The start of an extended strike today by Waterfront workers over the Port of Auckland’s determination to casualise or contract out the jobs of its workforce means everyone loses.
Port workers and their families will lose incomes, businesses will be disrupted, other workers will be affected and the Auckland economy will take a hit at a time when we least need it.
Last week, there was a call from a group of influential Auckland business interests and the CTU for a modern approach to employment relations which maintains an efficient and productive Port, retains decent jobs and is not part of the race to the bottom. This was refreshing and gave hope of a solution.
But I wasn’t that impressed with Council CEO Doug McKay’s comments at the recent Council meeting where he said :
But I keep reminding Len, and I have been in a commercial environment in this sort of situation a few times over the years, that you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette, and the people have to feel like they can almost go to the brink and look over it before they come back.
This isn’t about making omelettes or brinkmanship, although Doug McKay‘s done plenty of it in his time.
Resolution of this dispute needs good will, determination and good faith bargaining. And it will require compromise.
Auckland Council should reconsider its unrealistic demand for a 12% return on capital, Ports management should withdraw their take it or leave it plans to contract out or casualise jobs and the union has repeated its offer to make changes to work practices and its collective agreement that will improve labour utilisation rates.
Broken eggs won’t do it.
The media have done a very poor job of getting facts into this debate. ALL sides filter according to their goal. The job of the media is to see past the self serving statements from Unions and Management and find out some truth.
I read a week or so ago an report (independant – whatever that means) which seemed certain the ONLY way to increase port productivity was to have capacity for larger vessels. Casual labour forces dont make channels deeper.
The best answer for Auckland would be to relocate the whole port operation to Marsden Point. Deep water, easy access, plenty of available land, no reclamation needed, Frees up Auckland harbour for Aucklanders. But, would need a new high speed rail connection from the port to the main rail line, and much upgrading of the line to Auckland and Wiri inland port. Marsden Point will be able to handle the larger container ships envisaged, which would alleviate the future congestion in and also around the cty of Auckland caused by trucks and other port traffic.
An elegant solution? I think so.
Doug McKay, isn’t he the guy who made a serious fortune peddling alco-pop booze to kids? Even bootlegger Al Capone had the decency to target grown ups.
@tracey I think POAL gets the same sized ships into port as POT. So I am pretty sure its not the depth of the channel.
But – I have heard that congestion on the berths might be a larger issue at POAL than at POT….
Even POT CEO Mark Cairns made mention of their land holdings etc being of benefit.
Doug McKay sounds like a thoroughly nasty little man on a huge salary. Who appointed him as CEO? NAct? That would explain all.
When did we let an alcopop manufacturer decide both our public policy and the future of our vital infrastructure?
I guess there no collateral damage in McKays world, or it really just doesn’t affect him at all, so it’s SEP.
The best answer for Auckland would be to relocate the whole port operation to Marsden Point.
Sounds like an eminently sensible solution to me RtF.
What’s more it would give Northland a huge helping hand in overcoming it’s unemployment issues.
No comment.
I concur with RT1 – on many fronts including employment through flow through to the local community this makes sense. The private model has failed with our ports because we now have too many.
If this dispute is about families and not money, why are union workers not willing to settle on a less aggressive collective agreement?
I don’t think that the union is a very friendly organisation after seeing this video
-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIHRSeVxSeg&feature=player_embedded
@RegistryAdmin : Not sure what you mean by a “less aggressive collective agreement”. The Port Workers have made offers of changes which you may not have heard about, but were repeated to the company last week. As for the video, yep, things can get rough in industrial disputes. Have a look at what Mr Talley is doing.
Why don’t you ring up Len and tell him not to push for 12% to pay for his promises?
“As for the video, yep, things can get rough in industrial disputes.”
So you condone violent and racist behaviour by union members aginst non-union members and you have no reason to refute that this person has experienced these actions by union members. Has Mr Talley been physically violent against union members?
@Indiana of course I dont condone that behavior just as I don’t condone corporate bullying,
The POAL has seemingly made predeterminations to undermine the livelihoods of hundreds of workers families and somehow that is not seen as the incompetent sociopathic violence that it is. All the while a dozen of their $200K plus executives and Board members slap each other on the back for a union breaking job being well done.
Note to all: the union is not here to play nice, or be friendly, or be reasonable: POAL has shown it is not interested in any of the above and it appears it has planned this confrontation for a long time. POAL is here to break the union down; and the union is here to break management down.
Who has more leverage and better tactics is now the question.
@Darien, as you don’t stand along side those you accuse of corporate bullying. Your decision to stand strongly along side those that knowingly use racist and physical violent tactics speaks more than you may comprehend.
@CV, you’ve made of mockery of any hope of good faith bargaining in any industry if you strongly about what you wrote and probably explains why union membership has declined so drastically over the years.
indiana you have either nerve or negligence in suggesting that POAL engaged in anything resembling “good faith bargaining”.
POAL want to smash the union, and want to casualise the workforce no matter what the union accomodates them with. And POAL planned this right from the start according to leaked documents from inside their offices.
So if its a war they want, then it shall be. POAL management are destroying the value of that port by millions of dollars a day with their “leadership” aka corporatist incompetence.
@Indiana
You seem to be making the case that because of some ugly behaviour by individuals within the union, the
‘union’ is the ‘bad guy’ in the POAL dispute.
This conveniently ignores all the relevant facts and even the topic of this post which is essentially asking the question whether people in power should be called upon by the public to make both considered and ethical decisions for a healthy and productive society.