Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A storm in any port

216 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

  • DeepRed, in reply to DexterX,

    Should the MUNZ case fail and contracting out prevail at the Auckland Port there will workplace accidents that result from the nature of the change of the working conditions and to my mind there will be blood on a the hands of a lot of people who have effectively washed their hands of the issue – that includes Mayor Len Brown.

    It would also set a precedent for other workplaces, like President Reagan did with the PATCO in 1981. Still, MUNZ has managed to get an interim injunction on the sackings, where PATCO didn’t. Also, NZ industrial law doesn’t go quite as far as the Taft-Hartley Act.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4257 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to DeepRed,

    It would also set a precedent for other workplaces,

    Which is what the bastards want.
    Why can't we be more like Canadia

    In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation where the payment of trade union dues is mandatory regardless of the worker's union status.

    That would make it tough to stomp on the Union.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4813 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX,

    http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8439046/ports-of-auckland-puts-plans-on-hold

    POAL have put the redundancy and contracting out bizzo on hold - as a result of judicial mediation.

    I would like to think that The POAL may perhaps have had in the judicial mediation the matter explained to them by Judge Travis, who may have had to advise them over their lawyers, that making 292 people redundant who are attempting to negotiate a CEA, when one of the objects of the Act is to support collective bargaining, may likely be an act of bad faith and one of the consequences of the mass dismissal could possibly be that a CEA is determined by the Courts.

    The POAL may be learning that their position is not as bullet proof as they thought.

    The Questions that Auckland City has to ask by way of a Public Inquiry – is how much this fiasco has cost Auckland, how much have they spent on advertising and legal fees and other consultancy and who leaked the staffers details.

    It may be opportune if a new CEA is negotiated to dismiss the CEO and appoint a new board – thus enabling the future of the Port to be secured without the bad residue of incompetence.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1190 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to DexterX,

    It may be opportune if a new CEA is negotiated to dismiss the CEO and appoint a new board – thus enabling the future of the Port to be secured without the bad residue of incompetence.

    <crickets>

    </crickets>

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4813 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DexterX,

    dismiss the CEO and appoint a new board

    how?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Sacha,

    how?

    Scandal?
    There must be something dodgy to chuck at the fan, a letter from a Minister or something like that.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4813 posts Report Reply

  • DeepRed, in reply to DexterX,

    The POAL may be learning that their position is not as bullet proof as they thought.

    It also goes to show that thinking globally and acting locally seemed to work for the MUNZ.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 4257 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Sacha,

    Where a majority of shareholders have no confidence in the Board or a Board Member they can organsie a special meeting and pass a resolution to dismiss the Board or Board Member and appoint others - the new Board can go about teh process of putting in place a new CEO.

    With POAL being owned by ACIL(Auckland Council Investment Limited) which is owned by Auckland City - the Council would have to hold that view that a change was needed..

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1190 posts Report Reply

  • merc, in reply to DexterX,

    So there's no democracy in corporatism then.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to merc,

    So there’s no democracy in corporatism then.

    I can find rortism, (from management) and poortism.(for stevedores).
    Sack the Board, Sack Smith from Parliament, Save our Assetts, Save our Port!

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6119 posts Report Reply

  • merc, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    I agree, I wish, we can't, it's not ours, it's theirs :-(

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DexterX,

    You may be overstating 'owned by' in both those cases.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    This news made my night last night.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 8499 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Sacha,

    In reply to Sacha and Merc - there is also no democracy in democracy.

    The holdings are:

    The POAL Shareholding:
    http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/400910/shareholdings

    The ACIL Shareholding
    http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3089629/shareholdings

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1190 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    I wish I could understand the Herald article...

    Nearly 300 sacked port workers have won back their jobs after Ports of Auckland's u-turn decision to drop moves to replace them with contractors and re-enter collective agreement talks with the Maritime Union.

    So, the Wharfies all have their jobs back and all is hunky dory?

    A minute from Judge Barrie Travis said the company had agreed not to take any further steps to make union workers redundant and would halt its contracting out processes.

    So, no more talk of contracting out.

    "If it is agreed, we will lift the strike immediately," union president Garry Parsloe told the Herald last night.

    He said workers could safely return to work on the terms and conditions of their collective agreement

    The Wharfies must feel proud and vindicated now that it's all over.
    But wait...

    The company had agreed to halt contracting out for four weeks, he said, but it was in no way resiling from its position on contracting out.

    WTF?

    "The only thing that has changed is that the judge has encouraged the parties to have one more crack at mediation. That is it," Mr Pearson said.

    Square one then.
    Bastards.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4813 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to DexterX,

    Shareholding doesn't equal control, unfortunately - and the supercity and earlier SOE and port law changes were set up that way deliberately.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    I'd like clarity on the documented chain of command. Then I'd like to have exactly what Key is proposing for privatisation in terms of who answers to the owners.
    It's all in the contract as these goons know, shareholding or not. I see Treasury has had another winner pick on the growth figure last quarter.
    Oh well between the super city, the super ministry and Tsar Joyce, all is well.
    If Smith resigns from Parliament does that affect the numbers?

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to merc,

    Working for us, POAL managers

    "Good faith bargaining"- anything that relates to intentions and attitudes- what's in your head- is hard work in law. But if this "Kirk Richardson" was truly one of the POA negotiators, that he was busy setting up a stevedore contracting company while negotiations were underway is pretty damning.
    Was it Pearson who assured Len Brown the POA legal position was 'bullet-proof"?
    Hubris?

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1551 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Hubris yes, because they are prepared to destroy all profits for the sake of power, utter stupidity and hubris, yes.
    Auckland loses, again.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10793793
    I don't think they are running this port very well at all.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes, in reply to Sacha,

    Shareholding doesn’t equal control, unfortunately – and the supercity and earlier SOE and port law changes were set up that way deliberately.

    Especially when Auckland Council only holds 1000 shares and Auckland Council Investments Limited owns 156005192 shares.
    However, the constitution of ACIL must be reviewed before 30 June 2012 under section 92 of the Local Government act (2002) which...

    included a focus on sustainability with the reference to the 'four well-beings' social, economic, environmental and cultural. The purpose of the Act is (a) to enable democratic decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and (b) to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities, in the present and in the future.[2] The Local Government Act 2002 received the Royal assent on 24 December 2002.

    I don't see any provision in there for shafting the workers.

    The wireless north ;-) • Since Dec 2006 • 4813 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    POAL serves lockout notice. Good faith clearly a very foreign concept.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 16614 posts Report Reply

  • Hilary Stace,

    How long before Paul Holmes et al come out defending POAL and blaming the wharfies for being locked out?

    Wgtn • Since Jun 2008 • 2077 posts Report Reply

  • merc, in reply to Hilary Stace,

    ...3,2,1...timing may depend on coin offered.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.