Union says Port of Auckland not allowing workers time for meeting
UPDATED Tuesday January 17: The Maritime Union says it might cancel a further strike planned for late January if all union workers are given time off to attend a meeting about plans to contract out their jobs.
Union president Garry Parsloe says the company has refused to allow this.
Last night, the union issued a sixth strike notice to the Ports of Auckland, this time for a 24 hour strike starting 7am January 31.
Ports of Auckland chief executive Tony Gibson says the latest strike notice is “highly irresponsible”
“This sixth strike will do nothing to end the dispute other than to strengthen our resolve to sort this out once and for all,” he says.
Third party contractors already operate the conventional (non-container terminal) port facilities in Auckland.
UPDATED Monday January 16: Many port workers will leave the country to seek work offshore if their jobs are contracted out as proposed by the Ports of Auckland, the Maritime Union warns.
Union president Garry Parsloe says port workers are telling him they'll go somewhere where they can get a better deal – like Australia.
"Who can blame them?” he says, adding that the “enormous investment” made in training a skilled workforce will be wasted if workers leave the port. The port pays for port workers to be trained.
Contact negation talks stalled again last week and port management told NBR it was pushing ahead with plans to contract out the workforce. Staff meetings have been held and requests for tenders mailed.
Mr Parsloe says there is a serious issue in New Zealand with employers attempting to boost profits by slashing wages and conditions of employment, adding that the Ports of Auckland dispute was a classic example of this trend.
"You aren't going to get a productive, high skill economy based on continually reducing wages, undermining conditions and ordering people to work around the clock when and if the employer feels like it."
UPDATED January 12: Today's six-hour mediation session with the Maritime Union was frustrating as the union "seems to be still failing to grasp the need for fundamental change," Ports of Auckland chief executive Tony Gibson says.
"The parties are still miles apart. We reviewed some new proposals from the union, but they are only around the margins."
CTU President Helen Kelly was part of the talk for the first time today.
Mr Gibson says the port told the union it will press on with plans to outsource its workforce.
“The challenge for the union is to show us an appropriate counter offer that offers the same productivity benefits, and flexibility, by way of a Collective Agreement. “Whatever the union comes up with has to stack up in a business sense compared to an outsourced labour model,” he says.
Mr Gibson says time is running out with customer looking for an outcome and employee jobs uncertain.
"We have to protect our existing business, win back the business we’ve lost, and put the foundations in place to achieve sustainable growth over the long term, in the interests of all stakeholders."
He said today's talks covered not only the collective agreement, but the contracting out proposal and redundancies underway as a result of the loss of business from Maersk and Fonterra.
Contract negotiations will continue as scheduled on Thursday but the Ports of Auckland has rejected the Maritime Union's latest offer and will move ahead with plans to contract out its labour force.
Ports of Auckland CEO, Tony Gibson said last night that the union’s counter-offer "failed to deliver the rapid improvements needed in work practices and productivity".
The loss of the Maersk and Fonterra business meant that the situation had changed dramatically over the last few weeks, he said.
“We’ve run out of time. Without rapid changes towards substantially more efficient labour practices, more customers and more jobs will be lost in the coming weeks," he said, adding that the port had been working for 11 months to achieve the changes needed.
As signalled before Christmas, alongside the ongoing collective bargaining process, the port is progressing plans for redundancies as a result of the loss of the Maersk and Fonterra business, and will begin a consultation process this week over a proposal to contract out its labour force.
It is holding a series of briefing meetings with staff this week to advise them of the process.
Mr Gibson said that if the proposed contract labour model was to proceed, he expected that the majority of affected employees would continue to work for the Port as employees of the selected contractors.
Meanwhile, union workers at the port began another 48-hour strike last night, the fifth since November.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions57
Great you guys ar striking so much....bring more of the work to the bay i say. obviuosly looking a gift horse in the mouth and not realizing it. Ports being in business is good for the whole community
Fantastic news, took a while, but they are getting there. Well done, here's to increased productivity for PoAL. Who knows, they may even become rivals for PoT.
I'm wondering if 'Right Wing Unionist' is finally satisfied that the Ports of Auckland management have made a correct decision. Examining the outcome of the strike action (contracting of jobs, mass redundancy) it would seem the real blundering incompetence was on the part of the union leaders. It would seem the workforce is about to be streamlined for less pay, so what did the unions achieve again? Oh that's right, nothing except losing jobs for their members & a probable downgrade of the worker's contracts. Oops, fail!!
Great result for the Union ! no members left as loss of contracts means less work equals redundancies. You must be so proud in how you have looked after the interests of your members! Obviously no union membership in Tauranga since they are not striking to support you. Paul Little must be gasping with awe of the union power he wants to use as his power base from which to dethrown David Shearer.
Members need to seriously question their union's strategy. Employers need good workforce but not one that will drive it into uneconomic oblivion.
The real estate is way too good for a port anyway- let the unions bugger it up, then deveolp some classy livable areas.
That’s Andrew Little, (not Peter) he is the man who lives by his name little ideas, little response from voters, little change to be leader. As to the Union on strike, do the members ever consider that whilst they are not getting paid, the executives of the Union are. In today environment for a Union to ask for a 10% increase, I think the police should be investigating the Union Executive, they must be on drugs!
As i have said before in my last comment sack them all theirs plenty of people on welfare you could train to be a bright warfie.
Good decision!
Why on earth should any employ have to spend month's attempting to negotiate higher productivity - when that should automatically be the default setting of the workplace already? With everyone employed there doing all they can to improve productivity - and hence job security.
Job security will only come about if the work place is profitable and nimble - not constrained at every turn by a few beligerant unionists attempting to justify their existance and union fees, baulking at having to actually work at times.
Why is that so hard for the unions to see?
Will the unions now pay the wages of those they have made redundant due to the unions actions?
Surely that's only fair - if the MUNZ want to be able to claim any form of "fairness" with how they operate and their philosophies on helping everyone? You can bet your bottom dollar the union reps around the port stirring up non-issues to be used as some form of "amunition" for the negotiating table still received thier wages, but not likely the people actually forced into strike action.
Anyone at PoAL made redundant as a result of the unions protracting "negotiations" to extort more from their employer should absolutely demand MUNZ to pay their wages until they can find employment elsewhere - it's only fair since they cost those members their jobs attempting to justify extortion disguised as "negotiations"
How is this kind of industrial action still legal and possible in 2012?
I wonder what Helen Shearer would have to say about this saga? What would a Labour government do in a situation like this?
Agree and as the old saying goes "When you see your coffin, you start to cry"
This is a typical sign of poor management, poor communication and decision that are based on revenge, rather than settlements.
Unions are reactive. They react to bad management.
What counts in these situations is the calibre of the management to navigate through to a solution.
No one wants to be out of work. No one wants to work for a poor performing company. No one wants agro at work.
The company were performing worse after they lost Fonterra & Maersk as a result of the union's strike action, but will be performing a lot better when they contract out the work to those who are interested in working and are happy with their wage agreement. Who managed things better, the unions or the Ports of Auckland management?
No Knock, knock, MUNZ has reacted because it is greedy, and hasn't got it's own way. Have you compared the profit of the PoT to the PoAL. By the way, the leaders of MUNZ are still getting paid, but the strikers still aren't.
Perfect answer, couldn't say it better myself!
Blaming others is the norm, and not yourself....when are you going to learn?
Can't really blame myself (as you suggest), I'm lucky to have the time to be an armchair critic. I call it as I see it.
Ports of Auckland should have taken this option last year. $8m redundancy cost is nothing compared with the loss has already caused by the union.
Go ahead to use contractors. The Union leader said in today's radio interview that he didn't like the PoT's structure, however he needs to understand that the Ports of Auckland belongs to all the Aucklanders, not the Union. How to run the business and which way to go, he has no say. It's up to the business owner.
Electricty prices high, telephone charges high, mobile phone prices high - when are you people going to get it. Weak management needs to contract out. Contracting out costs. Costs the public, costs the shareholder, costs the family, costs society. When this country had strong union we were wealthy. When you mangement types lobbied for and suceeded in reducing workers bargaining power you doomed us all to mediocity.You have reduced the extra spending power by the largest proportion of the workforce. This means less money for business, less requirements for goods and services, ending with less need for companies etc, etc,etc. Thankyou for wanting us to be panderers to foreigners. Its not the unions that are blundering incompetents. Its you the people who have stagnated our economy. Its funny how every one is waiting for a resurgent United States economy which is showing a glimmer of promise on the back of the US automobile maufacturing industry - ironicly one of the more unioised workforces in America. They are generating profits, shareholders are starting to reinvest, industry emploment up unemployment down. Chin up union people. Don't let the real blunders force you into making bad deciscions.
"reducing workers bargaining power you doomed us all to mediocity"
Very difficult to turn excellence into mediocrity if excellence doesn't want to... unless you're forced into strike action and have to comply.
Excellence is achieved by individuals attempting to achieve greater things - not by biligerant unionists stomping petulant feet demanding more for less whilst holding Auckland business's to ransom.
No matter how good management is - what you're implying is that to be "strong" management, a CEO / MD etc should actually bow to union ransoms and agree to being held hostage rather than tell the unions to stick their sabotage and ransoms where the sun don't shine, and contract out the work force?
Go PoAL - sack all the unionists - send them packing to Aussie or the UK or preferably Afghanistan - and contract the work out to individuals gratefull for a days work paid at realistic rates.
Parasites are never happy with a minority share - they always want more until the tail wags the dog.
What poetic justice to have leftie Len and the Labour Party deliver all the redundancy notices! That would be so sweet and one could only hope all the leftie's choke on it!
What a joke.... wake up strikers!
The following comments in NZ Herald, make me laugh!
Mr Parsloe quoted: “ the changes undermined job security and amounted to casualisation of the workforce”.
My answer: What part doesn’t Mr Parsloe understand, this is in line with international trends. What year is he living in? While they are busy sacking the strikers, the strikers need to sack Mr Parslow.
Strikers quotation "We all work in eight and a half hour shifts. That's what the port's trying to remove. They're trying to get us onto variable hours, where you could be working anywhere from five to twelve hours.”
My answer: Most ports are working variable hours, where is their problem! Other ports around the world are doing this, this is just a consistent trend ... ports have to move away from the rigid labour models that have been run in the past to more flexible ones.
Strikers quotation: "It'll give you no life, because you'd just be living by the telephone. How can you plan your life around variable hours? You just can't." One dock worker named Tamati, who did not want his full name released, has been working at the port for nearly seven years. He said the stress of variable hours would tear families apart.
Answer: What a joke, get real. I don’t see PoT staff complaining, oh and by the way I don’t see them striking about their rates of pay! In fact I don’t see them striking at all.
Strikers quotation: ” The changes Ports of Auckland want to enact are too radical for the workers, who are "not greedy at all".
Answer: Yea right! I am delighted that finally the rest of New Zealand learn how well paid the strikers really are,this time their greed has been exposed.
Sack the lot of them, re employ those that want to get real. Let the rest try to find jobs elsewhere.
Regarding your comment below:
'When this country had strong union we were wealthy'
Silly me, & I thought it had more to do with the UK buying pretty much everything we had to sell. But now I know the secret to prosperity - strong unions disrupting the economy & screwing the employers for ever more money. Are you sure you're right wing, you certainly don't sound like one.
Ahhhh, industrial relations in NZ.
It's no wonder we all leave.
I'm right wing because I don't believe in companies, employers and employees running crying to the government to bail them out of every incident they get themselves into. Let the free market work. Its their fight let them get on with it. Everybody else keep your whining to yourselves and let the market determine the outcome. In the market there will always be casualties. Sometimes its union sometimes its company sometimes shareholders sometimes the public. That's the risks you take letting the market dictate conditions. But no matter what a decent balance has to be reached otherwise whats the point.
I'm concerned about the quality of reporting on this - from the NBR and other media. I fear we are not getting the full picture.
1: this article does not present the union side
2: contracting out your expertise is a pretty quick way to lose the core of what you are good at.
3: The flexible hours proposal may work better in Tauranga, where I am guessing workers live closer to the port than Auckland. It's quite a stretch for Auckland workers, who I would guess are facing a much longer average commute.
The strikers don't know what side their bread is buttered on. They will get hammered and deservedly so.
Anyone have an uneasy feeling? the viablility of the POA business rests on cutting wages and conditions of the employees... really? doesn't sound like a healthy business going forward, someone should ask management why their business is on such a fine line in the first place.
I see no balance in this reporting.
Well said Lance
What chance of POA mangement agreeing to forgo existing salary packages to become contractors who are paid only for the actual work done at an agreed hourly rate and no more, and on call 24/7 as their contribution to saving their business or willl they get bonuses for smashing the workers?
JP
The 10% was offered by POAL to get flexibility in exchange. MUNZ want no change to flexibility and a 2.5% increase and have offered to look at productivity solutions over 6 months. But MUNZ will be the loser on this based on above article - which is fine with me
I am not sure that workers live closer to the Port in Tga. The Mount has highest property prices in the area which is where the port is - but then again, there are some well paid wharfies in Tauranga. One key difference might be that in Tga, the ships generally only come in on the low or high tide due to the currents in the channel, so it is easier to predict the arrival times of ships. This helps with arranging labour etc
I don't think expertise will be lost. Other Stevedoring companies will come in who know what they are doing, and most of the existing workforce will get integrated into the contract companies except for any "bad eggs"
No wonder Western Nations (UAS, Europe. and NZ) with heaps of beneficiaries like you are in "dire straits" and borrowing from the East...Nothing much to do except sucking from the "almost bankrupt states".
Dear Tony Gibson. Please study the tactics of Mr Joyce at Qantas. They worked. Dear Head of the Union, throw away your 1970's Cooks and Stewards strategic annual plan manual and please read Adam Smith Weath of Nations, as a starting point to your low understanding of economics. Supply and demand sections probably best. Then you might understand that there is unlikely to be any shortage of people willing to undercut existing arrangements to get a job as a contractor or working for a contracting firm. Dear Ms Kelly - sorry you had to get involved here but please do a better performance than you did with Peter Jackson - try starting from the point of view that there is a blank piece of paper and if you come up with a attractive option then Ports of Auckland might be tempted to hire people and create jobs. Novel concept but about what is needed at the moment,
I am not a beneficiary. Never have. Never will be.I am financially secure thanks to my own hard work and smarts.
The state of management in NZ is appalling. People management skills are shocking. Clear communication and detailed expectations are lacking.
A job is not a right, its a privilege. Dont like it then #@&$ off to Australia wharfies!
As someone here rightly said, "The Union leaders are still getting paid". It's easy to play hardball and convince your members you will win if you hold out, but it's their livelihoods you are playing Russian roulette with. And you have lost all these jobs. What complete and utter Muppets. Wake up and join the REAL world you fools. The union movement is long outdated.
There are some interesting comments being made on this story. Sadly in my opinion we have the old story operating here - NZ labour market reforms have allowed owner/managers to reduce wages in order to increase profits. Employees are the engine room of the consumption economy - the demand side of the supply/demand equation. Lesser income equals lower demand equals lower average inventory requirements equals inefficient factories not producing to capacity. The cycle just continues to repeat itself and we are in a "race to the bottom" - the bottom being an economy that is totally kaput. Oh, wait, aren't we there already? No ownder the younger generations are leaving NZ! Good on the unions for trying to preserve an 8.5 hour working day, but the unions should be working on productivity gains constantly not just over the next six months. That's their mistake in this process. Offer up some immediate loosening of the more rigid working conditions and you might get more sympathy from the masses.
Slartibartfart
My reading is that POAL is offering a wage increase, no redundancies plus bonuses for improved efficiency through more flexible hours so Wharfies have the option of maintaining their cherised 8.5 hours - elsewhere or adapt to the changes as they will have done with their smartphones etc.
My union enjoys an amicable ralationship with my employer and has negociated me a 3-6% payrise every year.
Just thought I'd run that up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.
Yeah - but if your employer said times are tough, we're actually losing money so can't offer any pay rises at all for 12 month's - just watch how beligerant the unions become then!
Are union fees based on a percentage of their members wages? So the more money the unions can "negotiate" out of an employer to the employees, the more money the union gets? Or is it a set fee each week?
Apparently, port workers will leave NZ if jobs outsourced - according to the union. This seems to be the first economically rational thing the union has said. It makes perfect sense to leave NZ for higher wages if you have in demand skills. Plenty of graduates have done so and this makes them better off.
If they can take the unionists with them too - that would also help raise the IQ of both countries.
Remember the on-going strikes by the pulp and paper workers years ago?
Remember what got the strikers back to work, o at least one occasion?
No, it wasn't better wages, it was their wives saying "no nooky unless you go back to work".
And that was so the mums could get some cash to buy Christmas presents for the kids.
Port workers will leave, go to Australia, Bon voyage It is comments like this that make the whole situation farcical. If Australia was so good these chaps would have been gone years ago. The fact is all but the most skilled would find it difficult getting a job. Negotiate Mr Parsloe and maybe, just maybe your members will not be part of the dole queue in the next few months. Those with brains will join the “new” company’s and will probably find their conditions much, much better. Despite what Chris Trotter alludes to business owners are not the Baron’s of the past, the majority do care that their workers are well paid and happy. Be honest an $80 to $100K job is not a sweat shop.
go to Aussie ? Yea, Ideal, NZ won't need to pay for their retirement on the dole.
The sooner the union members of the POAL workforce bugger off to Australia the better. We cannot afford to keep them here on their present terms. As a ratepayer who was never consulted by Comrade Mike Lee when he spent my money to take a 20% listed POAL into 100% ARC ownership for a ridiculous price, I can't wait for it to become economically efficient, and hopefully partly privatised again. As a voluntary investor in POT, rather than a forced investor in POAL, I look forward to POAL and POT merging, or POT taking over POAL.
I don't know why you people moan when paid union people help negotiate wage agreements. They get paid less per annum than a single corporate emploment lawyers monthly retainer in some instances, money that is not being delivered to shareholders. And no I don't think POA business is viable as an international container port especially as it competes with POT inland port at Wiri as Aucklands distrbution hub.
I think you mean Andrew Little...Paul is the writer and as far as I know no relation.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below