Audited pay facts from Ports of Auckland
January 24th, 2012 at 3:02 pm by David FarrarPorts of Auckland 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.
January 24th, 2012 at 3:10 pm
$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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Not as classic as a “Code of Ethics” put out by a Union.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
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?
Vote: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?
January 24th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
@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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 3:56 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Zero hours. The dole is pretty sweet like that.
A functional arse on which to sit, and a functional mouth from which to shit.
Yes. He gets paid the full value of this work. See question 1.
No. Yet he doesnt get the hypocrisy of demanding others do so.
None. That doesnt stop him from phoning in sick anyway. His mobile only has one functional number on it; his own landline.
He does claim the bonuses of “solidarity” and “mateship”, but technically he isnt employed by the Union.
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.
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.
Again, surely the Union could give him this information? Right?
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.
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.
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=finance+101
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
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:
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
“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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“the wharf is a cock fest”
Whaleoil….still keeping it classy.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Helen Kelly wears skirts? I thought she wore the pants around there?
Yours,
Alistair T
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
@ Ross – #9 on the E&Y fact-sheet reads:
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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
@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:January 24th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
And ‘Wharfie’ claimed too many for him (presume it was a him) to count. Maybe you are both right.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
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.
Vote: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.
January 24th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
DPF:
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:January 24th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
@ 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:January 24th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Auditors 1 MUNZ 0.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
$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:January 24th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
I did suggest Peter Kiely v Mike Williams in front of a judge but a big 4 audit is even better.
Vote: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.
January 24th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
From this post:
No indication that the $91k includes the medical insurance.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
‘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.
Vote: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.
January 24th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Pete George:
In this post DPF says:
They’re counting on us assuming that the $91k is the base rate, and mentally revising it upwards to account for benefits.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
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.
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:January 24th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
What exactly is an “average” wage?
Do they mean “mean”?
Even fifth form maths would tell you that “average” is meaningless.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
LMAO glorious!
LMAO @ ross too!
the game is up you lazy unionists
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
“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:January 24th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Ross
Catherine’s pay has nothing to do with this. Perhaps she enjoys supplying information to blogs,
Vote:or bloggers, as sanctimonious turkeys like you won’t believe any information that doesn’t support
your argument.
January 24th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
“$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:January 24th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
MUNZ have responded.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
MUNZ have called Ernst & Young liars!
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
FYP
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
burt, stop it, it hurts when I laugh.
Vote:January 24th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
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:January 24th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
RightNow
But we can’t have workers not having a cushy number for life … hell they have joined the union you know !
Vote:January 25th, 2012 at 12:20 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 12:20 am
pete:
Yup. And, funnily enough, their talking points match some of those on this comment thread. And are still nonsensical when coming from the union.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:January 25th, 2012 at 12:26 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 12:59 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 1:21 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 1:58 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 2:01 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 6:28 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 6:48 am
[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:January 25th, 2012 at 7:22 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 7:28 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 8:51 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 9:05 am
Fair enough.
Vote:January 25th, 2012 at 10:15 am
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:January 25th, 2012 at 11:01 am
PaulL:
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: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.
Trying to determine the fairness of claims is the politics of envy? Bullshit, Milt.
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:January 25th, 2012 at 11:41 am
I assume there are Job Sheets for each Ship ?
Vote:January 25th, 2012 at 11:58 am
DPF:
So when you discovered that you were wrong about the $91k wage, you just changed your terminology without admitting your earlier error.
Kimble:
Not true. I know maths is hard for some people (although I’d expect DPF to know better).
Vote: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.
Vote: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.
Vote:January 25th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
“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:January 25th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
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:January 25th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
“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:January 25th, 2012 at 4:06 pm
“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:January 25th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
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:January 25th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
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:January 25th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
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.
But posting at 4.03pm, 4.06pm, and 4.37pm is?
Vote:January 25th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
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:March 8th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“# 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: