Ports of Auckland Dispute

Forums › Off topic › Ports of Auckland Dispute

1 | 2 | 3

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#573194 25-Jan-2012 15:12

Not a union rep @ all, just have been on both sides of the ideology. If you don't understand how much right wingers hate unions, look at Fox's attack on the Teachers Union, blaming them for the US's economic woes.

Have a look at Maritimes response, they explicitly offered to negotiate to reduce paif down time, in return for their main goal, guarantees of employment.. Which is the one thing the ports don't want...

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#573208 25-Jan-2012 15:58

networkn:
The thing about employment is that I often hear people saying that the 90 day bill is a way for employers to exploit the rights of an employee and get free short term labour, but as an employer I can tell you that no intelligent human being is going to take a valued employee who is making money and getting the work done, keeping the client happy, and shaft them. The costs of employing someone and re hiring when value staff leave is simply too high.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I can tell you for certain that this has happened. I can't go into details, because of proceedings currently underway, but a person I know, who is competent, experienced, and a valuable employee, has been sacked after 83 days under the 90 Day rule.

I was never a supporter of the 90 Day rule, and what I have seen simply reinforces my conviction that it is a bad law. It was touted as a way to improve the employment prospects of inexperienced candidates, by reducing the risk for employers. However, it is so open-ended that, in practice, all it does is give bad or lazy employers a shield to hide behind rather than encouraging them to improve or upskill their recruitment practices.

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#573240 25-Jan-2012 17:53

If the person was competent, experienced and a valuable employee was let go at day 83 "for no reason", then its surprising that the business is still oepn as they must be idiots. My $ however is that there is a 2nd side to the story.......

Ragnor

8221 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#573263 25-Jan-2012 19:36

sen8or: If the person was competent, experienced and a valuable employee was let go at day 83 "for no reason", then its surprising that the business is still oepn as they must be idiots. My $ however is that there is a 2nd side to the story.......

This

Only reason you would get rid of someone was if you didn't need them or they didn't add more value than they cost.

Either way there isn't a job there, so best to move on.

Ragnor

8221 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#573265 25-Jan-2012 19:39

MikeyPI: Not a union rep @ all, just have been on both sides of the ideology. If you don't understand how much right wingers hate unions, look at Fox's attack on the Teachers Union, blaming them for the US's economic woes.

Have a look at Maritimes response, they explicitly offered to negotiate to reduce paif down time, in return for their main goal, guarantees of employment.. Which is the one thing the ports don't want...

POAL have made 10 offers all rejected, mediation has failed... union have striked 5 times for 24 hours each time.

If neither side is willing to compromise there is only one way this is going to go.

I'm guessing it's going to be POAL dis-establishing all permanent stevedore roles and contracting out stevedore'ing work.

webwat

2036 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#573270 25-Jan-2012 20:11

rphenix: The original request from the striking people was less about money, and more some guarantees was it not? I doubt the ports of auckland were that poor (at least prior to loosing some customers!).

The first news story about this included a statement (i think from the union) that one of the reasons was that contractors were getting the same conditions as union employees. Contractors don't strike they just decline to accept a contract, so it sounds like the union was getting greedy and couldnt accept that their members aren't better than anyone else. Waterside unions started the whole labourt movement, and it looks like they are finishing it too. They played hardball and the Port called their bluff. Perhaps the new way to get better conditions is to turn worker health and safety concerns into a public scandal, and we all should learn from the way it went wrong at Pike River where the union could have taken more of a lead in pushing for safety improvements.

Ragnor: Only reason you would get rid of someone was if you didn't need them or they didn't add more value than they cost.

Either way there isn't a job there, so best to move on.

Or they may have had a personality conflict or otherwise not adjusted well to the corporate culture or the team in which they were working. Individual productivity can sometimes be ok while still having a net negative effect on collective performance. The port workers seem to have had such a dynamic with ongoing friction between workers and contractors, leading to this showdown.

Time to find a new industry!

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#573286 25-Jan-2012 20:38

Huh? The union turned down 3 pay rise offers of over 10%, responded with 2.5% in exchange for the guarantees of employment.

Hardly the mark of "greedy unions"

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

sen8or

1789 posts

Uber Geek

#573297 25-Jan-2012 21:04

but what is the true cost of those "guarantees", I would hazard a guess that they contain some fairly harsh redundancy clauses?

Ragnor

8221 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#573315 25-Jan-2012 21:50

MikeyPI: Huh? The union turned down 3 pay rise offers of over 10%, responded with 2.5% in exchange for the guarantees of employment.

Hardly the mark of "greedy unions"

I believe one of the offers before the 4th strike was to roll over the current collective agreement for another year, this was rejected by the union and POAL ended up withdrawing this offer after the 4th strike when Maersk moved their business.

Currently:

The union wants a pay rise and to retain 40 hrs per week per worker even if there is only 29 hrs work in a week for each worker.

POAL wants to only have to pay workers for the actual needed hours of work, they're willing to pay 10-20% more per hour.

They are both sticking to their guns and aren't willing to compromise on the 40hrs vs flexible hours point.

Unfortunately as rate payers this is costing us money because the Auckland council is 100% owner and has a lot of capital tied up in his, if the port isn't generating more of a return than say having the money in the bank it's net loss for all ratepayers.

Lizard1977

2061 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#573334 25-Jan-2012 22:33

Ragnor:
sen8or: If the person was competent, experienced and a valuable employee was let go at day 83 "for no reason", then its surprising that the business is still oepn as they must be idiots. My $ however is that there is a 2nd side to the story.......

This

Only reason you would get rid of someone was if you didn't need them or they didn't add more value than they cost.

Either way there isn't a job there, so best to move on.?

And therein lies the problem - in these circumstances there is no second side to the story, the employer has the last say. In this case, the person I know was given a reason for being dismissed (which is entirely spurious) but it has become apparent that they were fired so that the employer could hire a friend instead. So the person I know has lost her job and now carries the stigma of being sacked for no good reason, with no effective recourse or right of reply. Anyone who interviews her will automatically assume she did something wrong and is lying, because "no person in their right mind would fire a valuable employee.". Her professional reputation is effectively in tatters because of an employers whim.

However, I accept that it is hard to discuss this fairly when I can't reveal all the facts. Having had to deal with this problem very close to home, I'm a bit touchy on the subject of the 90 Day rule. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest abominations ever to happen to employment law in NZ. Just my 2c.

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#573381 26-Jan-2012 00:17

^^ The fight between capital vs labour had been going on since formalised banking.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#573396 26-Jan-2012 07:20

MikeyPI: Huh? The union turned down 3 pay rise offers of over 10%, responded with 2.5% in exchange for the guarantees of employment.

Hardly the mark of "greedy unions"

Who else could get "guaranteed" employment? This whole dispute smacks of the Union extortion that took place in the 70's, e.g Waterside workers, meat workers, Ferry Cooks and Stewards and Boiler makers.

Just like the Unions at British Leyland these clowns are putting their employment at risk by these strikes.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#573458 26-Jan-2012 09:57

Lizard1977:
Ragnor:
sen8or: If the person was competent, experienced and a valuable employee was let go at day 83 "for no reason", then its surprising that the business is still oepn as they must be idiots. My $ however is that there is a 2nd side to the story.......

This

Only reason you would get rid of someone was if you didn't need them or they didn't add more value than they cost.

Either way there isn't a job there, so best to move on.?

And therein lies the problem - in these circumstances there is no second side to the story, the employer has the last say. In this case, the person I know was given a reason for being dismissed (which is entirely spurious) but it has become apparent that they were fired so that the employer could hire a friend instead. So the person I know has lost her job and now carries the stigma of being sacked for no good reason, with no effective recourse or right of reply. Anyone who interviews her will automatically assume she did something wrong and is lying, because "no person in their right mind would fire a valuable employee.". Her professional reputation is effectively in tatters because of an employers whim.

However, I accept that it is hard to discuss this fairly when I can't reveal all the facts. Having had to deal with this problem very close to home, I'm a bit touchy on the subject of the 90 Day rule. In my opinion, it is one of the greatest abominations ever to happen to employment law in NZ. Just my 2c.

One can probably understand why you are against it if yu have that close an association with someone that has been lost under the change.

You must realise there is always another side to the issue regardles and without knowing that you can hardly blame some for being less than sympathetic.
Inregards to the 90 day rule, personally i have no issue with it apart from the no recourse which I think is very draconian. As a lot have already said most employers won't get rid of people if they are an asset to teh business although there will always be some that abuse these things regardless. On the flip side it has for years been hard to get rid of staff that aren't up to scratch and add nothing to the business so maybe a better middle ground is needed byut certainly don't think it is a bad thing but I have no emotional involvment with anyone affected by it.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#573462 26-Jan-2012 10:04

like the employers this is being used as a test case to establish guidlines for other companies and unions cases. In reality the employee's are just pawns for both sides which is unfortunate.

For me I tend to side with the employers as it would seem that productivity is down and needs to improve to attract and keep business which in the long term benefits both sides and indeed Auckland as a whole.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes but the Union has nothing to lose now and is trying to get back public support but I think thats a bridge too far but they can't be seen to back down.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

MikeyPI

450 posts

Ultimate Geek

#573528 26-Jan-2012 12:06

jeffnz: like the employers this is being used as a test case to establish guidlines for other companies and unions cases. In reality the employee's are just pawns for both sides which is unfortunate.

For me I tend to side with the employers as it would seem that productivity is down and needs to improve to attract and keep business which in the long term benefits both sides and indeed Auckland as a whole.

It will be interesting to see how far this goes but the Union has nothing to lose now and is trying to get back public support but I think thats a bridge too far but they can't be seen to back down.

Of course you side with employers, they pay your wages. If you'd followed the story you would have seen that productivity is at near reduces levels at the port, hence all the productivity bonuses paid out..

1 | 2 | 3