Ports of Auckland

[JimO]

Gotta feel sorry for the guys who are out on strike in a way,

not if you were around in the 70s and 80s fuck the unions

[Swoop]

What the POA are doing is saying to MUNZ - We will negotiate but no mucking around. Not another 3 months "bargaining" getting nowhere.

Hmm. I see it the other way around, that the management ate the sticking point and refusing to settle negotiations. Not sure why...
Perhaps it was the intransigent attitude of my employer who stalled negotiations for three years and let the employment agreement expire, waiting until their demands were met.

[Hinny]

You are absolutely right and you know why? - because no-one can argue with you.

I'm not Machiavelli.
It is more simple than that.
No 1 rule to winning an argument could be 'don't choose an unwinnable side'.
If you choose an untenable argument then as rationality reaches its limit you are up against it and you just bite.
I'm not sure of what you might have taken offense from but be assured that any offense given was not intended or directed at you.
Although we appear to not agree on some things I do respect your right to your opinion.

Now, where did you put the Seroquel tablets? Yes its time to take one - in fact take two. You'll feel so much better.

That you have knowledge of such medication is .... disturbing; enlightening?

[Winston001]

I'm not Machiavelli.
It is more simple than that.
No 1 rule to winning an argument could be 'don't choose an unwinnable side'.
If you choose an untenable argument then as rationality reaches its limit you are up against it and you just bite.
I'm not sure of what you might have taken offense from but be assured that any offense given was not intended or directed at you.
Although we appear to not agree on some things I do respect your right to your opinion.




That you have knowledge of such medication is .... disturbing; enlightening?

LOL bling sent.

[Bassmatt]

not if you were around in the 70s and 80s fuck the unions

To me this is the exact opposite of what happened in the 70s and 80s

[Winston001]

Hmm. I see it the other way around, that the management ate the sticking point and refusing to settle negotiations. Not sure why...
Perhaps it was the intransigent attitude of my employer who stalled negotiations for three years and let the employment agreement expire, waiting until their demands were met.

Ok I can certainly understand your perspective.

There is a bit of woolly thinking in the general population when it comes to employment law. The law protects workers jobs/conditions and is interpreted by the Employment Courts in favour of workers.

However the "good faith bargaining" rule is believed by many people to mean your employer must bend in negotiations, must give way, must accept the employees counter proposals. Not so.

What good faith does mean is the employer must fairly consider the employee's suggestions and look for reasonable compromises - the employer cannot up-front refuse to listen.

However - as this is the biggie - the employer owns the job. The employer lawfully manages the business and make the best employment decisions required to keep the business operating. If that means new reduced terms of employment, or redundancy, he is able to make that decision. The restriction is he must be able to show good faith and fair process in reaching the final decision.

[SPman]

The Port of Auckland’s refusal to let the stevedores return to work now that they have lifted their strike notice is a lock-out. There are specific legal requirements around strikes and lock-outs at ports and other essential services – notice must be given in writing and with 14 days’ notice. The Port’s lock-out is illegal. And it’s costing Auckland millions.

I’ve collated the relevant provisions of the Employment Relations Act (82(1)(a)(iv), 91(1)(b)(i), 91(2)(a), 83(b)(i), 91(3)(a)(i), and Schedule 1 Part A 7) into a single passage

Lockout means an act that is the act of an employer in refusing or failing to engage employees for any work for which the employer usually employs employees.
No employer engaged in an essential service may lock out any employees who are employed in the essential service the proposed lockout will affect the public interest, including (without limitation) public safety or health; and the proposed lockout relates to bargaining for a collective agreement that will bind each of the employees concerned without having given to the employees’ union or unions and to the chief executive, within 28 days before the date of commencement of the lockout, notice in writing of the employer’s intention to lock out; and before the date specified in the notice as the date on which the lockout will begin.
The notice required must specify the period of notice, being a period that is no less than 14 days in the case of an essential service including the provision of all necessary services in connection with the arrival, berthing, loading, unloading, and departure of ships at a port.

So, clearly what the Port is doing now (“refusing or failing to engage employees for any work for which the employer usually employs employees”) is a lockout. And it has been done without 14 days’ notice as required for a port.

Doesn't seem like good faith to me.......


How much has it cost so far..........

$12.7 million in lost custom so far during the strikes plus $25 million a year to permanently lost Fonterra and Maersk business plus hundreds of thousands for the Port’s PR campaign and legal costs. All of this in an effort to transfer $6 million a year from the workers’ wages to the Port’s profit line. The question now is why Auckland Council is paying Pearson $200,000 a year for two days’ work a week and Tony Gibson $590,000 a year to wreck its port and cost it tens of millions in lost custom and fines, not to mention the wider costs to Auckland economy

.
Costs? Well, Maersk were going to go to Tauranga anyway, but the rest...lookslike ACC's budget is shot for a while........

[Hinny]

Good post.
Apparently I have to spread some bling ...

[SimJen]

interesting comments from the EMA:

From EMA CEO Kim Campbell

The Ports of Auckland lock out announced yesterday had many people asking: What’s going on? Has everybody involved lost the plot?

An informed observation of what’s in the media tells me otherwise. Upon reflection my confidence in the process being followed by the port is unchanged.

The facts are that under our current industrial relations law governing collective agreements, all parties must continue to negotiate to try and come to an agreement. No end point is specified.

But the harsh reality is that there will be occasions when an agreement is not possible and this is plainly one of those times.

The point at issue swings on the Port’s insistence it must retain the authority to contract out the labour required for it to operate. This provision was in the previous collective agreement it had with the Maritime Union which expired last August, and in fact the port has always had this right.

The dispute initially blew up over manning the shuttle service between the port and the inland port. When its staffing became non–unionized, the Maritime Union saw that as the thin edge of a wedge.

The situation now is that the Union seemed to think the Court judgement earlier this week for the parties to return to mediation meant its 300 workers could go back to work as if nothing had happened. They lost sight of the people currently working the port whose rosters were in place, and that those rosters were for 12 hour shifts, no longer 8 hours, and that due to the strikes there was precious little work available. On top of that other procedures had changed; bringing back striking workers would have health and safety implications.

The work being done is also at world class rates of productivity – over 30 container movements an hour. And though operating with only about 30 staff the port has been achieving 30 per cent of normal capacity.

With changed rosters and procedures altered, it is entirely unrealistic for the workers on strike over many weeks to rock up as if nothing had happened.

Then came the lock out notice. This appeared to be an attempt to fight fire with fire. Though the union has been on strike for many weeks, the port, unusually in cases like this, has been prepared to negotiate during the strike action.

On the surface, issuing the lock out notice to apply in 14 days time might seem vindictive but it is in fact the only lever available to remind the union who is paying the bills and that the port’s management must retain its right to manage.

Members who think Mayor Len Brown should intervene may also like to reconsider. The Mayor has hired Alan Galbraith QC to advise him. Mr Galbraith has built an enviable reputation on issues relating to corporate governance which indicates to us that the Mayor may have shifted his inquiry into the murky waters of the city’s governance structures.

As you know, the Ports of Auckland is governed by its Board, which in turn answers to its stakeholder, Auckland Council Investments Ltd (ACIL). The City Council controls these companies by appointing their directors. It has no direct control through the casting of proxy votes.

In normal corporate law, a company’s directors must act in the interests of the company, not its shareholders. The shareholders have the right to appoint the Board.

My personal view is that should Auckland Council try to intervene with what could easily be perceived with political motivations, the port’s directors would likely feel compelled to resign. Though it is possible, though unlikely, that new directors could be found, from a practical standpoint it seems Auckland Council cannot do much to resolve the situation.

However the ownership and location of the port are largely red herrings, and arguably these industrial issues should have been sorted out a decade ago.

The take homes from all this have not changed. First we must order our affairs to minimize harm to our businesses in the hope and expectation that the gains in the longer term will pay off.

Secondly, the law governing collective agreements plainly needs to change and we will be working diligently to achieve this.

[Howie]

interesting comments from the EMA:

Doesn't look like everone in Auckland agrees with them.



Joint Media Release from 32 Auckland Council Local Board Members

22 March 2012



Local Board Members call for Auckland Council Governing Body to act on Ports Lockout



Thirty two Auckland Council Local Board members* today banded together to call for immediate action from their colleagues on the Governing Body of Auckland Council in the wake of the lock-out of workers at the Ports of Auckland.

“This is an extraordinary situation and it is now clear that the Ports of Auckland management and Board are out of control and exposing the Auckland economy to enormous risk”, say the Board Members.



“On Wednesday the Court ordered a return to good faith bargaining and a halt to out-sourcing by the company. Yet on Thursday POAL insisted that they will still proceed with out-sourcing, and locked out the entire workforce. It is our belief that they do not actually want bargaining to succeed and that good faith and the Local Governmant Act requirement to be a 'good employer' is being seriously breached by a Council owned company”



“Workers would also appear to be locked out prior to the legally allowable two week notice period. This means that POAL may be locking out in direct breach of the law. For Auckland’s port to be held back from being fully worked because of a possibly illegal action by the company is completely unacceptable”



“The situation has now spiralled completely out of control. The court provided an opportunity for a reasonable good-faith settlement to be reached, but POAL has intransigently chosen to go down the route of conflict”



“The matter can no longer be considered operational. It is a strategic crisis affecting all of Auckland, and our political leaders have a right and a responsibility to act. With at least $12.7 million in revenue lost due to the dispute to date, for what appears to be a pre-determined contracting out strategy, the judgment of POAL management and Board must be questioned. We call on the Mayor and the Governing Body of Auckland Council to urgently consider the actions of its company, and to directly question whether they can continue to support the Boards of ACIL and POAL who have mis-managed the situation so badly”, conclude the Board members.



ENDS



Contact - Michael Wood, 022-659-6360

Full list of Local Board Members issuing this statement:
* Please note that each Board member issuing this statement does so in their own right only, and not on behalf of their Board.



Helga Arlington, Albert-Eden
Josephine Bartley, Maungakiekie-Tamaki
Leila Boyle, Maungakiekie-Tamak (Chair)
Jesse Chalmbers, Waitemata
Shale Chambers, Waitemata (Chair)
Caroline Conroy, Papakura
Pippa Coom, Waitemata
Christopher Dempsey, Waitemata
Graeme Easte, Albert-Eden
Carrol Elliot, Mangere-Otahuhu
Tunumafono Ava Fa'amoe, Otara-Papatoetoe
Julie Fairey, Puketapapa
Catherine Farmer, Whau
Grant Gillon, Kaipataki
John Gillon, Kaipataki
Mary Gush, Otara-Papatoetoe
Peter Haynes, Albert-Eden (Chair)
Neil Henderson, Waitakere Ranges
Richard Hills, Kaipataki
Viv Keohane, Kaipataki
Chris Makoare, Maungakiekie-Tamaki
Tracey Martin, Rodney
Christine O'Brien, Mangere-Otahuhu
Greg Presland, Waitakere Ranges
Simon Randall, Maungakiekie-Tamaki
Tricia Reade, Waitemata
Leau Peter Skelton, Mangere-Otahuhu (Chair)
Lydia Sosene, Mangere-Otahuhu
Alan Verrall, Maungakiekie-Tamaki
Margi Watson, Albert-Eden
Michael Wood, Puketapapa
Denise Yates, Waitakere Ranges (Chair)

[trustme]

Shows how out of touch & unrealistic these local council boards can be. They don't understand the basics . You wonder why local councils are such a mess & why our rates are skyrocketing , just look at the calibre of them.

[avgas]

not if you were around in the 70s and 80s fuck the unions

I dunno I got heaps of "Don't tread on Me" snake stickers for my lunch box lol. My philosophy is simple, "don't want me around then see you later".
No need for a union to hold my hand as I walk out the door.

[avgas]

We live in a world that is paradoxical.

We pursue happiness
and it leads to resentment,
and it leads to unhappiness
and an explosion of mental illness.

This is clearly demonstrated in the sycophantic, dribbling scribbles of the union bashers.

So drive is the devil. You should just give up now and be happy.
Be collectively happy if you wish - but don't expect me to hold your hand. I'm a big boy now.

[avgas]

Back to your case...3 cannot do the work of 30, unless it was a govt contract, so I'm guessing much of your shop's output was re-sourced from Asia? So 27 engineers either shot through, are (still) sitting on the dole, found a job as a school crossing guard (don't laugh - it happens) or if they were really lucky managed to hire on with another engineer's shop. My money is on most of them having gone overseas or been lucky. But a few will feature in the dole/other stats.

Cheers for the response. Yep what actually happened is most of that 27 have now got off the tools. I am actually trying to join them. There is no reward for being qualified in NZ (in most cases), more reward in being someone who gets the sale rather than does the job.

While I did feel for these port workers, I don't anymore. You make the bed, you fucken sleep in it. Unions crying over spilt milk is pathetic - either move on or move off. Don't be a cock about it and stop other people from doing their jobs. What kind of person does that?
Someone needs to drive a snow plow through those fuckers in the morning - do that shit in front of the council building not the ports where people like the rescue chopper crew are driving.

[Ocean1]

Yep what actually happened is most of that 27 have now got off the tools. I am actually trying to join them. There is no reward for being qualified in NZ (in most cases), more reward in being someone who gets the sale rather than does the job.

Don't know where it came from but it's definitely a Kiwi thing. Not surprising a lot of them don't come back from their OE where they're better recognised, better paid and there's far better prospects.

I was once advised not to get into tech development roles on the basis that "there's nothing as obsolete as a successful development engineer." It's true enough, but the obsolescence is driven by the belief that the company is marketing a product. It's not.