspittle” would probably be a good synonym…. but then I am apparently a “class traitor” (among other things) for having left the oil rigs and gone and got a law degree…
January 9th, 2012 at 11:05 pm
No fun these “workers”…they come in, get us all interested, then scuttle off back to where they feel at home….
January 9th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
They don’t make workers like they used to David…
January 9th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
What are you drinking David?
January 10th, 2012 at 12:05 am
somewhatthoughtful said;
It seems the most likely way to be worse off is being a union member – no pay and about to lose your job…. All that because MUNZ are more concerned with pushing the Labour party agenda than protecting the workers. scum.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:31 am
” Look Penny, Over there”…scuttles off in another direction..
January 10th, 2012 at 12:51 am
I hope some of the union bashers here get put into positions where they could take advantage of being a monopsonist group that thanks to the structure of an industry, perhaps where a natural, regional monopoly exists or where they are in a great position to disrupt the business of their employer, and reduce its competitiveness, to such an extent that they are able to extract a share of profits in excess of their market value (oh but still pay lip service to efficiency and productivity), but instead end up being exposed to the grown up world of a post 1970′s, non-centrally planned economy.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:34 am
PoA should have done this straight away, instead of trying to “negotiate” with the union. Auckland ratepayers are now poorer for this decision.
January 10th, 2012 at 4:32 am
Nostalgia NZ
“we should also pretend there’ll be no reactions from unions overseas regarding ships sailing to Auckland, no efforts to stop truck and rail movements”. Your true pro union colours are starting to show. When faced with POA choosing to sidestep the MU’s blackmail, you allude to the usual next step in the union playbook – call on their mates to block POA in other ways. Sounds like a re-run of the MEAA’s blatant attempt at trying to shut down The Hobbit. I wonder how that threat worked out. NZers are heartily sick of these threats of economic blackmail. It won’t be a daydream as you allege – it will be the MU’s nightmare and thankfully the importers and exporters of the upper half of the North Island can now plan their economic activity with more certainty.
January 10th, 2012 at 7:16 am
Shift change from insomniacs.
Three points.
Gibson has lost money for the Port, he knows exactly why the strikes are taking place and he didn’t look to capture those issues in a temporary way and keep the Port working. It could easily be argued that he lost the 2 big customers.
Gibson, unlike a small or large business owner, doesn’t lose any money when the business loses money. In this case the owners, rate payers are losing money.
On the hilarity about the drug testing – it’s a pity that drug and alcohol wasn’t the norm in Parliament – otherwise we might still have an Act Party.
To kiwi in america, who is increasingly reminding me of a kiwi in hollywood, none of use are naive enough to ignore the tools of the unions. Putting aside any scripts you may be writing at the moment, you will notice that I have been anti-strike all the way through this argument. Gibson to me doesn’t cut the mustard except for ra rahs with ambitions of seeing an unpleasant situation built.
Finally, dear Lenny, should be demanding of both that work continue and that unresolved issues go to arbitration.
January 10th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Some poor bastard at POA has probably been called back from holiday to draw up a tender. Next POA move will be to give it to MUNZ and ask them to respond. But it will be hollow unless every other stevedore company gets it as well.
January 10th, 2012 at 7:54 am
I thought that Penny Bright’s contribution (the info from the union) was thought-provoking and appears t be at odds with many of the claims made in the media and here. For example the $91,000 salary and apparent greed of the strikers.
I am intrigued as to why so few are atually questioning the manager’s point of view, but rather insulting those who bring any balance or perspective to this. Ultimately we are all employers here if we pay the rates that includes being employers of the management.
My instinct here is that there is too much media info and spin swallowed uncritically here but that the majority of the spin is anti-union. OK that’s a given – given the political leanings of ‘happy mischief’ KB – but this does not explain ultimately to me, why there is such a willingness to swallow mythology.
If KB and the media decided to describe the idea that the moon is made of green cheese, and Penny Bright brough a counter-argument would we nail her up simply on the basis that we ‘don’t like her’? Peoples’ livelihoods are at stake here – and much of this is fiddling while Rome burns – IMO.
January 10th, 2012 at 8:34 am
Lee C – here are the facts (research courtesy of Cactus Kate):
POAL has generous wage and benefit packages for staff under the Collective Agreement. For the year ended 30 June 2011:
o Average wage for a full time stevedore at POAL was $91,480
o Average wage for a part time stevedore at POAL was $65,518
o 53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000
o 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000
· POAL provides:
o Southern Cross medical insurance for the employee and family
o Sick leave of up to 15 days per annum accumulating to 45 days over three years
o Fully paid in house training (no student loans required) to become a lasher, straddle and crane driver
o Five weeks annual leave for shift workers
· Embedded inflexibilities and old-fashioned work practices mean that labour utilisation at POAL is approx. 65% compared to approx. 80% at Port of Tauranga:
o POAL’s crane drivers and deck foremen work on average 5.33 hours for every 8 paid
o Straddle drivers work an average 6 hours out of every 8 paid
o One recent example: stevedores worked 2 hours on an overtime shift but were paid for the whole 8 hour shift.
Now you may still prefer to read the fable perpetuated by the Maritime Union (and parroted by Joe Carolyn / Penny Bright et al) but the figures above are the real deal.
Draw your own conclusions – but please base your evaluation process on fact. [Link was included in my comment at 4.41pm yesterday]
January 10th, 2012 at 8:46 am
I rode my bicycle along Tamaki Drive this morning.
The striking workers were standing in the rain outside the port entrance with their placards. They looked lonely and few in number.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:05 am
These workers knew working hours would be unsocialable yet because of the (on Paper) good pay and benefits decided to sign up. Now the hours aren’t good and they miss quality family time, get another job. We all know that will not happen because the opportunity is there to make a very good living wage with the added benefits of full medical cover. Now it looks like they are going to be replaced, their Unions have done this (no one else).
January 10th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Elaycee.
Fairly obvious as to what jumps out there in the figures you’ve produced. POAL want to not pay a crane driver for example for periods while he may be waiting for work or other logistic events but while he is at work. When you see a stack of truck drivers waiting on the wharf, or at one of the inland ports, or in traffic – sometimes for extended periods, they’re getting paid. That’s fair.
I also note the skill and training required, something many observers belittle.
In all fairness because POAL are using this type of information in their media war, and assuming it is correct, can we also look at some of the saleries of those in management. Thanks.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Elaycee – thank you for the update they certaily look like nice conditions.
My evaluation – or at least my concern is fundamentally that we should be basing our opinions on facts, and there appears to be a discrepancy between the two positions – but while the general foaming and personalising and villifying goes on – it is not advancing the debate or discussion – unless of coure we are to simply accept that the ‘discussion’ is over – in which case thre is going to be a lot of heartache for a lot of families.
I think this should be in arbitration – not played out in the glare of the media and certainly it is dangerous if we begin to consider the blogosphere as some kind of ultimate judgement on how we run our lives. We can all learn by that mistake in the long-run, but hopefully don’t find ourselves out of a job as a result. . . .
January 10th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Lee C – “base our opinions on facts”
I would love to see all of the “facts” regarding the despute laid out for all to see. I am positive the union would not like this to happen though. I think it would be embarrassing for them.
Nostalgia NZ – “In all fairness because POAL are using this type of information in their media war, and assuming it is correct, can we also look at some of the saleries of those in management. Thanks.”
Management aren’t involved in holding back thier labour (costing Auckland millions of dollars) so what they earn is a red herring.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Management aren’t involved in holding back thier labour (costing Auckland millions of dollars) so what they earn is a red herring.
WTF – these idiots are council appointed job for life time serving incompetents. The idiots have overseen shutdown upon shutdown in port operations and whatever they are being paid is too much. Them and the union share the same slack-arsed attitude, they’re useless.
If Len Brown wakes up tomorrow with half a brain he’ll contract out the port operation to DP World or APM Terminals or someoneelse competent. Then the management can join the workers in applying for jobs with the new contractor. I’d at best reckon 80% of the workers and 30% of management would be employed.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:39 am
“Red Sam: (Points for honesty at least)…do tell us…what sort of “worker” are you” What industry?”
I work as a school teacher, David. I’m not shy. I always feel at home discussing and debating politics.
“How much better would education, health, mining, our ports, and rail (!) be if resources were able to be allocated more efficiently?”
If you had your way Kimble, I bet you’d have all these areas privatised and let the market rule. What a recipe for disaster and further unemployment.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:44 am
Wayne91,
Of course they aren’t holding back their labour. Who would when you earn that much?
But if the terms of everyone else’s arrangement needs to be changed to cut costs, what changes will be made to the conditions and pay for management in order to be more efficient? Moreover, why do they not share any responsibility for the cost of unions going on strike? Isn’t employment a negotiation between employer and employee? Surely both parties share responsibility for negotiating a reasonable compromise.
If it is true that POAL do not want to pay their workers while they are at work then that would seem unreasonable.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:50 am
Not entirely, no.
Well, the mines are private, so are the ports, and so is rail (finally). And that recipe for disaster has produced what?
Which are the better hospitals and schools? Public, or private? People are on waiting lists for both private schools and public hospitals, but not for the same reasons.
A big problem you Unionists have is that your collective labour mindset forces you to think of everything in those terms.
Because you are the monopsonist provider of labour, you think the other side of the bargaining table should be similarly collectivist. Hence you think that everything should be run centrally.
So because you want to extract greater rents for your members (and screw the unemployed), you try to inflict central planning on everyone else. Once again, others paying the costs of your selfishness.
January 10th, 2012 at 10:56 am
Actually I have no idea how competent the management is or what they earn – totally seprate issue and a red herring to the current dispute.
Weihana “Of course they aren’t holding back their labour. Who would when you earn that much?”
The members of the union that have gone on strike would, thats who.
Why do they not share the responsibilty for the cost of the unions going on strike? Well one would need to know all of the facts to answer that properly, so can you tell me speciffically how the management is responsible for causing the strike?
January 10th, 2012 at 10:58 am
From the NZ Herald
Looking at it for what, then? Huh?
Saying that isnt a threat of industrial action is the same as me starting a sentence with “no offence, but…” and proceeding to call you a trade union “movement”.
January 10th, 2012 at 11:07 am
I get it : Wharfies are the 1% that occupiers are rattling on about……
Love the ultimatum, that union is stuck in the dark ages and needs to go back to mother england…..
January 10th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Kimble,
Which are the better hospitals and schools? Public, or private? People are on waiting lists for both private schools and public hospitals, but not for the same reasons.
Is it a fair comparison? The private hospitals take only those who can pay. The public hospitals must take everyone. The United States has more of a user pays health system yet per capita they pay three times as much as we do for health services. Are they three times as healthy? Perhaps “socialized medicine” is more efficient.
Similarly private schools do not have to take children from poor neighbourhoods with useless parents. They take children from households that are motivated enough to care.
January 10th, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Wayne91,
I don’t have all the facts either, but I do know they are a party to the negotiation and so share responsibility for reaching a reasonable compromise. They may be unreasonable or they may not be. If they want to not pay workers while they are at work, as has been claimed, then that to me says they are unreasonable.
Also I don’t think what management earns is a red herring. While you may partition your mind and consider only the issue at hand, the reality is that what management earns has an impact on how the workers feel about their own pay and conditions especially if cuts have to be made because the marketplace has supposedly changed. How workers feel about their treatment, as compared to that of management, will affect their productivity and their attitudes towards negotiating an agreement.
At the end of the day both the union and the executives that run the business are going to be selfish and try and get what’s best for themselves. Perhaps if the income for management were reduced they might go elsewhere meaning the company must make do with management of a lower standard. I tend to think you could still attract substantial talent while reducing the amount paid to management and the savings could be used to incentivize greater productivity amongst those who are paid significantly less and whose productivity is more influenced by how much they are paid. Alternatively, maybe everyone should take a cut to increase the efficiency of the business. But to expect the workers to ignore what their bosses are paid while they are told belts need to be tightened seems unrealistic.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Yep, you could attract young manager after young manager looking to gain experience. Which is fortunate, because you will need to, with each young manager graduating and accepting higher salaries offered elsewhere.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Im not the one being unfair. The quesiton is, which would YOU choose?
So? The fact remains private healthcare and private education are better than public. I didnt argue for total privatisation. The other guy brought it up, saying it would be a complete disaster.
Please explain how the inflated costs of healthcare in the US is due to too much competition.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
The POA (or any NZ port for that matter) just should not be owned by a council controlled entity. The wharves and associated land could be but the berths and the business associated with working the ships should be run by companies such as DP World or Patricks or similar. The council company would only be the landlord.
Imagine the scenario of POT owned by DP World and POA owned by Patricks. The competition between the two ports would be intense resulting in lower costs for exporters and importers and shipping companies and the overall efficiencies would be better for NZ Inc.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Nostalgia-NZ says: “In all fairness because POAL are using this type of information in their media war, and assuming it is correct, can we also look at some of the saleries of those in management. Thanks.”
Why? The management team aren’t on strike! But using your logic, should we also look at the salaries of the Maritime Union officials? Nah – of course not.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
By all means. It’s a schizo argument anyway, POAL are trying to argue that the naughty dockers won’t take more money – a world first in bs.
January 10th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
If you could get this wrong this badly, why should anyone give you credit for anything else you say?
POAL is arguing that what they have offered is generous as far as anyone else in NZ is concerned.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Kimble (2,891) Says:
January 10th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
…which would YOU choose?
…The fact remains private healthcare and private education are better than public. I didnt argue for total privatisation.
Public and private hospitals are playing a different game. One seeks to provide healthcare to people who can pay the price they demand, the other seeks to provide healthcare to those who can’t afford it using the government’s limited funds. That I would likely choose to go private for myself, if I have the money, does not make private “better” in a general sense as you seem to be suggesting. To say one is better than the other is meaningless unless you identify an equal standard of comparison.
Please explain how the inflated costs of healthcare in the US is due to too much competition.
I didn’t say it was as such. But I think a lot of waste can be attributed to the private model including the encouragement of overtreatment to avoid lawsuits, discouragement of early diagnosis for people who then let their condition deteriorate until they are forced into hospital at much greater cost, as well as the added cost of administering a more complex system.
January 10th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
‘Kimble (2,893) Says:
January 10th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
POAL are trying to argue that the naughty dockers won’t take more money
If you could get this wrong this badly, why should anyone give you credit for anything else you say?
POAL is arguing that what they have offered is generous as far as anyone else in NZ is concerned.’
Of course, how silly of me, ‘up to $10,000 more’ is actually less.
Gibson has already displayed he doesn’t understand how to run POAL, if he did he wouldn’t be losing business, and certainly not over issues that could be diverted until they’re settled. He’s costing Aucklander’s money with his prehistoric tactics and bs.
January 10th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Nostalgia-NZ says: “He’s costing Aucklander’s money with his prehistoric tactics and bs.”
Should be:
The Maritime Union is costing Auckland ratepayers money, with their prehistoric tactics and bullshit.
FIFY.
January 10th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
>What are you drinking David?
Gibson’s pocket mini-bar.
January 10th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
The only thing that MUNZ are doing is hastening their own demise.
Why? One word – automation.
Behold – I present to you the world’s first automated straddle-carrier port (at Brisbane) –
http://www.kalmarind.com/show.php?id=2763
Computers don’t go on strike. They don’t join unions. They don’t demand overtime.
Just as containers replaced cargo slung in cargo-nets, these automated carriers will replace the watersiders.
Farewell, MUNZ. You will not be missed.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
You claim “The average wage for a wharfie there is $91,000 a year. It is likely to exceed $100,000 a year under the POA offer.”
Actually it is not likely to increase. It is likely to decrease because the way to increase productivity is to deal with practices where a wharfie gets paid 68 hours wages for 42 hours work. The $91,000 apparently represents this amount of pay and work approximately. The idea being wharfies are being paid for actual hours worked means they are likely to take a pay cut.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Dear Publc Watchdog, the union has no right to demand that its members carry out certain duties like the shuttles, they are not running the wharfs. the Port Company is.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Dear Pubic Watchdog
We all know wharfies are overpaid, they could be working 42 hours and getting paid for 68, then we can easily understand how they get to 91,000
January 12th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
So PW the union asks basically for the existing terms and conditions to be rolled over. Obvoiously this would be unacceptable to management, the union dinosaur has no clues.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Dear Nostalgia
There is a difference between turning up to work on a regular hours whether there is a ship or work happening or not, compared to what the port company wants which is shifts based around the knowledge the people are actually needed to work on a shhip. In saying that the port company is prepared to guarantee 160 hours work per month to its full time employees. But the workers shifts will be based around them being needed to work on a ship that has come into the port rather than they turn up to work at a fixed start time and see if there is actually any to be done.