Ports of Auckland loses Fonterra
Ports of Auckland have confirmed today that Fonterra had decided to move its export shipments from Auckland to other ports, from the end of January because of ongoing strike action at the port by the Maritime Union.
This will see weekly trade worth around $27m go through the ports of Tauranga and Napier instead of Auckland.
Now readers will recall that the average wage for a FT wharfie in Auckland is $91,000. This is for an unskilled job where training is on the job. But what is POA offering the union?
- a 10 per cent rise on hourly rates
- performance bonuses of up to 20% on hourly rates
- retention of existing benefits and entitlements
- a new roster system that will provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance
Those slave labour drivers. A 10% increase on hourly rates would push the average FT salary to around $100,000 a year. And 20% performance bonuses is just an evil capitalist divide and conquer strategy. If you start paying staff performance bonuses, then the good staff will end up getting paid more than the bad staff.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
January 4th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Unionism at its worst.
January 4th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
I suspect there’s some more information here – what hours are they working, what allowances (hazard allowances perhaps?), and when did they last get a pay rise.
But, bottom line, $90K, going to $100K, is a lot of money for an unskilled job. Plenty of people in NZ would do that job for less – and indeed appear to be doing so in other ports. That’s the problem unions create – they capture benefits for their members to the detriment of the organisation they work for, and the people who are excluded from those benefits. Not so much of a problem if the company can just go broke (admittedly, not so good for the owners, but realistically it limits union power), but for something like a port that has a regional monopoly, unions can drive real incremental pay.
January 4th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
News from next week: surgeons denied that the increase in deaths of those on waiting lists has anything to do with their decision to extend on-going strike action, citing the greed of their employers as the ultimate cause.
January 4th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Apparently the union have said that Fonterra’s decision has nothing to do with the strike.
Another Tui please.
January 4th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Thanks for a measurable drop in productivity, MUNZ. If ever there was a time in global economic history when we could afford this then its n………ummm, hang on
January 4th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
POA should be offering around a 40% decrease instead of any increase, which just encourages the Union.
January 4th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
so what has LABOURS Labour spokesMan got to say .. this should be right up Labours ally
January 4th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
Sack the idiot CEO, no brains,just nothing , must post on right wing blogs( I HATE WORKERS-I HATE WORKERS)give me a 30.% wage increase, dole bludging scum workers, i will stamp on them.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
The funding are of the Labour party shoots itself in the foot – sensational.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
DPF,
You conveniently ignored the fact that this is the 9th offer from POA. I presume it’s somewhat better than the previous 8. It makes you wonder why the company has been playing silly buggers all this time. The only conclusion is that it is making large sums of money (from its workforce) some of which it can afford to lose by the ongoing industrial action.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
ross: Or, alternatively, they thought $90K was already a lot for unskilled labour, and they were worried they might be uncompetitive with Tauranga. So they tried to avoid a pay rise to people they already thought were overpaid. Since the union has been blackmailing them, they came back with a higher offer to try to avoid strike action.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
The Greens?
January 4th, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Whenever a lefty tells you there is only one conclusion, you can bet on there being more, and theirs being the only one which supports their argument.
Usually that turd will also contain one or more kernels of anti-fact corn. In this case it is that POA makes money from its employees rather than their (dwindling number of) customers.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Make the unionists redundant. Fire them mercilessly. Some of them might enjoy living on the dole.
January 4th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Well here is my 2 cents worth:
Len and his lefties are waiting for POAL to go belly up. Then a lot of land will be sold, enough for a deposit on Uncle Len’s trainset.
Why are the Media not asking Uncle Len for answers? Don’t give me any of that shit about POAL Board and Council can not do anything. The Council (RATEPAYERS) own POAL. Time for some balls
January 4th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
“ross: Or, alternatively, they thought $90K was already a lot for unskilled labour”
PaulL, where did you pluck that figure from, or are you simply parroting DPF, who possibly hasn’t bothered to check whether it is correct?
According to a recent comment on an NBR article about this dispute, a comment from Ports of Auckland, 53% of full time stevedores earn over $80,000. Hmmm, so almost half (47%) of full-time stevedores earn less than $80k.
DPF is becoming more and more untrustworthy. Last year he was banging on about the numbers on the DPB, numbers which turned out to be incorrect and way off the mark. He never did apologise or correct his mistake.
[DPF: My numbers on the DPB were not incorrect and I provided references for them. And the $90K figure comes from POAL and has been widely reported. I suggest you learn the difference between a median and a mean]
January 4th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Holding out on such a good deal is insane. But is it?
What’s the bet some old guys who control the union are wanting a redundancy payout, so they can retire early on a pile of cash. Sure it will screw over the younger stevedores, but who gives a rats eh? There’s no point owning a boat if you don’t have the time to use it.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
“Len and his lefties are waiting for POAL to go belly up”
Why would that happen? POAL is a private company and, as we all know, private companies are always very efficient, highly profitable, and never fail.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
“POAL is a private company”
Ports of Auckland Limited was formed in 1988 and is today 100% owned by Auckland Council Investments Limited, a council controlled investment company.
January 4th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
” According to Parsloe (MU) Ports of Auckland CEO Tony Gibson had repeatedly put around information about wages and hours of work that were inaccurate. The simple fact is that any Ports of Auckland worker earning the amounts stated by Mr Gibson would have to be doing hundreds of hours of overtime a year, over long shifts, round the clock, public holidays and weekends, in highly skilled and responsible roles.”
Further to this he comments that the Maritime union wants job security for their workers going forward – the Management of the port want casualisation of the labour force – it appears there is more to this narrative than simple pay rates.
Interestingly, the current conflict is occurring at a time when most workers and employers are on holiday.
One wonders what Mr Gibson’s salary and perks are?
January 4th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Mellie
Mmm 8 posts – looks like a pro union troll to me. Wages are what the market can bear not what unions can extort. Gone are the days when the wharfies controlled the prosperity of the nation and could use their position of power to extort the highest wages possible. With the Port of Tauranga operating more efficiently if offers exporters and importers a stable and affordable port price and the relative certainty of a stable work force. This simple competitive advantage operates as a market driven outer limit of pay rates for POA – if POA allows its pay rates to get too far out of kilter with Tauranga then the Fonterras of this world switch to the cheaper port to keep their overheads down.
Trolls like you can whine about management salaries and play the class warfare card meanwhile the ratepayers of Auckland must stand by while the MU slowly destroys the value of one of their key assets. The best security a worker can have is a stable profitable company which remains so because it provides consistent quality goods and services to its happy customers. No customers and there is no company and then no job or accompanying work conditions to strike about. Is it time for Mr Gibson to consider the Qantas option?
January 4th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Good on Fontera. I urge all other business owners to follow Fontera’s example and shift their business to Tauranga.
I
January 4th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
KIW is right Mellie you sound like somebody from the union.
Why don’t you come clean and inform us.
The information about wages and condition have been in all the media.
If they are wrong, which you state, why not set the record straight.
Tell us what the real wages and conditions are.
If there is a lot of misinformation as the union has stated before, enlighten us.
January 4th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Mellie won’t tell us fuck all. Mellie is bait trying to throw the problem to POAL Management.
Mellie won’t have a job soon, not even in the Union
January 4th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Come on mellie, tell us what information is incorrect:
• Wharfies work on average 27 hours a week.
• They must be paid for a full eight-hour shift even though they may end up working only a couple of hours.
• A fulltime stevedore earns an average $91,000 a year including medical insurance and superannuation.
• Twenty-eight per cent of the workforce earns over $100,000, the port says.
• Five weeks’ annual leave,
• 15 days of sick leave accruable to 45 days,
• Paid training.
Are they lying?
The port concedes the wharfies do overtime and work unsociable hours to achieve these incomes, but even in a big week they would work at most 44.5 hours and get paid for 66.
January 4th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Kiwi in America
Pejorative language such as ‘extort’ , ‘whines’ and ‘class warfare card’ do not add to your argument.
Further, name calling (troll) is derogatory and detracts from any points that you are trying to make.
I am certainly not from the union as you put it.
Just remember – Intelligence 101 – There are always two sides to every issue.
January 4th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Ross: fully parroting DPF. Do you have any evidence that the pay figures that DPF quotes are wrong? Do you have an alternate figure to quote?
I’ve seen a few of these disputes recently. My experience is that:
1. The unions generally misrepresent the pay, failing to include allowances and overtime that most staff are working. So the question here, if we want to have this discussion, is what the actual total compensation is that the full time workers are taking home, in pay bands. If we’re saying that 47% of these staff get $70K to $80K (excluding overtime), and the rest get more than $80K (excluding overtime), then DPF may be quite correct. And any way you look at it, that’s a lot of money for an unskilled job. I’m sure if you did a spill and fill, and had people apply for those jobs, you’d find lots of people who would do that job just as well for a lot less.
2. The business CEO is usually not representing honestly either. Let’s be clear, this is a port company owned by the council. The odds of the management being competent aren’t all that high. So I’d guess they’re also misrepresenting stuff somewhat, and probably switching strategy along the way to try to get advantage. That’s how it works.
3. The pay of the CEO. Not clear on the relevance of his pay, unless you’re suggesting that his job is also unskilled and could be filled by pretty much anyone with some on-the-job training.
January 4th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
No point in offering a pay rise at all, because at the rate they’re losing clients very soon there will be no work left for stevedores to do.
What a classic example of far-left economic malfunction at its very best (or worst).
January 4th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
“No point in offering a pay rise at all, because at the rate they’re losing clients very soon there will be no work left for stevedores to do.”
The wharfies don’t have to worry, the Auckland ratepayers will pay.
Sandra Coney and Len will look after them.
January 5th, 2012 at 12:58 am
This is exactly the same issue with the teachers unions. They do not want their staff to be measured and found wanting. Unions have no place in modern society, bad bosses get outed on the internet etc. One man can now do more than a Union ever could, so the occasional good story where unions corrected an injustice don’t happen anymore. The public has lost tolerance with their petty vested interests…
January 5th, 2012 at 1:29 am
The gullibility of you all is quite amusing.
In what world do you think a giant logistical machine like Fonterra is going to make such a large knee-jerk decision DURING THE XMAS PERIOD after a couple weeks of strikes in early December?
This has been on the cards for a while now and is just contractual jockeying between ports and carriers, maybe if most of you weren’t rabidly trying to make illusory correlations you’d realise there are two, almost non-related issues at hand here.
January 5th, 2012 at 6:31 am
Mellie
Extort is exactly what the union is trying to do here – I make no apologies for the fact that calling the situation what it is offends your sensibilities. Ross and other pro union advocates in this argument have reliably played the class warfare card as did you when you invited us to chase the red herring of the CEOs salary. CEOs are always paid more than the workers – he/she negotiates the package with the board (in this case directors approved by counsellors elected by Aucklands voters and ratepayers) so the CEOs package has ZERO relevance to the argument – unless of course you are trying to divert attention away from the commercial carnage being wraught upon the POA by this action. So to call it whining is entirely appropriate.
If you want to become part of this debate, don’t cry foul if we call you out for your faulty reasoning and shoddy arguments. I note that you’ve failed to take Other Andy up on his offer – to enlighten us as to the incorrent information or crucial missing points that you allude to. In the blogosphere, to enter an occasional thread, make a claim that is unsubstantiated and then disappear only to return to complain about the tone of the argument is called trolling.
January 5th, 2012 at 7:10 am
Every time I read about the ports strike I thank my lucky stars that Labour didn’t get into power.
The back to the 70′s laws they wanted to implement to significant increase the strength and influence of the unions would have made this kind of activity common place.
Cactus Kate has listed John Key as being man of the year because he saved us (for another three years anyway) of the high spending, performance sapping, economy wrecking power of these groups.
The wharfies strike demonstrates she’s right.
January 5th, 2012 at 7:28 am
ross said
Yes indeed ross; PoAL has been exceedingly tolerant towards the MUNZ and its extortionist tactics. But MUNZ is now hoist by its own petard, as members’ jobs will inevitably disappear.
Surely, the first duty of a union is to PROTECT the jobs of its members; not expose them to the risk of retrenchment.
January 5th, 2012 at 9:20 am
As a Shareholder in Ports of Tauranga long may this stupidity continue.
Maybe Len can’t get back from Waiheke because of it ?
January 5th, 2012 at 10:39 am
So another (major) Company has decided to take it’s business to Napier and Tauranga because of supply chain uncertainty resulting from strike action at the Port of Auckland. In this case, Fonterra has no other option.
The Port of Auckland needs to remind the Unions that this reckless strike action will inevitably result in job losses for the very members they are supposed to represent. But job losses may not be a bad thing – get rid of the lot / contract out the workforce to an organisation who will run the Port of Auckland along the same lines as….. say, Tauranga.
Whilst the leftards on KB will continue to bleat long and hard about ‘union rights’ they clearly forget that the POA actually runs the business and not the muppets at the Maritime Union.
Time for decisions /sackings / restructure / contract out. And the sooner the better.