|
5th January 2012, 09:30 | #41 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
5th January 2012, 17:07 | #42 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
5th January 2012, 23:19 | #43 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
|
6th January 2012, 09:47 | #44 |
get to da choppa
|
Union idiots are spinning the "It's about the money, not the consequences of uncertainty over strike action" line again regarding the Fonterra decision.
|
6th January 2012, 11:43 | #45 |
|
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.
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
8th January 2012, 13:54 | #47 |
|
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?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th January 2012, 15:32 | #48 |
|
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.
__________________
Spig. |
8th January 2012, 20:20 | #49 | |
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
So the perkbuster Hide abusing perks, crimbuster Garrett actually a crim - what's next? Roger Douglas is secretly poor? --Saladin |
|
9th January 2012, 03:12 | #50 | ||
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||
10th January 2012, 09:07 | #51 |
Love, Actuary
|
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. |
10th January 2012, 09:27 | #52 |
|
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. |
10th January 2012, 09:28 | #53 | |
|
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. |
|
10th January 2012, 09:30 | #54 |
Stunt Pants
|
I get the impression actually that they are very overstaffed. Can't blame them for wanting to reduce the wage cost.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 09:42 | #55 |
|
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.
__________________
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. |
10th January 2012, 09:46 | #56 |
Stunt Pants
|
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.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 10:14 | #57 |
|
"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"?
__________________
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. |
10th January 2012, 10:26 | #58 |
Stunt Pants
|
Overstaffed is what I mean.
Look, are you just a bit too thick to follow what is going on here?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 11:29 | #59 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
10th January 2012, 11:57 | #60 | |
|
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. |
|
10th January 2012, 13:20 | #61 |
Stunt Pants
|
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.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 16:24 | #62 |
|
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.
__________________
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. |
10th January 2012, 16:28 | #63 |
Stunt Pants
|
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.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 16:36 | #64 |
|
Oh BS. If I've got something to say I'll say it. I'm not trying to impress the ladies.
__________________
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. |
10th January 2012, 17:36 | #65 |
Stunt Pants
|
Keep telling yourself that, brah.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th January 2012, 19:49 | #66 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th January 2012, 20:51 | #67 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th January 2012, 22:28 | #68 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
10th January 2012, 23:10 | #69 |
|
Really? A typo?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
10th January 2012, 23:17 | #70 |
Stuff
|
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
__________________
My degree of sarcasm depends on your degree of stupidity. |
10th January 2012, 23:50 | #71 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th January 2012, 23:52 | #72 |
|
Gotta love the fact that people jump on bad grammar like that but not the extreme stupidity of GT's statement.
|
11th January 2012, 15:04 | #73 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
11th January 2012, 15:24 | #74 |
|
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?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
11th January 2012, 15:34 | #75 |
Nothing to See Here!
|
If this article is to be believed
http://www.supplychainreview.com.au/...2FNo+Container The average aussie stevedore salary is $100k AU.. |
11th January 2012, 16:25 | #76 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11th January 2012, 19:40 | #77 |
Love, Actuary
|
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. |
11th January 2012, 20:13 | #78 | |
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
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. |
|
11th January 2012, 22:31 | #79 | |
Objection!
|
Quote:
|
|
12th January 2012, 00:16 | #80 |
|
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.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |