|
6th March 2012, 18:55 | #1 | |
Objection!
|
Union scum
GETS THE SMACKDOWN!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...to-unload-ship Quote:
|
|
6th March 2012, 18:56 | #2 |
|
i disagree with your anti union sentiment.
__________________
|
6th March 2012, 19:03 | #3 | ||
Objection!
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
6th March 2012, 19:03 | #4 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
6th March 2012, 20:00 | #5 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
The whole wharf dispute is reaching loltastic levels of incompetence from the union. I can only assume that Helen Kelly is involved somewhere.
|
6th March 2012, 20:42 | #6 |
Stunt Pants
|
According to Whale Oil she's been vag deep in it.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
7th March 2012, 09:59 | #7 |
|
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
7th March 2012, 10:43 | #8 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Spig. |
|
7th March 2012, 10:59 | #9 |
Objection!
|
Apparently the PoA has just sacked the striking workers.
O FOR AWESOME |
7th March 2012, 11:01 | #10 | |
|
Quote:
Worthy of a round of applause...
__________________
0_o ----E <Defends self with fork!> |
|
7th March 2012, 11:13 | #12 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2012, 11:20 | #13 |
|
__________________
Spig. |
7th March 2012, 11:45 | #14 |
I have detailed files
|
|
7th March 2012, 11:58 | #15 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
PoAnd
|
7th March 2012, 12:22 | #16 |
Marginal Poster
|
yay people lost their jobs!
|
7th March 2012, 12:31 | #17 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Something about a penis and a table and a hammer.
|
7th March 2012, 12:33 | #18 |
|
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. |
7th March 2012, 12:36 | #19 |
|
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. |
7th March 2012, 12:37 | #20 | |
talkative lurker
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Broke my addiction! Bye bye Eve, hello Minecraft. Wait... >_< |
|
7th March 2012, 12:38 | #21 |
I have detailed files
|
Sorry, I should have spelt it out more.
|
7th March 2012, 12:43 | #22 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
We got it the first time, Stoolie.
|
7th March 2012, 12:52 | #23 | |
Marginal Poster
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2012, 12:59 | #24 | |
|
Quote:
Same goes as to whether you can be fired for striking (in your contract of not). *shrug* |
|
7th March 2012, 13:06 | #25 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
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 |
7th March 2012, 13:06 | #26 |
|
Could numerous and lengthy strikes be considered job abandonment?
|
7th March 2012, 13:07 | #27 |
Architeuthis
|
Bored by the inevitable (and superficial) PATCO comparison.
|
7th March 2012, 13:10 | #28 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية Last edited by crocos : 7th March 2012 at 13:12. |
|
7th March 2012, 13:11 | #29 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by cyc : 7th March 2012 at 13:13. |
|
7th March 2012, 14:45 | #30 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2012, 15:15 | #31 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
If all those ex-wharfies go on the dole and become beneficiaries, I guess The Labour Party will represent them after all.
|
7th March 2012, 16:04 | #32 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
7th March 2012, 16:40 | #33 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
|
7th March 2012, 16:45 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
7th March 2012, 17:07 | #35 | |
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Some people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs. |
|
7th March 2012, 17:12 | #36 | |
get to da choppa
|
Quote:
|
|
7th March 2012, 17:26 | #37 |
|
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.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
7th March 2012, 17:39 | #38 |
get to da choppa
|
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? |
7th March 2012, 17:49 | #39 |
|
^^ 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!
|
7th March 2012, 18:13 | #40 |
|
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.
|