Don’t do it David
January 12th, 2012 at 10:29 am by David FarrarDenis Welch blogs:
The Labour Party’s silence on the Ports of Auckland dispute is getting louder. Robert Winter has drawn attention to this in an excellent post: he says the dispute has become, potentially, the first defining moment for Labour under the new leadership of David Shearer, and they have to ‘step up and come out swinging on this issue.’
We wish. What is already remarkable about the dispute is how depoliticized it is, with not just Labour but all political parties keeping well clear of it. It’s a far cry from the days when ministers personally intervened in industrial action and Labour politicians sided with striking workers, even joining them on the picket line.
Oh I would love to see Labour MPs out on the wharfie picket line. That would be the best Xmas present ever.
But unless David Shearer is a moron, he will not be getting involved in this industrial dispute – especially as public support for the wharfies is confined to the UNITE union and the hard left.
When Denis Welch and Robert Winter urge David Shearer to get involved as a test of his leadership, they are not advocating in the best interests of the Labour Party – they are advocating for their views (nothing wrong with that) which are far to the left of Labour.
I don’t know if anyone has approached Shearer for comment or asked, um, wait a minute, who is Labour’s spokesperson on labour issues? I just looked it up: it’s Darien Fenton. Who knew? She may well be intensely credible on industrial relations but I don’t believe we’ve heard from her yet on the ports dispute.
I presume they have sedated Darien to stop her joining the picket line 
The only Labourish public figure to even put a fingertip over the trenches so far is Auckland mayor Len Brown, and he has come down on the woolly side of woofterish by declaring resoundingly that he supports both sides.
There is an unhappy echo there of Walter Nash’s infamous response to the 1951 waterfront dispute when he was Labour’s leader: asked whether he supported the watersiders he said he was neither for nor against them. I have a horrible feeling that Shearer, if he ever does comment, will say much the same thing.
Shearer should choose his words more carefully than Brown, but he absolutely should not come out swinging for the Maritime Union. It would just pigeon hole him as captive to the unions which fund the Labour Party (MUNZ is one of them). Only 25% of NZers voted for Labour. I suspect not even a majority of those 25% have sympathy for militant industrial action from a union representing what must be the most highly paid unskilled jobs in New Zealand.
At the most you might get Shearer saying that he is against contracting out (as this is existing Labour policy), and wants both sides to reach a settlement. But he should resist all efforts to get him involved. He is the leader of the parliamentary labour party and of the opposition – he is not a union spokesman. Clark would have never got involved, and Shearer shouldn’t either.
Talking of MPs with a view though, a good column from Botany MP Jami-Lee Ross. He notes:
Every Aucklander has a stake in the Ports of Auckland. It is not a privately owned company. Nor is it listed on any stock exchange. Each and every share in the company is owned by the Auckland Council on behalf of 1.4 million Auckland residents and ratepayers. The destruction in value in one of our city’s largest public assets is alarming and has to be of concern to us all. …
But numbers aside, it is obvious that losing the trade of New Zealand’s largest company, only a month after losing the business of one of the worlds largest shipping lines, has to be a wakeup call. Yet sadly for the Maritime Union, it isn’t. Sadly for port workers and Aucklanders alike, the Maritime Union continues to be unphased.
This isn’t a story of a greedy corporate hammering the little guy. This isn’t a story of a David versus Goliath battle where workers are being ripped off or paid a pittance. Few could call poverty on an average annual wage for a wharfie understood to be north of $90,000, with a proposed 10 percent hourly rate increase and performance bonuses of up to 20 percent, sitting on the table. To the average person on the street, the latest Ports of Auckland offer to the Union would almost seem generous.
It would be most interesting if the Herald (or someone) did a poll to ascertain the public’s views on the stand off.
The trade union movement evolved through a desire for workers to band together to protect their common interests. This is not a dishonourable goal. But when a union loses sight of its members long term interests and cavalier negotiating tactics start to backfire, the union itself begins putting its own member’s livelihoods at risk.
Unions still occupy a privileged position in New Zealand’s employment law; a relic of the last Labour administration which has not seen significant overhaul for some years. Few non-government organisations can boast clauses in legislation specifically designed for their benefit. Despite only 18 percent of the nation’s workforce being unionised, trade unions can look to whole sections of the Employment Relations Act written exclusively to aid union survival through legislative advantage.
Unions do get many major legislative advantages. These should be reviewed. Take just one – why should employers act as unpaid fee collection agents for unions?
I say unions should be like any other incorporated society – let them invoice their members directly for their membership fees.
UPDATE: It seems Labour Whip Darien Fenton has been spotted on the picket line. No surprise, but will we see other Labour MPs join her?
Tags: Darien Fenton, David Shearer, Jami-Lee Ross, Labour, Maritime Union, Ports of Auckland
January 12th, 2012 at 10:38 am
This constant mentioning of the supposed $91k average wage is nothing more than the politics of envy. Designed to get people going “well I don’t get paid that much, but they’re asking for even more?! The audacity!” Just trying to cut down people who work hard and are successful.
And many legislative hindrances. Sympathy striking and political striking are outlawed, as are union shops (which in a strictly free market system would be allowed, as the union shop and closed shop are merely voluntary constraints undertaken by an employer as a concession during negotiation).
[DPF: Those strikes are not outlawed. You fail to understand what the situation would be if there was no employment law statute, and the common law applied.
If one or more employees refuses to turn up to work, and/or do their job, then an employer can dismiss them.
The employment statues give employees legislative protection from being sacked for refusing to work in a limited range of circumstances - basically when trying to negotiate an expired collective contract.
There is no ban on political strikes. There is just no legislative protection for those who take part in them.
Frankly it seems absurd to suggest that employees should have some right to not turn up to work, because for example they don't like the SAS being in Afghanistan]
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Talking about morons, I see The Sub Standard is attacking DPF and the “Right” for supposedly wanting the MUNZ workers to have pay cuts (I see they lump all “workers” in to their arguement presumably for solidarity reasons).
As far as I am concerned, this isn’t a Left and Right “defining issue” and I have no problem with MUNZ workers earning up to $91k (including their employment benefits etc) as long they work for what they claim (mind you some of these benefits seem out of wack eg extended accrued sick leave and health benefits for families).
What I object to, is MUNZ claiming their members are hard done by, when in fact they don’t work the full 40+ hours for that salary and benefits etc. And then dragging this out for months and have had strikes over the issue. Like others have said MUNZ should have STFU and got on with their cushy jobs.
So this shouldn’t be Left v Right, it should be common sense.
Another interesting issue is yesterday NZ Herald reported it was Auckland Council pressure on POAL to raise the dividends making POAL management tackle these MUNZ abnomalities and inefficiencies.
So I wish to morons at the Sub Standard and elsewhere would stop make this some sort of Right-Wing/POAL attack on MUNZ and go talk to Len Brown about all this ….
[DPF: I don't have a problem with wharfies getting paid $90,000 or even $100,000 if they are more productive. But a labour utilisation rate of 65% is unacceptable IMO. Staff should be paid for actually working, not for doing nothing]
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Talking of the Sub Standard I see that they’ve now moved on from defaming Whale and have moved on to DPF, actually this MUNZ fiasco seems to have them taking the ‘Madagascar protocol’ to whole new levels.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 10:57 am
DPF said:
“I presume they have sedated Darien to stop her joining the picket line
Wrong David. Skip to about 6mins50sec on the Tuesday night TV One news:
Vote:http://tvnz.co.nz/one-news/2012-01-10-video-4682193
January 12th, 2012 at 11:10 am
You got it at the end David. MUNZ can do this because the government legislates for them to be able to do it. Another failure of government intervention in the market. MUNZ and its members will prove to be stupid in the end, but it is government which provides the support through legislation.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:20 am
message for Jamie-Lee Ross if you are reading this.
It is “unfazed” not “unphased” unless you are referring in some oblique way to EMR.
EOM
cheers
Vote:A. P. Edant
January 12th, 2012 at 11:21 am
And don’t forget they (and other Left blogs) knifed Len Brown over this a few days ago!
What a bunch of nasty, vindictive, hateful people there at the Sub Standard. In other words, nothings has changed there over the years! I hope they keep it up though, with attitudes like that, it can only rub off on Labour
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:24 am
“But unless David Shearer is a moron, he will not be getting involved in this industrial dispute – especially as public support for the wharfies is confined to the UNITE union and the hard left.”
O Rly? Though I wouldn’t expect any less from you.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:24 am
Heh heh , will the Sub Standard start attacking Labour over their silence on the issue next?
Shit, when the Left start attacking the Left, it’s all on and time to pass the popcorn!
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:26 am
With the number of posts on this issue, I’m starting to think DPF believes it might be as important as voluntary membership in student associations.
[DPF: Nah, just not too many other issues at the moment, plus such fun getting the true facts into the public domain and seeing crazed lefties deny them]
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:51 am
You own a polling company DPF.
[DPF: Yes, but I generally only poll when someone pays me money to do so. If we polled just because I would find the results interesting, then we would be bankrupt]
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 11:56 am
DPF, I would say exactly the opposite: Dave Shearer, get involved and do it!
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
I am pretty sure I saw the grim faced Fenton at a picket line on the news. Hopefully she will do a large amount of media over the issue too.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
Hey guys, who the heck is David Shearer??
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
.
Somebody please do. And ban publication of her photo.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
GPT1 (12noon) – I too saw the awful Fenton on the picket line in last nights TV news. It was to Labours advantage that they didn’t give her a speaking part.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
The destruction in value in one of our city’s largest public assets is alarming and has to be of concern to us all. …
Well, Jamie Lee Ross is right about that if not much else. The board and CEO need to be held to account for this destruction of value, and quickly before they manage to trash the thing completely.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
You could add the question onto the weekly poll at a very marginal cost to yourself. I’m surprised you don’t to it often!
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
According to this NZHerald article the much referenced $90,000 is not an average wharfies take in Auckland. That average being, for a 40 hour week $56,000.
[DPF: That is not an article by a reporter. That is an assertion by a union leader and it fails to take into account overtime plus full remuneration figures.
MUNZ have never ever said the figures released by POAL are wrong, so stop grasping for straws]
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
I just noticed the earlier article referencing Keeping Stocks report on what the wharfies earn.
Seems like a nice opportunity for someone to test sources veracity by comparing Matt McCartens numbers to Keeping Stocks and their sources.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
“The Labour Party’s silence on the Ports of Auckland dispute is getting louder.”
As opposed to the National Party’s silence…?
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
If workers try to take part in an unlawful strike, then the employer will seek and obtain an injunction or compliance order to halt the strike (and I believe they could bring an action for breach of the employment agreement, if applicable; I have no objection to this). Non-compliance with the order would eventually lead to fines and possible arrests. Thus while such strikes are not banned per se, in effect they are.
Vote:January 12th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
It boggles the mind that anyone can think that workers are the most important thing in a business. The most important thing in any business is the customers – without them, no amount of workers or investment will make a business happen. Ultimately, workers in this union (or perhaps their self-serving leaders) have lost sight of the fact that they are one corner of the business triangle between shareholders, customers and workers. The shareholders (via Len Brown & councillors) have now had their say, but frankly the customers have the casting vote – workers, get back to work.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 12:49 am
“Take just one – why should employers act as unpaid fee collection agents for unions?”
Oh, for the same reason that employers act as unpaid tax collectors for the IRD; unpaid premium collectors for Kiwisaver; unpaid collectors of fines for the Justice Dept; etc, etc, etc.
It’s called running a business, David. Deal with it.
“According to this NZHerald article the much referenced $90,000 is not an average wharfies take in Auckland. That average being, for a 40 hour week $56,000.
[DPF: That is not an article by a reporter. That is an assertion by a union leader and it fails to take into account overtime plus full remuneration figures.
MUNZ have never ever said the figures released by POAL are wrong, so stop grasping for straws]”
1. The $90,000 figure IS wrong. It’s been shown to be wrong. It’s only valid if a worker did massive amounts of overtime. You need to catch up.
2. In any case, so what if it’s right? What possible concern is it of yours or your right wing cronies what others earn? Talk about “Tall Poppy Syndrome” from the Right. I thought you guys believed in aspirations to work hard; earn more???
3. Didn’t John Key mutter something about raising NZers wages to stem the flow of workers to Oz? Yeah. I think he did.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 3:04 am
You are missing the point F_X. The point is not actual wage but the relationship between wage and productivity. POAL is offering more money. It just wants more bang for its buck.
Public interest and the right to know came about when the union withdrew its labour and brought the dock to a standstill. In case you hadn’t noticed, other people are affected. The union made this public and once that happens there is a right to know the issues.
Teachers take industrial action and actively seek the support of schools’ parent community by publicising their demands . When that happens, the public have every right to know what the issues are and form some view on the merits. Exactly the same applies to executives and their bonuses and lawyers and legal aid. NZ has a huge problem with cost/value/productivity and if you cannot recognise that then you are simply perpetuating the problem.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 6:40 am
2. In any case, so what if it’s right? What possible concern is it of yours or your right wing cronies what others earn? Talk about “Tall Poppy Syndrome” from the Right. I thought you guys believed in aspirations to work hard; earn more???
It’s simple enough: these guys who squawk “Politics of envy!” are happy enough to poke their noses into other people’s pay if it suits their “greedy, lazy workers” approach to industrial relations.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 7:26 am
“POAL is offering more money”
What parallel universe are you living in? POAL wants to cut wages by up to 20%. Then of course there is inflation at just under 5%. Despite significant increases in productivity being supplied by workers over the last 5 years, they are facing a pay cut (in real terms) of up to 25%. And you wonder why they’re on strike. Why is the Right so slow on the uptake?
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 7:33 am
“The $90,000 figure IS wrong. It’s been shown to be wrong. It’s only valid if a worker did massive amounts of overtime. You need to catch up.”
Of course it’s wrong and DPF knows it. But he’ll never admit it because that’s not his style. Look at how he keeps defending the claim that the averagepay for secondary school teachers is $71K. He knows that’s wrong too but doesn’t have the decency to admit it. Whenver David starts talking about figures, take them with a grain of salt.
Vote:January 13th, 2012 at 11:39 am
Sorry, I haven’t yet seen where it was “shown to be wrong”. I’ve seen a claim by Matt McCarten, reported in the newspaper. That claim was based on hourly rate and an assumption of 40 hours. No allowance for super or for medical insurance or for overtime.
POAL claim they’ve provided the actual average pay for their full time workers, excluding any paid redundancy. Hard to see how that would be incorrect – it must gross up all payments made to those staff.
Where in that whole thread was there any showing that the $91K was wrong?
And on the overtime – no, it isn’t only valid if the workder did massive amounts of overtime. It may be only valid if the worker was _paid_ for massive amounts of overtime, we’ve already established that the workers get paid for substantially more hours than they actually work.
Vote: