Union scum

[TD]

Or they could do what everyone else does and find another job somewhere else.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

It depends on the law. Work is the just about the only negotiating chip workers have. If you get offered an unfair deal your options basically come down to threatening not to work, and following through with that threat.

Wonderful. You're basically saying that the laws of NZ don't apply to those scum. What a fine, upstanding citizen you are.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

Wonderful. You're basically saying that the laws of NZ don't apply to those scum. What a fine, upstanding citizen you are.

Exaggerate much? That doesn't mean "the laws of NZ don't apply" to them, I'm not suggesting they can run around breaking any law they want. What I'm saying is that a law that removes the only negotiating tool a group of workers have is a bad law. God you're fucking bad at this, arguing with you is like playing wack-a-mole.

[adonis]

Relevant http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/03/...-distribution/

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Exaggerate much? That doesn't mean "the laws of NZ don't apply" to them, I'm not suggesting they can run around breaking any law they want. What I'm saying is that a law that removes the only negotiating tool a group of workers have is a bad law. God you're fucking bad at this, arguing with you is like playing wack-a-mole.

How is it a bad law to stop a bunch of fucking idiots striking not for their OWN work and conditions but in supposed support of "comrades"? An assertion isn't an argument. Do you want a society where any asshole can just call a strike on the basis of "Solidarity motherfucker. I stand behind the [insert never ending list of random other losers who went on strike]?". You seem to be some shit-for-brains who thinks that a mere endless repetition of some favoured narrative justifies (both morally and legally) extraordinarily extreme and selfish positions adopted by groups that you favour.

Hell, you like workers so much eh and love your wildcat strikes? What about the prospect of innocent workers who work in distribution or wherever else whose jobs and livelihoods are put at risk because a few fuckwits at various ports are ANGRY and refuse to unload ships? Do some people's jobs matter more?

Sleep on that a bit, you selfish twit.

[chubby]

http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2012/03/...-distribution/

Such a system has long been noticed and understood by the materialist school of class conflict. It is called the Asiatic Mode of Production, which relies on super-exploitation of human labor for accumulation gains. Given that New Zealand’s original market ideologues borrowed some of their policy prescriptions from the Chicago School of monetarist economics (later conceptually distorted in the word neoliberalism) as widely applied by capitalist authoritarians in the 1970s and 1980s, it seems that their heirs have borrowed from the Chinese or Singaporean models, which are also heavily reliant on authoritarian political and social controls. This shift in preferred macroeconomic models makes perfect sense when we consider the move, shared by both major parties, to focus NZ’s diplomatic and trade relations on Asia and the Middle East, where democratic “niceties” are in short supply and where capitalists are largely unencumbered by human rights, much less labor rights or worker’s substantive rights to a share of the benefits of production.

[adonis]

You seem to take the most extreme interpretation of my opinions. Militant unions who ask for unrealistic gains and strike to gain them can get fucked, but IMO, in this instance that's not what we're discussing.

Unions that strike as a result of pay and conditions being eroded beyond what it reasonable shouldn't cop the blame for the incompetency of their employers. Workers banding together to make the small of problem of a few people striking a bigger problem that can't be ignored should be viewed as a necessary evil when dealing with a system that has failed to deliver a fair outcome. The pressure strikes such as these create are the fault of the employers, workers have one thing to negotiate with, their work. They can work, or not work, are you suggesting they should be forced to work? Maybe you think their other option should be to do as TD suggests and find another job? Well guess what? That creates a huge disruption to other workers in the supply chain as well, so unless you're advocating slavery your position is pretty weak.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

That creates a huge disruption to other workers in the supply chain as well, so unless you're advocating slavery your position is pretty weak.

My position is infinitely stronger than yours. What I'm saying is that if these scumbags don't like the laws that ban wildcat strikes over issues unrelated to their own workplace, they can go and petition parliament to change our laws. Until then, they can obey the laws just like most other decent, reasonable human beings who currently reside in this country do.

Hard concept to grasp, eh?

[chubby]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/loca...-plans-halted/

In a minute issued by the Employment Court last night, the port agreed not to proceed with its plans until after a settlement conference takes place on Monday.

The port will ''take no further steps'' to make striking workers redundant, to dismiss staff or employ other workers to do their jobs.

The Maritime Union and the port will now file their evidence to the court and a hearing will take place on March 26.

Judge Barry Travis commended the ports for "agreeing to the voluntary process".

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

My position is infinitely stronger than yours. What I'm saying is that if these scumbags don't like the laws that ban wildcat strikes over issues unrelated to their own workplace, they can go and petition parliament to change our laws. Until then, they can obey the laws just like most other decent, reasonable human beings who currently reside in this country do.

Are there circumstances where one can both disobey the law and retain their human decency? While it's not a NZ context, Rosa Parks springs to mind.

I don't ask this in relation to the port workers or mean to suggest I condone their actions, I simply don't know enough about the situation to hold an opinion on the issue. It just seems to me that your statement requires the legal system and how one can petition it to also be completely decent, and I am not sure this is ever the case.

[crocos]

That's such a BS straw-man argument that I wouldn't have expected it, even from you.

[crocos]

Rosa Parks was protesting against an unjust "one law for you, another for me" scenario.

The Wellington dockworkers are not protesting any such thing - they're part of the same union (or a related one anyway) as the Auckland workers, so despite the fact that they are happy with their working conditions, they're fucking things up for their employers and the jobs of everyone else who is dependant on the business flowing through the Wellington port.

Striking is meant to be a tool to protest about YOUR job, not the job of someone that is completely unrelated and in a completely different company but fills a similar role.

Net result for the Wellington workers is a hell of a lot of bad feeling and bad publicity aimed entirely right back at them, while they actually made THEIR employer look even better. Whichever Union "genious" thought up that strike achieved the OPPOSITE effect of what a union is meant to do.

[Lightspeed]

Sorry, my question was meant to be a question, not an argument. Please read my post again as a question, not an argument. Please read the whole post, the part I suspect you missed is where I say how I don't ask this question in relation to the ports issue. As such I will not relate any response back to the ports issue.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

It just seems to me that your statement requires the legal system and how one can petition it to also be completely decent, and I am not sure this is ever the case.

We are here discussing the issue relating to the unions' response to what's going on in the PoA. This isn't a forum for you and I to engage in a debate on jurisprudence in general. And fuck off with the usual pretense of not expressing a view or opinion. Yours wasn't some kind of open-minded inquiry -- it's your usual sophistry of making a point by pretending not to take sides.

I take it as given that reasonable people of good will who otherwise behave decently can legitimately disagree on whether the law should permit wildcat strikes in the name of solidarity with other workers. Different people in our society will clearly have different views. In cases where choosing either option is not necessarily more right or moral than the other, society simply must rely on a process through which people can legitimately participate to determine what ought to be the chosen option. The process happened and a law was passed and this is why it ought to be obeyed. This simply isn't a case where the law is demanding of anyone something that is obviously immoral, like discriminating or even physically harming another human being for no reason other than her skin colour.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by crocos

Striking is meant to be a tool to protest about YOUR job, not the job of someone that is completely unrelated and in a completely different company but fills a similar role.

The entire economy is interrelated. Collective action works as a means of strengthening worker conditions by making the statement, "you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us". It only works when the impact of the strike is enough to break the negotiating power of the owners. Part of that strength lies in the perception of the wider population and the effect that has on the actions of the government and other owners of capital. If every worker in Auckland went on strike tomorrow in solidarity with the port workers the directors who provoked this action would be fired by lunch time.

That being said, I'm not going to defend these other strikes using the basis that they're having the kind of impact I'm suggesting in the hypothetical situation I've described above. Their effectiveness is questionable. I will however defend their right to choose to work or not, regardless of legal implications. The idea that their alternative is to,

Originally Posted by cyc

petition parliament to change our laws.

Is ridiculous. If our democratic process were as responsive as I would like it to be, I might agree, but it isn't. We're still held hostage by outdated ideas about democracy, capitalism, and a corporate system that places far too much control in the hands of a comparatively small number of unelected people. National aren't going to change the law to allow people a choice, they were the ones that took that choice away in the first place.

If you really don't like strikes, offer a real alternative. Because under capitalism there is no other.

Cyc, I actually agree that,

In cases where choosing either option is not necessarily more right or moral than the other, society simply must rely on a process through which people can legitimately participate to determine what ought to be the chosen option.

But I do not agree that the process you've described happened. I think our socioeconomic system has to change significantly to justify the condemning civil disobedience which is used to counterbalance the unequal and undemocratic elements that still exist.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Sorry, my question was meant to be a question, not an argument. Please read my post again as a question, not an argument. Please read the whole post, the part I suspect you missed is where I say how I don't ask this question in relation to the ports issue. As such I will not relate any response back to the ports issue.

You were the one that brought up Rosa Parks in context of being analogous to the Wellington wildcat strikes, so subsequent disclaimer of opinion aside, your post still infers the wildcat strikes were about decency or had any moral grounding. Hence my response.

If you want to discus the merits or lack thereof of the clash of value-systems vs legal systems (as after all, Rosa was asserting that she was decent and equal to whites by her value-system vs the laws based on the dominant value system of the time declaring Negroes as second-class citizens), then I recommend starting a thread to that effect.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by cyc

We are here discussing the issue relating to the unions' response to what's going on in the PoA. This isn't a forum for you and I to engage in a debate on jurisprudence in general. And fuck off with the usual pretense of not expressing a view or opinion. Yours wasn't some kind of open-minded inquiry -- it's your usual sophistry of making a point by pretending not to take sides.

I take it as given that reasonable people of good will who otherwise behave decently can legitimately disagree on whether the law should permit wildcat strikes in the name of solidarity with other workers. Different people in our society will clearly have different views. In cases where choosing either option is not necessarily more right or moral than the other, society simply must rely on a process through which people can legitimately participate to determine what ought to be the chosen option. The process happened and a law was passed and this is why it ought to be obeyed. This simply isn't a case where the law is demanding of anyone something that is obviously immoral, like discriminating or even physically harming another human being for no reason other than her skin colour.

I have seen nothing to convince me that breaking the law is a reasonable step to address this ports issue. But like I said I don't know shit about shit when it comes to this issue. As such I cannot know whether or not your characterisation of these people as scumbags is fair.

I'm trying to get a handle on how much weight I should put on your characterisation of this group of people. So are they scumbags because they're really just trying to get away with it, or are they scumbags because any time the label "lawbreaker" is attached to a group cyc can only see them as evil and can easily conjure up some legalistic frame which proves this to be so.

This is why I asked the question I did. To find out how crazy cyc is, so I can get a slightly clearer view on this whole ports issue. Cause the fucking media isn't providing any clarity.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by crocos

You were the one that brought up Rosa Parks in context of being analogous to the Wellington wildcat strikes

No! Bad! I was going for contrast, not analogy. What linked the two was supposed to be ONLY that they broke the law as opposed to petitioning their parliament.

It was meant to be like "Look, here's someone breaking the law to change it, rather than petitioning parliament, what do you think of them?"

Why is this so fucking hard?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Is ridiculous. If our democratic process were as responsive as I would like it to be, I might agree, but it isn't. We're still held hostage by outdated ideas about democracy, capitalism, and a corporate system that places far too much control in the hands of a comparatively small number of unelected people. National aren't going to change the law to allow people a choice, they were the ones that took that choice away in the first place.

It's all about you, Adonis. You're so important. In conclusion, if Adonis doesn't like it, it's bad. Do whatever you want -- it's all okay if you can justify it as some clarion call to democracy as Adonis sees it.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by cyc

Derp

Grow up. I went so far as to point out that our opinions on this particular point aren't actually that different, it's just that I believe the implementation is lacking. Civil disobedience against unjust governments is entirely reasonable, and the BORA protects the right to political protest. Considering the port is owned by the counsel and run by directors appointed by the government I think there's a very thin line between this and a political protest.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Civil disobedience against unjust governments is entirely reasonable, and the BORA protects the right to political protest. Considering the port is owned by the counsel and run by directors appointed by the government I think there's a very thin line between this and a political protest.

Dear Brain Damaged,

Section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (at least cite the name correctly if you're gonna rely on it) actually clearly states that where another statute is clearly inconsistent with any right guaranteed under the NZBORA, the inconsistent statute prevails. In any event, this point assumes that there's a legitimate jurisprudential, common law-based argument in support of the proposition that the right to freedom of expression under the NZBORA requires the government to permit wildcat strikes by people protesting in relation to matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with their own working conditions. This is an argument that you have not made, nor are you qualified to make and develop it.

Oh there's another thing that's in the way of your little NZBORA-based fantasy:

Some of the wildcat strikes occurred in places like the Ports of Tauranga (PoT). By way of an example, PoT is a listed, limited liability company majority owned by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. However, a company is a distinct entity in law that is entirely separate from its shareholders under the Companies Act. Guess what these facts combined with s 3 of the NZBORA do to your little fantastical argument?

Application


This Bill of Rights applies only to acts done—

(a) by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the Government of New Zealand; or


(b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law

As a real, qualified lawyer, I know for a fact that no court in NZ has ever held that a limited liability company owes NZBORA-based duties to anybody. Next time, imbecile, stick to stuff that you know (which would be next to nothing) and fuck up about things that you don't.

[adonis]

I withdraw the implication that the law would protect such actions as a political protest, but the rest stands. Normally I wouldn't offer a comment of something that requires specialist knowledge when I have only a lay-mans knowledge of it, but in reality my position isn't in any way reliant on it, so meh.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Mediawatch has an interesting analysis of the media coverage of the POA dispute on at the moment (downloadable on RNZ of course).

If anyones interested in that sort of thing that is...

Pixie

[Lightspeed]

^^ Pro-tier.

[Ab]

If you were MUNZ and you'd just managed to get Ports of Auckland back to the negotiating table, and the Employment Court specifically asked you to "exercise appropriate discretion and restraint regarding any media statements in relation to this matter given the continuation of bargaining", would your next move be to:

A. exercise appropriate discretion and restraint regarding any media statements in relation to this matter given the continuation of bargaining

or

B. go straight to the news media proclaiming victory and criticising PoA for being unable to work constructively


(Hint: Helen Kelly is involved)

[TnT]

Well silly, that depends, am I rational human being who believes that the rule of law should apply in this situation, or ... Helen Kelly

[Ab]

Basically the union placed its penis on the table and handed Ports of Auckland a hammer while saying "fuckin' dare you cunt".

...aaaaaaand whack.

Ports of Auckland locks out wharfies

That's some damn fine negotiating there Lou.

[CCS]

I love it. I love it so much. The incompetence of the CTU and MUNTZ, the hammering given out by the Port. It's so great and I love it.

[chubby]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/port...rocess-4799216

The port says the offer does not apply to casual employees.

[crocos]

Uh, yes? What's your point? Casual employees - by the very nature of their contract - have no guarantee of work-availability, and so you don't make them redundant - you just stop employing them.

[GM]

Well that took an interesting turn. I wonder if the opinions in here will soften too

[Golden Teapot]

Once my new sofa has been delivered I am happy for the PoA to fire the lot of them.

[GM]

*crickets*

[fixed_truth]

Damn that pesky Employment Court!

[chubby]

Originally Posted by crocos

Uh, yes? What's your point? Casual employees - by the very nature of their contract - have no guarantee of work-availability, and so you don't make them redundant - you just stop employing them.

that is,of course,correct.

[Ab]

I've had my head down in local matters here, someone want to give me a quick summary of the past week's developments?

[GM]

Board level politics has resulted in a back down by the PoA.

Basically a director named Rob Campbell has been beating his chest with fanciful ideas of creating an asset that returns as much as a fortune 500 company and pushed it too far. PoA received some advice during the week saying their position was weak, that forced a settlement, the director walked and here we are.

Wasted productivity aside they're down one director who probably didn't suit the role and now everyone can relax on their newly delivered couches.

[fixed_truth]

Also the Employment Court judge believes that "arguably" POAL contracting union members work while bargaining would seriously undermine bargaining on a new collective agreement and so would "arguably" be in breach of the Employment Relations Act.

The judge granted an injunction against the port getting rid of union members or using contractors.

Today’s change of tack by the port company comes a day after Employment Court Judge Barry Travis granted an injunction to prevent the port pursuing its desire to contract out the workforce, saying “the overall justice of the case required the defendant (Ports of Auckland) be prevented from exercising its dismissal proposals until its right to be able to do so, in light of the statutory requirements, is dealt with by the substantive hearing”.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ports-a...-out-ck-115293