Ports of Auckland

**Swoop** · 15th March 2012, 13:05

Originally Posted by Zedder

The Maritime Union is using a different promotional mix that's all.

It seems it's quite difficult for the radio station you mentioned to put a balanced reply across as well, by the sound of it they're pro Ports of Auckland.

It's not a radio station bias or commentary. My first post said "advertising" as it is an advert for a company (PoA) wanting employees. The radio station is broadcasting an advert.

**Zedder** · 15th March 2012, 13:19

Originally Posted by Swoop

It's not a radio station bias or commentary. My first post said "advertising" as it is an advert for a company (PoA) wanting employees. The radio station is broadcasting an advert.

It's not about the advertising. You used the term rebuttal which is associated with refuting an argument not an advert. I gathered from that the station hadn't broadcast anything at all about the Unions side of the issue.

**Winston001** · 15th March 2012, 13:49

Originally Posted by Zedder

I think you need to read up about the entity that is the Ports of Auckland plus how the legislation surrounding it affects the Mayor's power of intervention etc.

Good point so I've tried but not found any explanation yet.

So far as I can tell, POA is owned by an Auckland Council subsidiary company, Auckland Council Investments Ltd. Many local authorities hold their operating businesses in subsidiary companies - it helps to keep them separate from day to day council responsibilities.

Fine. However the directors of the investment arm should be appointed by the council and can be instructed by the council as to what they must do. The classic example is the Auckland Council requirement that POA return 12% in the future. If the council was really powerless that requirement could not be made.

Ok, Len Brown as mayor can't do this himself - I get that. Nevertheless the Ak council could pass a resolution as 100% shareholder to solve the problem - or at least have an open debate.

Happy to be corrected.

**Winston001** · 15th March 2012, 14:04

Originally Posted by JMemonic

There has been talk here of where is the unions major campaign to say what is going on, I got sent this so if you have not seen the unions answer to the POAL advertising here it is.

O and POAL place full pace adverts in the Christchurch press how the hell does that no scream that they are using huge money in there side with us advertising, what worse so many are falling for it.

To my surprise the balance of money and talent is more even between POA and the Union than I thought.

"This is an alliance of trade unions, a corporate finance consultancy, a logistics company and a city business association. There are probably not many things all four could agree on, but the future of the port appears to have galvanised them into togetherness.

Heart of the City employed public relations firm Pead PR last month to rark up fears of massive encroachment on the harbour by a giant port parking lot.

This was followed last week by its participation in a new ginger group headed by consultancy Grant Samuel.

The Council of Trade Unions has also joined the ginger group, focusing on its support for the Maritime Union in its battle with the port over working conditions.

All of them are calling on the port's owner Auckland City Council to abandon its focus on maximising profit from the asset and instead think about the wider impact on the city of the port's operation."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blog...the-waterfront

That's a lot of clever influential people who normally wouldn't be in the same room. And yet, my perusal of newspapers, TV news, National Radio, and blogs hasn't revealed strong arguments from the Maritime Union. They just continue to say they won't agree to new work conditions when those conditions already exist at other ports.

**gatch** · 15th March 2012, 14:10

Originally Posted by SimJen

$27+ an hour is still a damn good rate!
In the industry I work in (engineering) thats Foreman rates for a very skilled guy!
These guys are nowhere near as skilled!!! Fact!

Tell me about it. I'm fitter/turner. Aside from machining just about everything under the sun, I braze, solder, heights trained, first aid, deal direct with customers, price some jobs, site maintenance, operate hiabs etc. Basically unless it's heavy fab/boiler work, I can build it or fix it. $21/hr...

**Zedder** · 15th March 2012, 14:28

Originally Posted by Winston001

Good point so I've tried but not found any explanation yet.

So far as I can tell, POA is owned by an Auckland Council subsidiary company, Auckland Council Investments Ltd. Many local authorities hold their operating businesses in subsidiary companies - it helps to keep them separate from day to day council responsibilities.

Fine. However the directors of the investment arm should be appointed by the council and can be instructed by the council as to what they must do. The classic example is the Auckland Council requirement that POA return 12% in the future. If the council was really powerless that requirement could not be made.

Ok, Len Brown as mayor can't do this himself - I get that. Nevertheless the Ak council could pass a resolution as 100% shareholder to solve the problem - or at least have an open debate.

Happy to be corrected.

Good God man, I should be doing something really important like riding my motorbike but here I am doing this.

But seriously, Len Brown can't take sides and must only do what's right for Aucklanders in this dispute under the legislation for a CCO. It's the same concept as John Key not being able to run an SOE as far as I can tell.

As far as the 12% target goes, it's not a Return on Investment, Return On Assets or Dividend Return but a Return On Equity. It was given the ok by Council based on advice by POA and ACIL and not set by Council.

**pete376403** · 15th March 2012, 15:05

Originally Posted by Bald Eagle

That's better money than I make after 12 yerars in I/T - I might go north and start driving a crane

$56k per year (27 X 40 X 52) is not that startling, and not that much above the NZ average of $47K9 http://www2.careers.govt.nz/jobs-dat...ho-earns-what/

**JMemonic** · 15th March 2012, 15:54

Originally Posted by avgas

You may be pleasantly supprised to find out what actually happens.

Yes I was, the banks and lenders all said get a full time job, or have a guarantee that you will at least earn the equivalent of 32 hours per week.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th March 2012, 07:32

Originally Posted by pete376403

$56k per year (27 X 40 X 52) is not that startling, and not that much above the NZ average of $47K

Meanwhile, in the real world, hundreds of thousands earn $13.00ph and may work 50/60 hours a week and gross maybe $35000pa...while a few 'earn' millions a year.
The 'average' income figure is so misleading...

**avgas** · 16th March 2012, 09:07

Originally Posted by JMemonic

Yes I was, the banks and lenders all said get a full time job, or have a guarantee that you will at least earn the equivalent of 32 hours per week.

Yep. Gone are the bad old days when the lend you money you could never pay back (in 35 years).
Mate just got a $400K loan and he contracts out atleast 20 hours a week. So I am guessing he is getting paid more than you.
So in your case "the numbers don't add up". The debt outways your income and they need more hours (or $) on the clock.
They would have assumed that your not likely to get a pay increase in the next 2 years, but can't make the assumption that intrest rates will remain the same with the euro crisis happening.

Which is kind of understandable when you think about what happend in 2008/09.

But feel free to slag the banks some more for using common sense. Banks don't give a fuck what your occupation is, so long as you have the $ to pay the bills.

**Zedder** · 16th March 2012, 09:30

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Meanwhile, in the real world, hundreds of thousands earn $13.00ph and may work 50/60 hours a week and gross maybe $35000pa...while a few 'earn' millions a year.
The 'average' income figure is so misleading...

The hundreds of thousands earning x amount creates the average though. Those earning large amounts (way above the usual) only slighly affect the figures 'cos there aint many of them.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th March 2012, 11:32

Originally Posted by Zedder

The hundreds of thousands earning x amount creates the average though. Those earning large amounts (way above the usual) only slighly affect the figures 'cos there aint many of them.

Not so.
Everybody who earns has their income added to all the others and then divided by the number of incomes. That gives the average, and there are more than enough with incomes in the millions to drag the average up to an unrealistic level. The median income would tell an entirely different story.

**Maha** · 16th March 2012, 11:36

Thats correct John..the average wage/salary projected, is from ''snotty Richard scanning your frozens at the checkout'' through to ''here, let me take the rest of what you have left' Mr Lawyer.

**MSTRS:Me** · 16th March 2012, 11:46

What does the CEO of Telecom 'earn' ?
$5M+, is it not. His income is not unusual at that level.
That takes care of 106 people at the so-called 'average' income.

**mashman** · 16th March 2012, 12:34

Originally Posted by MSTRS

What does the CEO of Telecom 'earn' ?
$5M+, is it not. His income is not unusual at that level.
That takes care of 106 people at the so-called 'average' income.

106 earn their share of 5mill (avg = 47169+change) and 1 person earns 5mill...

they could all be taking home 93457+change

(wonder how long the business would last without the 106 people v's 1?)