Audited pay facts from Ports of Auckland

January 24th, 2012 at 3:02 pm by David Farrar

have twice released information on average remuneration levels for wharfies or stevedores employed by them. Many on the left have claimed these figures are wrong on the basis of a column by Matt McCarten which used third hand information from the union.

It has been interesting seeing so many try to deny factual figures, on the basis of just wishing they were different, as they are unhelpful to their cause.

Anyway Ernst & Young have audited the Ports of Auckland figures, and confirmed them. Hopefully this means the deniers will now be quiet. I’ve embedded below the Scribd by Whale.

Ports of Auckland Fact Sheet – Ernst and Young

A summary is:

  • Ernst & Young found Ports of Auckland was correct in stating that the average remuneration for full time stevedores was $91,000.
  • Not a single full-time stevedore earned as little as the $56,700 described by theMaritime Union as the basic wage at Ports of Auckland.
  • Ernst & Young found that even part time stevedores made more than this, earning on average $65,000.
  • 43 individuals earned over $100,000 with the highest earner making $122,000.
  • Union claims that a stevedore would have to work around 32 weeks of overtime a year to receive the average remuneration of $91,000 are untrue.
  • The $91,000 includes a range of allowances, benefits and shift payments with the average number of hours paid per week averaging 43.9.
  • However, the real issue is the lack of flexibility which results in an excessive amount of paid downtime at the port. This means that for every 40 hours paid, Ports of Auckland’s stevedores are only working 26.

So Ernst & Young have confirmed that the average remuneration for a wharfie at POAL is $91,000 and the average umber of hours actually worked a week to gain that is 28 (26 x 44/40). That is an average hourly remuneration of $62.50 for actual hours worked.

Tags: ,

91 Responses to “Audited pay facts from Ports of Auckland”

  1. lastmanstanding (1,281 comments) says:

    $62.50ph equals $130K pa for a 40 hr week.

    Example 4394 of the total mis match of pay for job done in NZ. AND that includes the over paid under performing CEOs and Directors of many companies.

    Until we get a match of pay for job performance our economy will continue to struggle. And dont tell me it cant be done. Its a case of wont be done.

    Not difficult to bench mark and match job/pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    Let me get in before ross to explain why Ernst and Young are wrong.

    They get paid to do their work, and are therefore corrupt.

    In contrast, the wharfies get paid for not working, making them the good guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    A fact sheet put out by POAL? Classic.

    [DPF: Audited by Ernst & Young. But thanks for confirming you are a delusional conspiracy theorist who even now won't accept the facts. Tell us how Ernst & Young were paid off to lie, please]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    Not as classic as a “Code of Ethics” put out by a Union.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hmmokrightitis (1,586 comments) says:

    LMAO ross, is that really the best youve got? Factually incorrect bleat passes as comment. You sad wee person.

    Still waiting to see an update on the utterly stranded on this. Dont think Im going to hold my breath…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Strange that POAL can’t answer some basic questions about pay but feels the need to employ accountants to ckeck that it’s telling the truth.

    Although it’s been two weeks since these questions were first asked, maybe POAL will discover its conscience and give the public the full story.

    1. How much does Catherine Etheredge get paid and how many hours is she required to work to get paid this figure?
    2. What skills (if any) are required for her job?
    3. Does she get paid for supplying blogs with personal information about stevedores?
    4. Has she supplied blogs with personal information about her own pay and working conditions? If not, why not?
    5. How much annual and sick leave does she receive?
    6. Has she received any bonuses since being employed by the Ports of Auckland? If so, what were the amounts of these bonuses and why did she receive them?
    7. Is there any other information about her employment by POA which she would like to disclose?
    8. What would have been the total wage bill of the POA’s first offer to wharfies? How does that compare with the POA’s most recent offer and how does that compare to the current wage bill?
    9. How many wharfies at the POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
    10. How many middle or senior managers at POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?
    11. What is the hourly base rate for a full-time wharfie at the POA?
    12. What does Etheredge mean when she says that the company is not covering its cost of capital?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. samtheman (40 comments) says:

    @lastmanstanding

    I suppose in a perfect world (the one most economists live in) pay and performance would be perfectly linked, but it is often far too hard to determine performance or under-performance. Corporate executives and unions alike use their power to obscure their performance or that of their members. On top of this, it is often too costly to determine the performance of staff. Finally, performance pay can create perverse incentives – see teachers ‘teaching to the test’ or even changing their student’s answers to improve their ‘performance’.

    That said, I agree, our economy would be doing much better if more people were paid what they are worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ed Snack (1,849 comments) says:

    Ross, is the union now campaigning for the pay of other workers at the port to be lowered now, or contracted out ?

    Union caught out in lie, colour me surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. dog_eat_dog (780 comments) says:

    So Ross’s response is to play the women, and not the ball. Typical bullshit – don’t question how much we’re worth, but we’ll throw any other worker we can under the bus to get our way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Perhaps Ross could answer how many women work as Stevedores and explain why that is before he attacks the messenger.

    Oh that’s right it is just two out of 230. Why? Because the union insists that despite the plethora of other jobs on the wharf all workers must be qualified as lashers and spend 6 months doing that job before any other. thus ensuring that the wharf is a cock fest.

    Ironic that they are now hiding behind the skirts of Helen Kelly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,364 comments) says:

    Not bad pay for part time work. They are in the process of organising an international boycott to sabotage the NZ economy to protect these 300 part time jobs. Let them try I say and make our day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    1. How much does ross get paid and how many hours is he required to work to get paid this figure?

    Zero hours. The dole is pretty sweet like that.

    2. What skills (if any) are required for his job?

    A functional arse on which to sit, and a functional mouth from which to shit.

    3. Does he get paid for supplying blogs with a sycophantic defense of everything Union?

    Yes. He gets paid the full value of this work. See question 1.

    4. Has he supplied blogs with personal information about his own pay and working conditions? If not, why not?

    No. Yet he doesnt get the hypocrisy of demanding others do so.

    5. How much annual and sick leave does he receive?

    None. That doesnt stop him from phoning in sick anyway. His mobile only has one functional number on it; his own landline.

    6. Has he received any bonuses since being employed by the Union? If so, what were the amounts of these bonuses and why did he receive them?

    He does claim the bonuses of “solidarity” and “mateship”, but technically he isnt employed by the Union.

    7. Is there any other information about his employment by the Union which he would like to disclose?

    Oh, I am sure he would love to disclose a whole lot. None of it true though. For example, they once let him stand outside their offices for a full 5 minutes, before getting creeped out and asking the cops to move him along. The truth is it was 2 minutes.

    8. What would have been the total wage bill of the POA’s first offer to wharfies? How does that compare with the POA’s most recent offer and how does that compare to the current wage bill?

    ross could just ask this of the Union. He doesnt because they arent returning his calls. Something about the last 20 minute message he recorded on their answerphone that was just heavy breathing.

    9. How many wharfies at the POA were paid bonuses in the last financial year and why were those bonuses paid?

    Again, surely the Union could give him this information? Right?

    10. How many bonuses has ross been paid and why were those bonuses paid?

    ross has recieved a lot of bonuses. Some was holiday pay, some was just to get him to fuck off and bother someone else riding the bus.

    11. What is the hourly base rate for a full-time apologist for the Union?

    ross would have to give up his “amateur” status to find out. But it is a pretty sweet gig anyway. If you fuck up and the company locks out your members, as a Union employee you still get paid.

    12. What does Etheredge mean when she says that the company is not covering its cost of capital?

    http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=finance+101

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Ross, you’ve fought a valiant very tedious and futile fight, the facts are there from an idependent source,Catherine Etheridge is not on strike telling lies in the media , what her salary is not relevant

    You have been handed your arse on a plate probably the best seen here ever, you are owned. Even the wharfies think your time as a useful idiot is past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fentex (937 comments) says:

    Strange that POAL can’t answer some basic questions about pay

    An employer can’t be cavalier about revealing information on employees earnings. The idea of having a, presumed, disinterested third party check and report on facts keeping details of individuals confidential is a reasonable way of providing information.

    Though I think an audit that includes an incidental opinion (“This is not financially sustainable.”) undermines it’s credibility as independent.

    I’m also left unclear of a detail – this being paid for 40 hours when 28 are worked because of downtime. Doesn’t that mean that managing business to avoid downtime is the issue rather than the pay rate? Is this what references to the “superior systems used” by Tauranga refers to?

    And, because I wonder if there’s a rational reason for differences of opinion, does the being paid 40 hours for 28 hours actual work involve any overlaps through a year? Not knowing how rosters work with these stevedores I wonder if there are people working through out a week but because of job assignments may be being paid for downtime on one job while being paid for active work on another?

    A simple summary of X dollars paid over a year for N hours accounted (active and downtime) with Y hours actively worked would remove all possibility for confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Oh that’s right it is just two out of 230.

    A whale is of the sea but not of the seamen.

    A real Wharfie said this:

    “There are a large amount of women working on the wharves too many to count”.
    “Not sure of the numbers but there are many on the union role working as wharfies”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Fentex,

    How can there be any fucking confusion, X got paid Y – all the y’s paid to the x’s averaged out at z.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Previously, POAL has said that 53% of full time stevedores (123 individuals) earned over $80,000…what do the other 47% of full time wharfies earn?

    At least POAL has admitted that the hourly rate for wharfies is $27. That is what McCarten and others stated. For a 40 hour week, that is about $1080.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “Though I think an audit that includes an incidental opinion (“This is not financially sustainable.”) undermines it’s credibility as independent.”

    I think you’ll find that Ernst and Young didn’t say such a thing. Yes, it would undermine their credibility if they had made such a statement. It is POAL which has made that comment. They haven’t explained why it is unsustainable, nor have they explained what (if anything) they are doing to reduce their non-wage costs, which make up two thirds of their total costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    Ross,

    Lets just look at your questions:

    1. How much Catherine Etheridge gets paid is not pertinent to the contracts of the Stevedores
    2. If you want to become a Communications Manager, look up the qualifications yourself. (though given the fact, Ross, you can’t find out yourself, I wouldn’t bother if I were you.)
    3. It wasn’t private information. And supplying information is what a communications manager does (see above)
    4. Why would she present info on her contract? She’s not the one striking, Ross.
    5. Perhaps you need a psychiatrist, Ross. You seem fixated on Ms Etheridge. Been getting any hot flushes lately? Any urge to look through windows at 2am in the morning?
    6. Are you sure you’re commenting on the right industrial dispute here, Ross? Was unaware you are fighting for Ms Etheridges job too (mind you, it goes some way to explaining that “fixation” issue)
    7. No
    8. I can lend you a calculator. I have an old FX-82 round here somewhere. Ring up POAL and ask them. Or better yet – MUNZ! Given they rejected the offerI’m sure they will give you the time of day.
    9. As above, Rosco: ask the wharfies! I’m not too sure if they will answer though. They seem to be a bit gunshy when transparency is asked for.
    10. Define “middle and senior”. And why are the Junior managers left out! Poor buggers. Why don’t they get bonuses and who represents them? You? If communications doesn’t work out, can I suggest asking Gary P for a job?
    11. Thats confidential. Why are you trying to intrude on the wharfies private lives, Ross? Haven’t they got it hard enough, fer chrissakes!!!!!
    12. Whats this aversion to research? Brian Gaynor published on that very topic in the Herald the other day. Nice of Catherine to remind you, eh? She’s not all bad, y’know Ross

    Can I suggest a wee spell in a place with pastel colours just to calm down for a bit, eh Rosco? After that, call Victoria University. They have a fantastic remedial program aimed at just your level. And they even give you a calculator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “the wharf is a cock fest”

    Whaleoil….still keeping it classy. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    Helen Kelly wears skirts? I thought she wore the pants around there?

    Yours,

    Alistair T

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Keeping Stock (10,299 comments) says:

    @ Ross – #9 on the E&Y fact-sheet reads:

    However, the real issue is the lack of flexibility which results in an excessive amount of paid downtime at the port. This means that for every 40 hours paid, Ports of Auckland’s stevedores are only working 26. This is not financially sustainable.

    Those are Ernst and Young’s words, not PoAL’s. You’ve fought the good fight for the brothers, but as Pauleastbay noted, you’ve been handed your arse on a plate in pretty spectacular style. Now might be a good time to admit that we are right, and you are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    @Pete George…yes but how many at Auckland…are you suggesting that the port doesn’t know about all these women workers, and only about two of them?

    I specifically asked how many and the answer was two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    And ‘Wharfie’ claimed too many for him (presume it was a him) to count. Maybe you are both right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    I can see now that the shift ‘benefits’ inflate the basic hourly rate. I’m not sure releasing the figures can be judged as ‘good faith’ bargaining and union has already made an application to the Court because of POA offering individual packages whilst at the same time apparently negoiating with the collective.
    They’re absolutely ‘generous’ allowances by standards of other shift workers but they were arrived at between 2 parties one of who now wants out and is specifically trying to tip the workforce out. I have a friend who before he retired ran the most sucessful privately owned (and largest) business in NZ in a particular sector, if there was somebody that needed to go he paid them to do that. POA seem to be doing that but in a less direct and honest way. Have to give the union a points deficit at this stage for not fronting up with some admission about the figures (assuming they’re right.) They’ve loss the opportunity now having given POA an advantage to focus on, whereas simply being open about the figures at the right time would have let the steam out and the focus to move else where. Live and learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF:

    Now readers will recall that the average wage for a FT wharfie in Auckland is $91,000. This is for an unskilled job where training is on the job.

    Based on this fact sheet we were correct to call bullshit on your dishonest spinning of these numbers.

    $91k isn’t the average “wage”. It’s the average wage plus overtime plus allowances plus superannuation plus health insurance. And you won’t be getting $91k for doing an “unskilled job” — note the explicit “skilled task allowance”.

    [DPF: It is the average remuneration earnt, which is the term I have used since that was made clear.

    And just because you have an allowance called skilled task doesn't change the reality that you can get hired for these jobs with no pre-requisite skills or training. POAL provide the training as part of the job.

    The reality is a wharfie who works an average 28 hours a week is getting annual remuneration of $91,000. Do you still deny this?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. pidge (56 comments) says:

    @ Keeping Stock – the Fact sheet is on POAL letter head, with the close of “Ports of Auckland, 24 January 2012″. POAL probably should not have included the item 9 as written in the list, instead just “For every 40 hours paid, Ports of Auckland’s stevedores are only working 26″ with the qualifier of “on average”.

    @ Nostalgia-NZ – In my recollection of events, POAL released the wage figures in response to figures claimed by MUNZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    PoAL could of course end all this speculation and propaganda simply by issuing the base hourly rates in the current agreement. That would allow the people this propaganda is trying to influence the ability to accurately compare the wharfies’ pay with their own, which is presumably why it’s not part of the artful deception PoAL is carrying out with the assistance of right-wing bloggers.

    [DPF: You're a total idiot who should read before they post. The hourly rates are in the document I blogged. Doh!]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    pidge 5.03.

    That’s right I think. One of the counterclaims against the Union’s appeal against breach of good faith bargaining was that a ‘worker’ held aloft a sign claiming $13 an hour.

    Psycho Milt 5.05

    Although the general concept of ‘alls fair in love and war’ isn’t part of good faith bargaining – the wharfies look like the walked into one here. A ‘mugs shot’ in the vernacular. There was another sign of it, having kids on the picket line which I thought was misguided. But it goes back to the average rate, once it was debated, I don’t think the union should have dithered, rather out with the facts and move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. DJP6-25 (1,376 comments) says:

    Auditors 1 MUNZ 0.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    $91k isn’t the average “wage”. It’s the average wage plus overtime plus allowances plus superannuation plus health insurance.

    Only if you want to get pedantic about what ‘wage’ means. Most people are interested most in their total gross and take home nett pay.

    the ability to accurately compare the wharfies’ pay with their own

    You can’t do that with “base hourly rates”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    You can’t do that with “base hourly rates”.

    Beat me to it.

    When we are told that someone is striking despite earning $100k on average under the plan, we would ask “well, that seems a lot, but how many hours do they work?”

    If we are told they work 80 hours a week, we would shrug our shoulders and say, “fair enough then”.

    We werent told that though. We were told that they barely work half of their normal 40 hours. And that to actually do their job fully they had to be paid a ton of ‘overtime’, as well as genuine overtime.

    What we did then was say, “well, a lot of those ‘overtime’ hours arent real overtime, are they?” And we adjusted our estimate of fairness accordingly.

    Whats wrong with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Cactus Kate (551 comments) says:

    I did suggest Peter Kiely v Mike Williams in front of a judge but a big 4 audit is even better.
    Every number I disclosed has been found to be true.
    The Unions can’t stop spinning and lying. And can’t be trusted with any other information they disseminated as a result. For too long in NZ Unions have run misinformation campaigns in media and through the public as their sole way of winning disputes.
    I would say a team of bloggers and a competent PR person on the Ports has just stopped that practice for good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    Perhaps they need all thay money so they can make political donations and pay lobbyists to press for the grain pier to be re-opened and have the canal dredged?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. pete (416 comments) says:

    From this post:

    Average wage for a full time stevedore at POAL was $91,480
    [...]
    POAL provides [...] Southern Cross medical insurance for the employee and family

    No indication that the $91k includes the medical insurance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘I would say a team of bloggers and a competent PR person on the Ports has just stopped that practice for good.’

    Don’t know about taking credit for the other sides own goal.
    I suspect a lot of this revelation will come out in the wash, and a few will view it as best out of the way.
    Being frank those that believed it to be true can only beat their chests about it for so long, those that weren’t sure see that issue as resolved but no overall resolution.
    Interesting to me is that in lots of labour/trade environments the base rate is the only rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    Don’t know about taking credit for the other sides own goal.

    Why was it an own goal? If they have been doing it for years, why would it all of a sudden be an own goal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    Kimble

    Surely they could have predicted that the truth would out on the particular subject of the most public interest, trying to water it down or avoid it was bloody stupid to that extent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. pete (416 comments) says:

    Pete George:

    Only if you want to get pedantic about what ‘wage’ means. Most people are interested most in their total gross and take home nett pay.

    In this post DPF says:

    Their oppressive employer is only paying them:

    * An average full-time wage of $91,480
    * Free medical insurance for not just the stevedore, but their entire family
    * …

    They’re counting on us assuming that the $91k is the base rate, and mentally revising it upwards to account for benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Zetetic at The Standard is trying attack as a means of diverting from the facts as they have been shown. That’s normal there, nine times out of ten when I post there they attack me rather than address what I say. I can’t comment there, Irish banned me for responding to him in kind, the usual uneven playing field.

    Today POAL and their creepy lackies David Farrar and Cameron Slater have continued their knicker-sniffing.

    I reckon that if we’re gonna go rooting around in people’s personal business then David should tell us how many taxpayer dollars come out of National’s parliamentary services budget and go into his company’s bank account each year and Slater should tell us how many under-the-table dollars he got doing debt-collection while those of us with jobs paid him the sickness benefit.

    C’mon lads. You wanna talk dollars. Let’s talk dollars.

    C’mon Zetetic. You wanna talk dollars. Let’s talk dollars.

    I get nothing from Goverment except for the standard Kiwisaver, and I pay appreciably more tax than I get for that.

    And you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. elscorcho (154 comments) says:

    What exactly is an “average” wage?
    Do they mean “mean”?

    Even fifth form maths would tell you that “average” is meaningless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. dime (9,856 comments) says:

    LMAO glorious!

    LMAO @ ross too!

    the game is up you lazy unionists

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “The Unions can’t stop spinning and lying.”

    Maths sure isn’t your strong point, but then it’s Chinese NY so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    But here’s a question for you that even a 3rd former would find a breeze. If a worker is paid $91K, and if that worker’s hourly rate is $27, how many hours would that worker have to work to take home $91K? Calculators are not required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Sublime (276 comments) says:

    Ross

    Catherine’s pay has nothing to do with this. Perhaps she enjoys supplying information to blogs,
    or bloggers, as sanctimonious turkeys like you won’t believe any information that doesn’t support
    your argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “$91k isn’t the average ‘wage’. It’s the average wage plus overtime plus allowances plus superannuation plus health insurance. And you won’t be getting $91k for doing an ‘unskilled job’ — note the explicit ‘skilled task allowance’.”

    Pete, you’re trying to have a rational discussion with one of the most dishonest bloggers in NZ. See your problem? If you just accept that DPF has a pathological hatred of unions, everything makes sense.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    Sublime,

    There is general consensus that wharfies are paid about $27 an hour. You obviously think that is outrageously high and that the wage gap between NZ and Australia should widen. John Key disagrees; he wants the wage gap closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    Only if you want to get pedantic about what ‘wage’ means. Most people are interested most in their total gross and take home nett pay.

    Try “Only if you want to get accurate about what ‘wage’ means, rather than help PoAL with their propaganda.” That way, you wouldn’t be talking shit.

    The people who actually do the work, as opposed to the people parroting PoAL’s propaganda, think of their wages in terms of the hourly rate. If PoAL and it’s blogging lackeys want people to make comparisons between their own pay and that of MUNZ members, they should publish that hourly rate. They won’t because it’s not particularly impressive compared with $91,000 “total remuneration,” so completely useless for propaganda purposes.

    Oh, and: whining righties with their politics of envy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. pete (416 comments) says:

    Pete, you’re trying to have a rational discussion with one of the most dishonest bloggers in NZ. See your problem? If you just accept that DPF has a pathological hatred of unions, everything makes sense.

    I know I don’t need to convince DPF — he already knows he’s lying. I’m just trying to save his readers a bit of time working out exactly which con he’s trying to pull today.

    [DPF: 20 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. pete (416 comments) says:

    MUNZ have responded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    MUNZ have called Ernst & Young liars!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. RightNow (6,986 comments) says:

    This comment at Whaleoil strikes me as being quite significant:

    “The maritime of new Zealand has not filed financial returns since 2009 according to the societies office records. Does this mean they are in breach of the rules and therefore an illegal entity?”

    Anyone care to disclose how much Garry Parsloe is paid?

    Anyone, anyone, ross?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. burt (8,238 comments) says:

    Unions… once again show how utterly out of touch they are – still being no more and no less than the funding arm of the Labour party it’s no surprise. Losers…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. burt (8,238 comments) says:

    RightNow

    It’s quite possible that Parsloe is the only union boss who isn’t earning 5x more then the people he claims to represent by sponging off them so he can donate their hard earned wages to highly paid Labour party politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    They’re counting on us assuming that the $91k is the base rate, and mentally revising it upwards to account for benefits.

    The people who actually do the work, as opposed to the people parroting PoAL’s propaganda, think of their wages in terms of the hourly rate.

    Wage: Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.

    Did anyone here think that the wharfies were paid $91k per hour? Per day? Or per week?

    Keep on this argument guys. Its a winner!

    I am sure the next time a CEO earns several million dollars for running a company into the ground, you lefties will be satisfied if he only got paid $1 in wages but $7.5m in alternative compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    If a worker is paid $91K, and if that worker’s hourly rate is $27, and that worker gets overtime as standard, and also receives many perks, and spends many of those work hours sitting at the pub, and that that worker who gets $27 isnt actually the one earning $91k, how many hours would that worker have to work to take home $91K?

    FYP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    I am sure the next time a CEO earns several million dollars for running a company into the ground…

    PoAL’s got one doing that right now.

    What’s the wharfies’ hourly rate, Kimble? Surely the assembled financial and economic geniuses of Kiwiblog will have this one at their fingertips, given the comprehensive data PoAL has supposedly been releasing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RightNow (6,986 comments) says:

    burt, stop it, it hurts when I laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Elaycee (4,375 comments) says:

    It’s not hard to understand why there is such ridicule directed at the left – the sheer crap spouted by the usual suspects (and a few newcomers) on this blog are proof positive that the left relies on the Josef Goebbels propaganda principle: If you keep telling lies often enough, the hope is that the gullible will actually start to believe the lies are fact, rather than fiction.

    Now the left can try and weasel some different spin, but this average remuneration of $91,400 per annum (for the 2011 year) is fact. To try and spin this as something else, is not a case of stretching the truth, but rather it is a case of telling blatant lies.

    I can totally understand why the POAL is frustrated with these prolonged ‘negotiations’ – it must be very hard to try and have ‘good faith’ discussions when one of the parties (the Maritime Union) has so much trouble with the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    What’s the wharfies’ hourly rate, Kimble?

    What does it matter? They get total compensation of $91k on average. The next question is whether that is fair enough for the work they are doing.

    The $91,000 includes a range of allowances, benefits and shift payments with the average number of hours paid per week averaging 43.

    43 hours, huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RightNow (6,986 comments) says:

    I’m inclined to agree the PoAL CEO has done a poor job, and I think the owners aren’t coming out of this looking too bright either.
    Predictable end result – PoAL gets sold for a fraction of it’s purchase value. Existing workers get their redundancy payouts and the new owners (private) contract them back under more flexible terms although not necessarily at lesser rates.

    Chalk one up for public ownership of assets huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. RightNow (6,986 comments) says:

    The funny side of this is the frothy-mouthed lefties arguing against their own position here. The hourly rate might be $27/hour, yet the average annual full-time income isn’t $56,160, it’s $91,481. Which is exactly why the PoAL wants more flexibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. burt (8,238 comments) says:

    RightNow

    But we can’t have workers not having a cushy number for life … hell they have joined the union you know !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    It is generally accepted that downtime is part of the work and pay environment whether for firemen or overnight carers. And so are shift pay arrangments.

    So we can simply move on to accepting that the average pay for these workers is around $90,000.

    Besides it’s not a dispute about changes to pay arrangments, but around work availability/shifts.

    The workers are not happy about the changes proposed in that area. And the contention is not about the hours they work during their shifts but the amount of notice they receive and the onerous shifts that are invovled in terms of having a family life (the men have little participation in organised sport and the like as it is because of the nature of shift work).

    I can accept that some people have a problem with union workers being paid well etc (like in some bizarre parallel universe where the right resent union workers having a good pay rate), but this is not a case where the employer or the union are clashing over pay. Flexibility for the ports comes at the cost of the family life of workers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. PaulL (5,971 comments) says:

    pete:

    MUNZ have responded.

    Yup. And, funnily enough, their talking points match some of those on this comment thread. And are still nonsensical when coming from the union.

    He says it avoids the fundamental issues in this dispute which are about security of employment and privatisation, not pay rates.

    Right, trying to move away from this discussion at all, because it’s losing territory. Of course the dispute isn’t about pay, it’s about keeping the high pay they have and guaranteeing job security so they can keep getting that pay into the future.

    Mr Parsloe says POAL management has offered to increase pay by 10% over 30 months, while the union is asking for a far more modest 2.5% increase for 12 months.

    To their credit they've actually noted the different periods, but "far more modest" isn't how I'd describe the difference between 10% over 3 years (call it 4% per annum) and 2.5% in the first year with right to ask for more later. It's a bit lower, but reserves the right to disrupt operations again next year – maybe under new management. Coupled with a right to not contract out, that'd be a pretty good deal.

    Originally POAL management claimed stevedore wages were averaging $91,000 for 26 hours work. The new fact sheet shows this to be incorrect.

    It shows that a person earning the average $91K was paid for on average 43 hours, and for every 40 hours paid only 26 were worked. So strictly, MUNZ are correct, the average person works 28 hours (43 /40 * 26). Still similar though – far fewer hours worked than paid.

    The new POAL fact sheet claims the average salary is $91,000 but does not say what hours are needed to earn this amount of money – it is clear many hours are needed at the rate of $27 per hour including many shifts and overtime hours.

    They do say that – they say that 43 hours are paid, and of those, 26/40ths of them are actually worked – or 28 hours. It is true that many hours would be needed at $27 per hour, but it’s misdirection. They get paid a lot more than $27 per hour, in fact they get paid 91,000/(28 * 52) = $62.50 per hour worked if we ignore annual leave, more if we exclude annual leave.

    The fact sheet claims the average hours are 43 per week but does not say what a person on these hours would earn or what a person must work to earn $91,000. This is because significant extra hours are required to earn this type of income.

    This is incorrect. It says that the average hours paid for someone on $91K is 43 hours. The average hours worked for that income level is therefore 28.

    The fact sheet admits the figure of $91,000 continues to include other employment related costs and not simply wages

    I thought it was pretty clear from the start of this discussion a couple of weeks back, so I call strawman on this one.

    In short, a nice piece of propaganda that deliberately avoids the key points, and again tries to suggest that someone earning $91K _must_ be working much more than 40 hours per week, whilst ignoring the evidence that they in fact don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    The proposed changes to employment do not involve workers working all the time, they would still involve downtime and payment for this at normal wage rate. Downtime and paying wages during this time is not the point in dispute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    It is generally accepted that downtime is part of the work and pay environment whether for firemen or overnight carers.

    False equivalence. Overnight carers and firemen are there for work that may arise. The wharfies are there for work everyone knows isnt going to turn up.

    Think: overnight carer getting paid for times when everyone knows the patient is elsewhere, or firemen getting paid while their truck and equipment are unavailable. That seems ridiculous, right? Well, so is being paid to sit around doing nothing simply because you got together with your buddies to set rigid timetables, everyone knowing what the outcome would be but with the bosses not being able to change a thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    And like I’ve said from the start, lots of smoke and mirrors from POAL and the usual RWNJ suspects. Like wages is not really wages but includes all sorts of non-wage factors as well, just conveniently summarised under the label of wages.

    The actual hours worked for whatever pay is a complete red herring. What is relevant is that this is the deal POAL have agreed to and, even more strangely, this aspect of the pay deal does not seem to an issue – it’s all just being used by POAL as a weapon to demonise workers with the assistance of the RWNJ’s. You know who you are. Spare me the faux-offence.

    But even RWNJ’s supposedly believe in negotiated wage settlements and the sanctity of contracts (and presumably that all parties, having access to financial and legal services, enter into the agreement of their own free will), therefore, surely, the one thing they should all be advocating is that the contract is honoured by both parties.

    If POAL are intent of restructuring the workforce by extending casualisation, then why not just say so and and negotiate the termination of the existing contracts, redundancy and all. Or is it just a stick they are waving to as a negotiating tactic to end purposes only they know, because it appears the union doesn’t! And POAL are using the gullible RWNJ’s as their private, free, propaganda army.

    Talking about closing the wage gap with Australia, can anyone explain in simple terms, for a simple man, just how reducing wages over this side of the ditch will close that gap?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Clint Heine (1,570 comments) says:

    So are we led to believe that POAL is one of the most non unionised ports on the planet? Lefties here are saying that port workers are on $91k p/a that consists of 100% wages and not all the top ups and allowances that big unions like to extort from ports everywhere else?

    Get off the grass. Ports have been militantly unionised for generations. We all know that unionists in Auckland are fighting an ideological battle that will destroy either side. We all know that they have already tried to get international assistance from their offshore cronies to harm POAL further.

    Why do people like Ross bother? He isn’t a port worker? Has he donated any money to help fight POAL or is this some feeble ruse?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. SPC (5,595 comments) says:

    Kimble, thus you argue for casualisation, not regular shift work. That means the existing jobs are gone and paying redundancy.

    It will not result in more productive performance from workers in their work? Where is the incentive, they gain no increase in downtime or bonus?

    Ports cannot schedule all the work to fit within continuous work periods, no matter hard they try or what hours they have for shifts.

    So what form of casualisation – one where independent contractors bid to unload ships when they arrive and pay their crew by ship?

    Your are right that the objective of the POA is the casualisation of the workforce and lower pay to workers who get work only when their contractor underbids their rival.

    So imagine a job where a fireman has to be available for work at all times but only gets paid to train or put out fires when this is required. And where a rival fire fighting outfit can put in a lower bid to fight the fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    What does it matter?

    It matters if you’re trying to use their pay rate to drum up sentiment against them. There are a shitload of people out there who’ll be comparing that bullshit figure of $91,000 to their own pay without thinking of whether their own pay matches the average for their line of work, how much their employer contributes to their super scheme, whether they have subsidised medical insurance, whether they do shift work and work overtime etc. In short, it matters if you aren’t engaged in propaganda bullshit – but you all are.

    They get total compensation of $91k on average. The next question is whether that is fair enough for the work they are doing.

    There’s that politics of envy again. Whining righties! It’s a question that’s no more of your business than the question of whether the millions spent on PoAL’s board and senior management is fair enough for the work they are doing in defaming their workforce and making a mess of running the company.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    [DPF: You're a total idiot who should read before they post. The hourly rates are in the document I blogged. Doh!]

    D’oh is right, I didn’t scroll down to page 2 – which wrecks their propaganda pretty thoroughly. I really am surprised they published it (though not at all surprised that you didn’t draw attention to it). Best hourly rate for MUNZ members is $27.26, anything beyond that is for stuff like night shifts and overtime. Those greedy, greedy bastards! Why can’t they take an example from the asceticism and spartan lifestyles of the board and senior management?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Rat (383 comments) says:

    In the interest of Independence, I’d rather see the Audit Report from E&Y, if indeed it is an Audit, or a Review ( difference is one of opinion, and one of disclaimer and of methodology).

    Can that be published ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt

    Why throw the toys out of the cot. People now understand what the average wage is, munz should have been upfront about it so as to avoid it becoming an issue of credibility. So it’s around $91,000 and includes shift work, split shifts, on call, that make the job more difficult for most who work 50 or 60 hours driving. Displays of anger because of an own goal is just about as thick as continuing to argue the toss over a fact that won’t change however much it’s white-washed. You simply waste ammo and provide mirth to your opponents. So it’s 91,000, next point please – keep your guard up and move away from the right not into it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    Anger is a natural reaction when corporate lawyers, political hacks, beneficiaries, CEOs and Senior Communication Managers are spending their days trying to paint people on $27.26 an hour as being grossly overpaid. Grotesque hypocrisy always has annoyed me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    Fair enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. unaha-closp (1,158 comments) says:

    Fire everybody. Fire the unions, fire the managers, get rid of the council job for life staffers. Between them these people have conspired to create a useless, inefficient, over priced port.

    Get DPWorld in charge and casualise the whole damned thing.

    Keep Catherine Etheridge though, she seems to be doing a good job [even working for the incompetent Auckland port company].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. pete (416 comments) says:

    PaulL:

    This is incorrect. It says that the average hours paid for someone on $91K is 43 hours.

    It’s not incorrect. Mean remuneration is $91k. Mean hours paid per week is 43. That doesn’t mean that someone making $91k is paid for 43 hours per week. The distribution is skewed (91k mean, <80k median), and so a misleading statistic like the mean is going to do funny things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    “The $91,000 includes a range of allowances, benefits and shift payments with the average number of hours paid per week averaging 43.”

    pete, the 43 hours relates to the $91k.

    There’s that politics of envy again.

    Trying to determine the fairness of claims is the politics of envy? Bullshit, Milt.

    Best hourly rate for MUNZ members is $27.26, anything beyond that is for stuff like night shifts and overtime.

    Enough with the dumb-cuntery already! YOU said that the hourly rate mattered, WE said it was total compensation for the work done (something the scientists call, “productivity”!). You can pay someone for 40 hours, but if they only provide you with 26 hours of work, then your hourly wage mean nothing!

    How much overtime is genuine and how much is due to Union enforced schedule rigidity from last century? How much “ordinary” time is wasted doing nothing? Thats the issue here.

    Strikes are public, otherwise whats the fucking point of picketing? You cant whine about the public taking an interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rat (383 comments) says:

    I assume there are Job Sheets for each Ship ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. pete (416 comments) says:

    DPF:

    It is the average remuneration earnt, which is the term I have used since that was made clear.

    So when you discovered that you were wrong about the $91k wage, you just changed your terminology without admitting your earlier error.

    Kimble:

    pete, the 43 hours relates to the $91k.

    Not true. I know maths is hard for some people (although I’d expect DPF to know better).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Elaycee (4,375 comments) says:

    Memo to the leftards / unionists:

    Please stop digging. I can’t handle any more laughter…. my sides hurt. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. KevinH (1,219 comments) says:

    The figures crunched by Ernest & Young are only hypothetical, based on averages including a range of allowances, benefits and shift allowances. There is an issue of credibility whereby an auditor may exhibit bias particularly when previous information is corroborated to the letter. An independent non partisan report is required.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    “Anyone care to disclose how much Garry Parsloe is paid?”

    There was a Herald article recently which said he got paid about $65K which of course is a fraction of the $750K reportedly paid to Tony Gibson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Elaycee (4,375 comments) says:

    Copied from GD 25 January:

    Smart move by the POAL – they have hired Jon Mayson (ex Port of Tauranga CEO) to help them through the contracting out process.

    Bring it on!

    http://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/Ports-Auckland-taps-ex-union-businessdesk-6337325.html?x=0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Francis_X (147 comments) says:

    “Elaycee (2,092) Says: January 25th, 2012 at 12:17 pm Memo to the leftards / unionists: Please stop digging. I can’t handle any more laughter…. my sides hurt. ”

    There are meds for that Elaycee.

    DPF – so Ports of Auckland have released that “fact sheet’ to you – but not to the general media, according to Fairfax. So in effect, you are a vehicle for their propaganda?

    Charming.

    Anyway, so what if it’s true? John Key said he wanted to catch up with Australia with higher wages. The maritime workers pay is evidence that Key is carrying out his promise.

    So what’s your problem? (Other than Tall Poppy syndrome.)

    DPF , maybe if we all got paid 50 cents an hour, you’d be doing a little happy dance? Heck, there’s just no pleasing you guys.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Francis_X (147 comments) says:

    “Kimble (2,972) Says:
    January 25th, 2012 at 11:29 am

    “The $91,000 includes a range of allowances, benefits and shift payments with the average number of hours paid per week averaging 43.”

    pete, the 43 hours relates to the $91k.

    There’s that politics of envy again.

    Trying to determine the fairness of claims is the politics of envy? Bullshit, Milt.”

    Nah, Milt is right. This is Envy Politics but from the right wing this time. What you guys are saying is that no New Zealander should work hard and get paid well, because you knockers will be trying to pull them down. Tell you what, Kimble, if you work hard you can be paid well. Spending your time on the net at 11.29am is not what I call productive work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Rat (383 comments) says:

    KevinH (532) Says:

    January 25th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    The figures crunched by Ernest & Young are only hypothetical, based on averages including a range of allowances, benefits and shift allowances. There is an issue of credibility whereby an auditor may exhibit bias particularly when previous information is corroborated to the letter. An independent non partisan report is required.

    Kevin
    That was my point earlier on in the morning, I would rather see the Auditors Report as this would show the Independance of the Auditors, the Basis of Opinion, along with the Methodology, if it were indeed an Audit.

    If it were just a review of the reasonableness of POAL figures then that is a much much different story, with far different testing techniques, more of a ‘well that looks right’, that is not an Audit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Francis_X (147 comments) says:

    And here’s another one of you righties squealing because someone happens to work hard and get paid their worth – http://www.pc.blogspot.com/2012/01/scum-rises-to-top.html

    Bugger me I thought lefties were whiners, but you right wing Tall Poppy slashers really take the cake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    What you guys are saying is that no New Zealander should work hard and get paid well, because you knockers will be trying to pull them down.

    No New Zealander should work hard and get paid well? I dont think I have ever said such a thing, or seen the usual suspect here say it either.

    Oh I see what you are doing. You are lying.

    Tell you what, Kimble, if you work hard you can be paid well. Spending your time on the net at 11.29am is not what I call productive work.

    But posting at 4.03pm, 4.06pm, and 4.37pm is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Psycho Milt (2,411 comments) says:

    How much overtime is genuine and how much is due to Union enforced schedule rigidity from last century? How much “ordinary” time is wasted doing nothing? Thats the issue here.

    As you said, enough with the dumb-cuntery already. PoAL wants to replace the current shift work with having the workers on call but paid only for the hours they work. Well, sure, there are people who work under those conditions, but what’s noticable about those people is that they charge you one motherfucker of an hourly rate – not $27.26. What you and PoAL’s blogger cheerleading squad are actually on about here is just the usual right-wing dumb-cuntery – make the workforce work more for less, then sit around wondering why said workforce is disappearing over to Aus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. merlinnz (53 comments) says:

    “# XChequer (335) Says:
    January 24th, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Helen Kelly wears skirts? I thought she wore the pants around there?

    Yours,

    Alistair T”

    Just to prove that the wharfies aren’t the only sexist people in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.