Union scum

[cyc]

GETS THE SMACKDOWN!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...to-unload-ship

The Employment Court has ordered Centreport's striking workers to unload a ship that has been sitting idle for days.

The Wellington wharfies refused to unload the Maersk Aberdeen on its arrival on Friday after it was worked by non-unionised members at the Port of Auckland.

About 300 wharfies are on a three-week strike in Auckland over proposed roster changes.

In a decision released this afternoon, Judge Anthony Ford said he was satisfied that both the Maritime Union and the Rail and Maritime Transport Union had engaged in an unlawful strike.

Get with the times, scumbags.

[IoriDyson]

i disagree with your anti union sentiment.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by IoriDyson

i disagree with your anti union sentiment.

Let's look at what I've actually said about unions, eh? This post more or less sums up my views on unions. The relevant parts follow:

As for whether I think unions and organisers have their place, the answer is (perhaps unsurprisingly) "yes". I do believe that useful unions that actually advances their members' interests in a fair, consistent, and public-regarding fashion have their place. An excellent example of such a union is the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists -- these guys have generally made moderate pay claims, raised legitimate issues relating to staff shortage, hospital management-related issues and the like. Another example is the union that represents university lecturers, which has often made valuable contribution on the shortcomings of our current funding arrangements for universities.

An example of a useless (or worse) union, in my books anyway, is the Police Association. Its head moron, Greg O'Connor, makes a point of routinely coming out immediately after controversial car chase-related deaths or shootings and "clearing" the officers involved by claiming that based on his "understanding" (or other words to that effect) what the officers did were justified. Most statements made by him are concerned with mindless/thoughtless expansion of police powers and freedom of action, including pushing for the BS law prohibiting police officers involved in shootings being publically identified. No other class of persons involved in any shooting-related incidents enjoy such a blanket privilege. Another example of a useless union in my books is the PSA, which taught some of its members at the Ministry of Justice to deliberately disrupt court proceedings down at Christchurch by banging on windows and the like in protesting for more pay. HEY GUYS LET'S PROMOTE THE RULE OF LAW!

In short, I judge the merits or lack thereof of any union and its organisers based on the merit of their claims, the standard of their/their members' behaviour, and their general contribution (or lack of) to society.

Unsurprisingly to anyone with a bit of morals, I do consider people who deliberately break a fair and reasonable law against wild cat strikes (i.e. the scumbags down in Wellington) to be worthy of nothing but contempt.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by IoriDyson

i disagree with your anti union sentiment.

Really? Do you think the Wellington wharfies should be able to just not work whenever they feel like it and their employers shouldn't be fussed? How do you think your employer would react if you called him up and said "Yeah I'm not doing anything tomorrow out of uh... solidarity with this guy in another city... who works for another company... but he's in the same field and... yeah, solidarity"? I think your employer would be rightly pissed off and any casual observer would be within his rights to call you a scumbag.

[Ab]

The whole wharf dispute is reaching loltastic levels of incompetence from the union. I can only assume that Helen Kelly is involved somewhere.

[CCS]

According to Whale Oil she's been vag deep in it.

[fixed_truth]

uh oh hotdog

Industrial action spreading to another port

[spigalau]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

uh oh hotdog

Industrial action spreading to another port

Yet another illegal strike action - when will they learn... dinosaurs.

[cyc]

Apparently the PoA has just sacked the striking workers.

O FOR AWESOME

[n3><Ro]

Originally Posted by cyc

Apparently the PoA has just sacked the striking workers.

O FOR AWESOME

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10790375

Worthy of a round of applause...

[A Corpse]

Unfortunately I doubt this'll be the end of it. Now they've got 300 more people with nothing better to do than picket and whine to the media.

[SID|DensitY]

Originally Posted by n3><Ro

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10790375

Worthy of a round of applause...

This calls for a scumbag union meme.

[spigalau]

Game Over

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland...sacks-strikers

[StN]

[Ab]

PoAnd

[Vrtigo]

yay people lost their jobs!

[Ab]

Something about a penis and a table and a hammer.

[Jodi]

So, how do unions actually compete against this?

If I had a bunch of union workers earning more than I would like, and a whole bunch of people wanting to work for much less, what's stopping me from firing the lot and re-hiring them with crappy contracts that pays less? Knowing that other people will take the job if the union guys wont.

[aR Que]

The PoA really had no choice, it's not viable to have workers not working, especially at the cost of clients.
definitely a lose-lose situation.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by Jodi

So, how do unions actually compete against this?

If I had a bunch of union workers earning more than I would like, and a whole bunch of people wanting to work for much less, what's stopping me from firing the lot and re-hiring them with crappy contracts that pays less? Knowing that other people will take the job if the union guys wont.

Why exactly shouldn't that be an option? I mean, I'm in favour of union representation to some degree, but if you can fire an ENTIRE WORKFORCE and replace them with people willing to and capable of doing the same work for less, does that not mean that the remuneration the original workforce was receiving was out of line with the work they were doing?

[StN]

Sorry, I should have spelt it out more.

[Ab]

We got it the first time, Stoolie.

[Vrtigo]

Originally Posted by Jodi

So, how do unions actually compete against this?

If I had a bunch of union workers earning more than I would like, and a whole bunch of people wanting to work for much less, what's stopping me from firing the lot and re-hiring them with crappy contracts that pays less? Knowing that other people will take the job if the union guys wont.

isnt it unlawful unless their contract expires, or they do something worthy of dismissal? it all comes down to whether union action is unlawful.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by Vrtigo

isnt it unlawful unless their contract expires, or they do something worthy of dismissal? it all comes down to whether union action is unlawful.

Hmm, I guess it's all in the small print of the contract, whether or not your contract can be terminated without reason. If it can't then it's a breach of contract firing someone without reason. But if it is in the contract, then sucks to be you - SNAFU.

Same goes as to whether you can be fired for striking (in your contract of not).

*shrug*

[Ab]

I think it's awesome how the Labour Party and Auckland leftie mayor Len Brown have swung in behind the wharfies and given them their support.

hahahahahahaha

[Cowboy]

Could numerous and lengthy strikes be considered job abandonment?

[Ajax]

Bored by the inevitable (and superficial) PATCO comparison.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Hmm, I guess it's all in the small print of the contract, whether or not your contract can be terminated without reason.

They're being made redundant, which is different to summary dismissal.

There is nothing that prevents redundancies as long as the role the person was employed for is not actually required. Arguably under the "Competitive Stevedoring" model the roles are different, even if it's the same field, which is what PoA's defense will be when the injunction is brought to court. However the union will attack this assertion based on the actual work required being the same, only the pay structures being different, thus the new roles are at best a legal fiction and so the redundancy is unlawful.

At this point it's anyone's guess - I'm picking the union gets a tempoary injunction granted, then PoA eventually gets it's way.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by A Corpse

Why exactly shouldn't that be an option? I mean, I'm in favour of union representation to some degree, but if you can fire an ENTIRE WORKFORCE and replace them with people willing to and capable of doing the same work for less, does that not mean that the remuneration the original workforce was receiving was out of line with the work they were doing?

These matters are governed by the laws on redundancy/restructuring. The employer has to establish a business need to restructure/make the employees redundant, consult with the affected workers, take in their feedback, and then reach a decision. Employees are also entitled to their redundancy entitlements as per their employment contracts.

Redundancies also cannot be used to constructively dismiss (i.e. actual dismissals disguised as redundancies to undermine the rights of employees without establishing any rationale) employees.

[Torka]

Originally Posted by Ab

I think it's awesome how the Labour Party and Auckland leftie mayor Len Brown have swung in behind the wharfies and given them their support.

hahahahahahaha

Yeah this is what I'm noticing more than anything else. If the name Labour doesn't mean that they support labour then what the fuck does the party stand for anymore?

[Ab]

If all those ex-wharfies go on the dole and become beneficiaries, I guess The Labour Party will represent them after all.

[Lightspeed]

Most won't be allowed on the dole. The Winz case manager will look at their work history, look at the available work on the port through contractors and tell them they have to apply for full-time work before being eligible for the unemployment benefit.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Most won't be allowed on the dole. The Winz case manager will look at their work history, look at the available work on the port through contractors and tell them they have to apply for full-time work before being eligible for the unemployment benefit.

Live, from Wellington Docks

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

If all those ex-wharfies go on the dole and become beneficiaries, I guess The Labour Party will represent them after all.

Let's hope so. http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2012/03...peste-edition/

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by stuff

Ports of Auckland announced it would contract out work on the waterfront, employing three competing firms to supply stevedoring services.

So it appears they're being made redundant in order to outsource the work. As opposed to what I thought was happening, making permanent/full-time employees redundant in order to bring in casual/part-time staff to replace them.

I guess its no different than telecom/vodafone/etc making their call centre staff redundant and contracting it out to call centres in India.

So in that respect I suppose its completely legal and the Union doesn't have a leg to stand on with any court action.

Just a pity about the millions its going to cost in redundancy payouts.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Just a pity about the millions its going to cost in redundancy payouts.

If they exist.

[crocos]

If what exists? The millions for the payouts? They exist in the form of physical assets securing lending, if required. Quite a few of the jobs may end up being redeployed into new roles if they successfully kick out the union.

[Juju]

No, as in if they have a redundancy payout clause in their contracts.

But being a unionised work force, I guess they probably do.

IDK... Being in IT I suppose im use to not having payout clauses in my contracts. Outside of IT is it more normal to have payout clauses or not?

[aR Que]

^^ I had that arguement today with a couple of the lads, i've always thought redundancy payouts part of the deal, regardless of what your contract says. But apparantly not!

[adonis]

The NZ right wing, destroying national productivity since ages back. This was never about improving productivity, it was about improving shareholder profitability. The port's productivity was fine, paying the workers a smaller percentage of the profits doesn't change the amount of physical work being done, nor does it change the amount of money flowing into the NZ economy. I hope one day the NZ public figures out that it's the owners of this country that are running it into the ground, but I'm not holding my breath, they seem to have duped a large percentage of us.