Union action, fuck yeah

[xor]

Originally Posted by cyc

The major shareholders of POA is, IIRC, the Auckland Council. A number of Auckland Councillors have, IIRC (again) put out releases supporting the fucking union cunts.

PoA is a CCO and it appears that Len isn't backing the board. Oh dear.

[Lightspeed]

I have to wonder, what proportion of operating costs for the port are due to labour? News articles are quite misleading. $27m of product shipped a week is not that same as $27m revenue a week.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

I have to wonder, what proportion of operating costs for the port are due to labour? News articles are quite misleading. $27m of product shipped a week is not that same as $27m revenue a week.

From this morning's paper, that $27M was worth $100K revenue.

[Juju]

Union idiots are spinning the "It's about the money, not the consequences of uncertainty over strike action" line again regarding the Fonterra decision.

[crocos]

In many ways it's both. If the PoA was a reliable port, I'm sure Fontera wouldn't mind paying a little more than going through other ports. As it is, splitting the load between Tauranga and Napier HAS to be less efficient than going through the significantly higher-capacity Port of Auckland, so those saying it's costing Fontera less are full of shit. Except when you compare it to what it would be costing Fontera to go through PoA at the moment - millions of lost revenue from disrupted shipments over quite a period of time - but those costs were brought about by the strife between the unions and PoA management, so it seems a perfectly valid statement that PoA isn't reliable enough to provide certainty of shipping on any given date.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by crocos

From this morning's paper, that $27M was worth $100K revenue.

And revenue doesn't equal profit either.

[Lightspeed]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10777330

So what do people think of the views in this article? Both the views of the port workers and what they're after and the theory that the council plan to sell the port?

[spigalau]

More interested in the theory that our great Mayor & other councellors won't do anything as his campaign was part funded by the Maritime Union.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Juju

Union idiots are spinning the "It's about the money, not the consequences of uncertainty over strike action" line again regarding the Fonterra decision.

5 years ago, Maersk moved their business from Tauranga to Auckland. 10 years ago, they moved it from Auckland to Tauranga.

Was it unions back then too? Or one port offering a low rate than the other?

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10777330

So what do people think of the views in this article? Both the views of the port workers and what they're after and the theory that the council plan to sell the port?

I'm sure a lot of people do want to sell the port and are using this as a convenient excuse to flog it off.

The salary numbers look a lot more realistic than what AB quoted earlier. Generally I believe something if the evidence matches the magnitude of the claim being made, those figures were ridiculous and the idea that the union would turn down a 10% payrise but take a 2.5% payrise should be a giant indication to anyone that there's more here than meets the eye.

Gibson told the union he had to play hardball as his board of directors insisted that he got a financial return of more than 8 per cent.

Rodney Hide is to blame for this in other words.

[Golden Teapot]

I can't imagine anyone wanting to invest in a business like a port where the prospective return is a miserly 6%. One could say that this is why it is publicly owned - the only realistic way of capitalising an asset like this is to force those members of the community who actually net pay tax to subsidise this otherwise uneconomic business.

It is refreshing though to see the management of the company trying hard to get a fair return on the public's investment; this is very atypical of what is essentially a public sector company.

The simple and perhaps only solution here is to terminate the employment of those out on strike.

[SID|DensitY]

6%.. Not much wiggle room for the ports is there.

I was listening to news talk this morning which had a union spokesman on. He didn't really say why the offer (10% rise, month advance on scheduling, 20% performance bonus) was bad, and rambled about how the ports were being bullies with its redundancy talk etc.... Because you know striking isn't bulling at all...

Anyway, had enough, want it resolved.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by adonis

The salary numbers look a lot more realistic than what AB quoted earlier. Generally I believe something if the evidence matches the magnitude of the claim being made, those figures were ridiculous and the idea that the union would turn down a 10% payrise but take a 2.5% payrise should be a giant indication to anyone that there's more here than meets the eye.

Yep hearing the Unions side it sure looks like PoA are trying to reduce their overall wage expense and in the context of reduced hours - a 10% pay rise achieves this. The Unions want to keep the shift arrangements and a 2.5% pay increase.

[CCS]

I get the impression actually that they are very overstaffed. Can't blame them for wanting to reduce the wage cost.

[fixed_truth]

Really?

PoA want to change the old agreement which limits the percentage of part-timers and casuals. So based on PoA wanting to employ more casuals at a lower rate, for longer shifts - gives me the impression that it's not about the number of staff employed but about the overall wage bill.

[CCS]

Too many staff = high wage bill. Turn the full timers into casual/part time, = pay them less = lower wage bill. Yes? Obviously the total number is the same, but I'll leave that to you to sperg over.

[fixed_truth]

"overstaffed" means that PoA has more workers than it needs.

Perhaps you should have said that you get the impression PoA are paying it's permanent staff too much rather then saying they're "very overstaffed"?

[CCS]

Overstaffed is what I mean.

Look, are you just a bit too thick to follow what is going on here?

[Lightspeed]

So currently the port's shareholders are pushing for 8% return and the port is currently operating at about 6%.

If the staff get the wages they're after, what's the impact going to be on that return? 1%? 0.1%?

I'm not sure really how one can have a view on this whole union thing, there doesn't seem to be any real information out there. Just what one side or the other says.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by CCS

CCS Overstaffed is what I mean.

I'm not being drawn into a stuntpants semantic shitfest.

[CCS]

You introduced semantics to this argument, not me. But I'm more than happy for you to quit your yapping, as I'm bored of your usual intellectual dishonesty. our whole "Oh, I'm sitting on the fence. I'm not taking any sides, I'm waiting to hear both sides of the argument!" but the whole time you've been your usual lefty apologist self. You're not fooling anyone.

[fixed_truth]

heh. I'm an open and obvious lefty. But just because I support Unions ideologically doesn't mean that based on fuck-all info I'm going to automatically assume that MUNZ is justified in striking.

[CCS]

That's just what you've been doing though. Of course you've tried to conceal it with a thin veil of fence sitting, but... c'mon.

[fixed_truth]

Oh BS. If I've got something to say I'll say it. I'm not trying to impress the ladies.

[CCS]

Keep telling yourself that, brah.

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

The simple and perhaps only solution here is to terminate the employment of those out on strike.

Simple. Yeah, really fucking simple, like your brain. I'm beginning to think your a parody account.

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by adonis

Simple. Yeah, really fucking simple, like your brain. I'm beginning to think your a parody account.

YOU'RE !!!

[cyc]

Originally Posted by adonis

Simple. Yeah, really fucking simple, like your brain. I'm beginning to think your a parody account.

Nice cellphonage, chump!

[Lightspeed]

Really? A typo?

[MadMax]

i believe we'll see more of this when/if the minimum wage gets a decent bump up. was it last year or the year before that the media had us all working 4 day weeks? this kind of shift work is the only way to make the larger hourly rate viable.

most kiwis wont want to work those hours. you'll see more imported workers fill these kind of roles. many industries are already going the way of imported labour

[adonis]

Originally Posted by Jodi

YOU'RE !!!

Fair call. *hangs head in shame*

[adonis]

Gotta love the fact that people jump on bad grammar like that but not the extreme stupidity of GT's statement.

[Ab]

I can confirm that the average remuneration for a full time stevedore, in the year ended June 30, 2011, was $91,480. The average remuneration for a part time stevedore (guaranteed at least 24 hours work a week) was $65,518.

53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000. 28% (43 individuals) earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.

The averages were calculated by POAL’s payroll team based on actual payments, including for leave days, medical insurance and superannuation contributions. (For employees covered by the collective agreement, POAL matches their superannuation contributions up to a maximum of 7%.) We excluded those who had worked for less than the full 12 months e.g. had left part way through the year.

Employees are also entitled to 15 days sick leave per annum, accruing up to 45 days. All shift workers are entitled to five weeks annual leave. Training for all stevedoring tasks (crane driving, straddle driving and lashing) is undertaken in house and is paid for by the company.

One question that has been asked is how many hours you have to work to earn that $91,000. Stevedores who earned the average $91,000 in the 2010/11 financial year were paid for an average of 43 hours per week, excluding leave days. If you factor leave days in, that increases to 49 hours per week.

This leads to the key issue for the company – the high amount of paid downtime – an average of 35% of total hours paid. An employee getting paid for a 43 hour week is only working around 28 hours; for a 40 hour week, 26 hours. In a busy week, employees get paid for 66.5 hours but can only work for a maximum of 44.5.

On Monday 9 January, to give a recent example, we paid 26 staff a total of $5,484,80 for downtime, because they were entitled to be paid until the end of their set eight hour shift even though the ship had finished & they had gone home. In another example employees worked two hours of an overtime shift but were paid for the full eight hours.

(etc)

Catherine Etheredge
Senior Communications Manager
Ports of Auckland

[Lightspeed]

First, I assume all Australian residents are doubled over in laughter at the wages of these guys.

Second, what does this compare with NZ employees in roles with similar performance requirements?

[Saladin]

If this article is to be believed
http://www.supplychainreview.com.au/...2FNo+Container

The average aussie stevedore salary is $100k AU..

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Cynos

What hours etc. do they work? Some context for your numbers would be good.

see above

Originally Posted by adonis

The salary numbers look a lot more realistic than what AB quoted earlier. Generally I believe something if the evidence matches the magnitude of the claim being made, those figures were ridiculous

dum de dum

[Golden Teapot]

God that would mean that the union has been misrepresenting their position to such an extreme that they were essentially lying through their teeth. This can't be so though can it? Since, unions don't do that sort of thing; they exist only to fairly represent their membership against the tyranny of unreasonable employers.

Fire the lot of them - end of problem.

[fixed_truth]

The averages were calculated by POAL’s payroll team based on actual payments, including for leave days, medical insurance and superannuation contributions.

So assuming that their base rate is approx. $27 per hour (60k p.a approx.) then there seems like an excessive amount of other remuneration.

It would be interesting to see details of this remuneration ie, wouldn't something like group insurance at a dangerous job be an operating expense separate to an employee benefit?

[cyc]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Second, what does this compare with NZ employees in roles with similar performance requirements?

Look, cut the pretension. You go find me another job where some skill-less labourer makes that kind of money in NZ.

[Lightspeed]

I don't really know much about stevedore work. Is it really skill-less? It seems like a job with a lot of room for fuck-ups and little tolerance to cope with them.