Ports of Auckland

**Macontour** · 13th March 2012, 18:22

Just saw the strikers on tv. Apparently they are getting $300 a week from the Union. So let me get this straight...they earn close to $100k pa ie about 1800 per week and they are standing around protesting about their work conditions and getting only $300.

So 6 weeks of Union assitance is worth one weeks normal pay. Is the Union assistance taxed? It is income after all.

And how long before they start getting cars and stuff repossessed and their better halves start kicking their butts for lack of earnings related lifestyle?

**madkiwi** · 13th March 2012, 18:29

Read the Ernest and young report that is now on ports of Auckland website. Normal they work 26 hours of a 40 hour week. 120 odd individuals on around $91000, 40 on over $100000 and highest paid stevedore on over $122000.
All the port asked was the guys work a 8 hour shift not come in for a few hours of a shift then leave with 8 hours pay.

**madkiwi** · 13th March 2012, 18:30

Plus 5 weeks holiday and 15 days sick leave per year.

**Berries** · 13th March 2012, 18:36

Originally Posted by avgas

Don't even get me started about career bases associations. IPENZ make my blood boil.

You've started, might as well get it out.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 13th March 2012, 18:51

Good to see we are waking up to them. Campbell actually delivered the right side of a story for a change.

I rode past them again this morning (not many there) and shook my head at them again.

They are a bunch of parasitic fools who got exactly what they deserved.

No sympathy from me. Good bloody job I say.

**Robert Taylor** · 13th March 2012, 18:59

Originally Posted by madkiwi

Read the Ernest and young report that is now on ports of Auckland website. Normal they work 26 hours of a 40 hour week. 120 odd individuals on around $91000, 40 on over $100000 and highest paid stevedore on over $122000.
All the port asked was the guys work a 8 hour shift not come in for a few hours of a shift then leave with 8 hours pay.

Whatever happened to the principle of an honest days work for an honest days pay? Neither underpaid or overpaid.These morons are grossly overpaid for what they do. ( As in fairness so are many CEOs and managers. ) They have proven themselves to be out of touch with the real world, more trouble than they are worth and essentially unemployable.
I too remember the bad old days of Tom Skinner and a whole load of militant pommy immigrants poisoning the workforce with the same mentality that bought much of the UKs industrial capacity to its knees in the 70s. Then there was the case of the Patea Freezing works that suffered endless pilfering by many in the workforce and poor productivity, strikes and so on. Its aristocratic English owner said ''if you dont sort your act out I will close it down''. They didnt, he did. And they got their just desserts for robbing the hand that fed them.
If I ran my business with the same mentality as these morons I wouldnt have a business.

**RDJ** · 13th March 2012, 19:15

They don't need to run their business your way Robert - they can always try and prise more from your before-tax income to make up any shortfall they perceive.

"He who increases taxes on Peter to pay Paul more benefits, can always relay on the support of Paul".

**nodrog:Me** · 13th March 2012, 19:16

I think I better learn how to drive one of those giant shopping trolleys things. Does the AA have a course for that?

**TrentNz** · 13th March 2012, 19:19

Their works not even hard, and they get paid pretty well.
what the fuck are they complaining about.

**BoristheBiter** · 13th March 2012, 19:24

Originally Posted by TrentNz

Their works not even hard, and they get paid pretty well.
what the fuck are they complaining about.

Having to actually do some work

**pete376403** · 13th March 2012, 19:25

[QUOTE=madkiwi;1130280725All the port asked was the guys work a 8 hour shift not come in for a few hours of a shift then leave with 8 hours pay.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a citation for this? Seems very much at odds with what the unions are saying, i.e that the ports want to casualise the labour force ("come in and get paid when we've got something for you, otherwise, bugger off")

**tri boy** · 13th March 2012, 19:26

Well,I support the workers.
Flame me if you like.

They asked for a reasonable increase, and are trying to hold onto the conditions that they were awarded by POA.

The economic times have changed alot since, but I don't hear uppermangament falling on any swords to help reach that %12 dream.

Fight on boys.
And AFFCO
And the aged care workers.

**Robert Taylor** · 13th March 2012, 19:27

Originally Posted by RDJ

They don't need to run their business your way Robert - they can always try and prise more from your before-tax income to make up any shortfall they perceive.

"He who increases taxes on Peter to pay Paul more benefits, can always relay on the support of Paul".

I saw it somewhere else and it is so true.......

''There are those that work for a living and there are those that vote for a living. Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work''

**Robert Taylor** · 13th March 2012, 19:30

Originally Posted by tri boy

Well,I support the workers.
Flame me if you like.

They asked for a reasonable increase, and are trying to hold onto the conditions that they were awarded by POA.

The economic times have changed alot since, but I don't hear uppermangament falling on any swords to help reach that %12 dream.

Fight on boys.
And AFFCO
And the aged care workers.

Aged care workers are overworked and grossly underpaid. Fair point much of upper mangement in many industries are grossly overpaid, but so are these port workers.

**caspernz** · 13th March 2012, 19:35

Originally Posted by SPman

Have any of you guys actually read what's going on there?
Or are you mouthing off on what you read in the Herald and the general shit stirring against the Unions by all and sundry.
POAL is ,/was actually a quite efficient operation. Hong Kong which has far lower wages on much greater turnover, produces 7.7% returns. Auckland is around 6% Melbourne’s return on equity was 2.6%, Wellington’s was 2.9% and Sydney’s was 6.9%.

The wages figures quoted are bullshit - as even a cursory look at the figures would show. The unions were being extremely reasonable. The 12% return figure is so far off this planet, it's laughable! The 12% that someone assured the council could be achieved was based purely on cherry picking from specialised ports that bear no relationship to the Ports of Auckland operations. The only way they'd get even vaguely near that would be to have free labour - which is, in a way, what they want.

The POAL chairman was previously a manager for Hutchison Port Holdings Group - a private company that is extending it's "assets" in the Asia/Pacific area. He was appointed by Rodney Hide when he was setting up the Greater Auckland City to privatise it's assets!
What's one way of getting a cheap port - run it into the ground and then buy it cheap to get it off Auckland Cities hands.

As usual, the Public are being played for suckers - divide and rule - use the "fucking unions" bait and switch technique. We all know that the "poor old bosses" are being given the shaft........yeah, right!

Wake up people, as usual, you're being taken for a ride, and it seems most of you will go willingly down to the drop off at the cliff!

Wow!! Someone on here actually gets what this is all about. I thought it was just me.