Hosking on POAL
January 16th, 2012 at 9:27 am by David FarrarMike Hosking’s editorial:
In a way, you can’t blame the wharfies for putting up the fight they are at the Ports of Auckland. I mean if you were being paid to do nothing, you would be looking to hang on to the deal, wouldn’t you?
Eight hours pay, three hours work – good on them for getting the deal. God only knows who was thick enough to sign it off, but the game’s up. The port is lacklustre. it’s losing business and money to other ports. Its reputation isn’t flash and at long last they’re looking to get things tidied up.
What a good summary.
The wharfies have lost. They don’t have the support of the company, of the council which owns them, they certainly don’t have the support of the Auckland ratepayers who are watching a company they own get destroyed, and they don’t have the support of the wider public. Through all the bluster and hot air and jibes at management pulled directly out of Arthur Scargill’s handbook on how to run a class ridden industrial dispute, they have been seen for what they are – a fiefdom on a deal from another age refusing to be realistic.
Even Len Brown doesn’t back them. The man who took their money to get elelcted sees it for what it is. He should have been playing a far greater role before it ever got to the state it’s in. Ports of Auckland is a major company with a major contribution to the economy of the biggest city in the country and it’s operating in a time warp. Business is leaving – Maersk has walked, Fonterra’s gone.
This even goes beyond Auckland. Reducing freight costs through more efficient ports and the like has benefits for all of New Zealand, especially exporters.
Where’s the council? The owners? The representatives of all the rate payers who have a stake in the business? The dividends are a joke compared to Tauranga. Do they think the port is a welfare scheme? A jobs programme? Why aren’t they demanding better performance and better returns? The answer is there – lay them off. Too many strikes, too many lock outs, too much disruption. Get rid of them and find some people that actually want to do the job.
We must thank Mike Lee for buying out the minority private sector answers, so ratepayers would be the only ones having to tolerate a return of just 2% on capital.
Related posts:
- POAL pay facts
- Councillors being threatened over POAL
- Twyford attacks Brown over POAL
- What a diference
January 16th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Stated as clearly as it could be put – so when is the axe going to fall?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 10:11 am
Very well said – and a lesson for everyone opposing partial asset sales. Having a small cake all to yourself isn’t anywhere near as good as having a share of a much bigger cake.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Mike Hosking’s comments were discussed in the office this morning. Of all staff here, there’s not a single person who supports the wharfies / the Maritime Union.
Funny that….
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 10:16 am
And still not a peep out of Mr Silent Shearer. When will Grant and Trev let him speak?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 10:18 am
A broadcaster is defending Hanover co-founder Mark Hotchin, describing the businessman as a victim of tall-poppy syndrome.
Vote:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10645936
January 16th, 2012 at 10:36 am
hj
Vote:Address the substance of the editorial – Hoskin’s views on Hotchin in no way invalidates his succinct summary. Face it you’re part of a small and shrinking group of people who’s support the Maritime Union’s featherbedding, standover tactics and work practices from a previous century. I love how the left are attacking Labour and Shearer for not ‘backing the brothers’. The conundrum of Labour is excruciating…say nothing and annoy their activist base (forcing some into the hands of the harder left like Mana and the Greens) AND their union backer OR back the MU and put themselves offside with the remaining 85% of NZers who don’t support the wharfies in Auckland. Key is going to have a field day in Parliament when it next sits. Pass the popcorn!
January 16th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@KIA: Well put (again). You’re totally on the money.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Im particularly enjoying the threading of an ever smaller needle at the Utterly Stranded on this issue. Some arse will put a post up, where workers equals poor downtrodden masses, scraping by, working to put a crust on the table and bosses equals incompetence and sheer evil. The bleats of support for these posts are becoming less and sounding so damned weak. If they stepped outside into the real world they would realsie what the real world actually thinks.
Half of them must be thinking fuck me, where do I line up for a job that pays $90k. Especially weak arsed bush lawyers who, Im reliably informed by a couple of partners I know up in the big smoke, is considered giggle worthy within the profession
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:51 am
It sounds like Hosking is playing devil’s advocate. Otherwise the fact that workers have provided singificant productivity gains over the last 5 years has gone over his head.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:55 am
“where do I line up for a job that pays $90k?”
Certainly not at POA unless you like working loads of overtime. Parliament is a far better bet. You get paid $142,000, you get unlimited sick leave, and you can skip work for 14 days (out of only 93 days) while the House sits. And of course you get paid while the House is not sitting…which is most of the time.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:57 am
Is anyone going to point out the obvious and say THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T OWN BUSINESSES?!
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T OWN BUSINESSES!
Among many other equally valid reasons…
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
No Blair, because we’ve seen how inefficient the private sector is. Remind me again how much it cost the government to bail out private sector financial institutions and banks?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Ah ross, still fighting the good fight I see. Which particular hill have you chosen to push this shit up?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/57407/nothing-report-treasury-says-crown-retail-deposit-guarantee-scheme-comes-end-its-nz1-bill
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA fuck off.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Ross – love your comments. They always bring a smile to my face
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Ah
Dear old ross justifying left wing union actions by attacking left leaning government actions (bailouts).
Therefore ross espouses right wing politics to support his leftist point of view
What a joke.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
ross – are you tacitly implying that the Govt should then stick to their main business.
Grow the Economy – which would then be to make Trade Unions illegal because they allow undue to influence to be applied which can damage businesses that need to grow in difficult times ?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
According to ross, the free market is inefficient because it uses fewer people to do the same job as a government department!
According to ross, the free market is inefficient because business people are worried about profits, while the bureacrats are worried about justifying their existence!
According to ross, the free market is inefficient because it doesnt have the magical power of coercion by force that government has!
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
I have just received a call from Auckland and it is intimated that a number of those older men, and there are quite a number, are quite happy the way things are hanging out so they can get very good redundancy payments. In addition pension arrangements are still mounting with some known to be around $800,000. Many of these have other jobs and live well in privately owned homes with rentals as well.
Vote:On RNZ recently one was complaining that his building business was struggling as did not have enough time to deal with it, particularly when expected to give quote dates and being asked for commencement dates. Makes you wonder !
January 16th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
@ross: In a brief statement from several economists, they decided it was easier just to point in Bernard Hiccups general direction and snort derisively.
Still awaiting his much trumpeted 40% loss in value of our housing sector. The man has as much credibility as long-forgotten Goofy did and does.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
How about the splitting the port by wharf and making each wharf an individual company and then privatising the companies?
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
It’s not Where’s Wally but Where’s Dave. Or is Dave a wally?
Vote:Come on, Trev and Grant. Hurry up and draft the guy a speech so he can make a bit of a splash before everyone else starts up. It’s his best chance as he’ll be chopped up and spat out in the House.
January 16th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
kiwi in america (1,616) Says:
January 16th, 2012 at 10:36 am
hj
Vote:Address the substance of the editorial – Hoskin’s views on Hotchin in no way invalidates his succinct summary. Face it you’re part of a small and shrinking group of people who’s support the Maritime Union’s featherbedding, standover tactics and work practices from a previous century.
……….
Actually I don’t support the MWU I’m just pointing out that Hoskins like many of the celebs probably identifies with people like Hotchin and has little time for the average person.
January 16th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Speaking of Radio NZ, it occurred to me today that while it’s a popular complaint by RNZ that John Key doesn’t often front on their show for interviews, neither do they attempt to get many commentators who have anything other than a left-wing perspective. They had Danyl McLaughlan on today, who critiqued the “growing the pie” meme. He is one in a series of bloggers RNZ has interviewed recently, yet I don’t recall a single one who had a centre-right perspective on their chosen topic. The last time I recall a right-wing commentator was Matthew Hooten during the election debates.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Kelly, who attended the mediation, said port management acted in an ”unprincipled way”.
“We thought we were going to seek a collective settlement and offered solutions around labour utilisation, but fundamentally, they said they didn’t want a relationship with the union.”
Hahahahahaha.
Kelly hasn’t tumbled to the 21st century yet either.
The main tools at the CTU’s disposal for fighting this dispute was pressure from Aucklanders, who were concerned about what their local employer was doing and about their assets, she said.
Hasn’t been out in the sun lately either. Oh dear.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6264117/Ports-dispute-top-CTU-priority
and of course to end the day:
New strike notice issued to Ports of Auckland
JAZIAL CROSSLEY
Last updated 18:06 16/01/2012
The Maritime Union of New Zealand has issued a sixth strike notice to Ports of Auckland, the latest in a bitter dispute between workers and its employer that has been dragging on for months.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6265806/New-strike-notice-issued-to-Ports-of-Auckland
Like I said a week or more ago. Its about the redundancy cheque for the older MSU memebers and who divides up the spoils that the Union own.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Viking.
Celebrating a new strike notice and convinced that the key issue is redundancy for older port workers, a sub plot viking has discovered – how simply amazing! Who would have ever thought, it’s all set and done by that measure – but hello the crisis deepens.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
40 hours per week at $27 per hour =$90 k (yer right) ,If Aucklands running our country i can see why we are fucked, the idiot posters from up north live to suck up the bull shit put out from POA,
Vote:PS wait to the dear leader Key comes back from his homeland in the USA,with his instructions on what to sell, to his old mates in the money market.We are fucked again
January 16th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
I agree with all those who have said that this is all about the redundancy cheques for the old wharfies.
Vote:Hopefully POAL will have seen this article about the world’s first automated straddle-carrier terminal at the port in Brisbane. No lazy, greedy f**king wharfies to stuff things up. –
http://www.kalmarind.com/show.php?id=2763
January 16th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
plebe, ross. I think we already established that they work about 29 hours a week and get paid for about 49. If you can’t work that into your comments, then you’re really just trolling – I know you were both on the thread where that was discussed. Ross in particular, pretending that these guys are working huge overtime is just pathetic.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
“In a way, you can’t blame the wharfies for putting up the fight they are at the Ports of Auckland. I mean if you were being paid to do nothing, you would be looking to hang on to the deal, wouldn’t you?”
Screw you, Hosking. As if you and your parasitic mates don’t do diddly-squat for ridiculously high salaries as well!
As for the rest of you lot, engaging in Tall Poppy Syndromes – how about doing a decent day’s work instead of engaging in Envy Politics? So what if the wharfies earn $56,000? Or $91, 000 as some have claimed? Most of you lot couldn’t do a hard days yakker if you tried!
Jesus wept, what is it with us Kiwis who constantly whinge if someone does better?
The Scorned (133) Says:
January 16th, 2012 at 12:08 pm THIS IS WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T OWN BUSINESSES!
Or right wing bloggers. Hopeless.
Vote:January 16th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Francis_X: so I should take that as agreement that the wharfies are doing diddly-squat for ridiculously high salaries? So what exactly is your argument again? That journalists are parasites, therefore wharfies should be allowed to be parasites too?
I guess my view is that when the wharfies aren’t being subsidised by the ratepayers to do diddly-squat, then good on them. But when ratepayers are paying for it, and they’re striking because the company would like to trim a bit, then I’m not going to have much sympathy.
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 1:26 am
PaulL – Auckland ratepayers aren’t subsidizing anyone. PoA is a fully self-sustaining, and profitable enterprise. It made nearly 3% return last year (if I remember correctly), and returned a dividend to Auckland Council. So I dunno where you get you “subsidy” thing from.
Wharfies are parasites? Ok, mate, you go to the wharf tomorrow night and start learning to unload container ships. See how long you last? Everyone elses’ job is always easier, huh?
Christ almighty.
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 1:28 am
Found it: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/ports-auckland-profits-hold-steady-mn-99551
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 7:20 am
Francis X
Your defence of the Auckland wharfies is as misguided as Ross’. The Auckland ratepayers are directly financially affected by the relative lack of efficiency at the POA because the return on capital is so meagre. The actual return on the orginal $848m investment by ratepayers in 2005 is a pathetic 2% and contrasts poorly with the current 8% return on equity at the Port of Tauranga. If POA was as productive and successful as POT, the return to Auckland’s ratepayers would climb from the current paltry $17m dividend to almost $67m or an almost $50m difference! Auckland’s rates are therefore less subsidised by the dividend from the POA and the Council must make up that lost revenue from somewhere else (usually the ratepayers own pockets). THATS what’s at stake and when you look at the wage productivity vis a vis Tauranga on a per $ gross revenue basis there’s a $25m premium that is effectively paid to the Auckland wharfies versus their Tauranga counterparts. If POA faced no real competition then this padded wages bill and its affect on the ratepayers dividend would remain buried in the comparison between the financial accounts of both port companies. But the competition from the POT has the potential to destroy the profitability of the POA entirely as exporters and importers can vote with their chequebooks for a port with stable charges and predictable workforce reliability.
Its not rocket science – even Len Brown gets that supporting the MU is electoral kryptonite.
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 8:23 am
Mc Cully jumped in during the world cup to ‘right’ the obvious oversight of Brown’s council in not having security in each of the carriages heading to the park, essentially took over leaving comb over looking like a dick. So where is Key?
Vote:Unfortunately Gaynor’s article didn’t reveal the exact difference between contractors wages at Tauranga compared to Auckland, that figure would tell the story and more clearly define the argument. Truck drivers earn around 70,000 for 60 plus hours, but they generally have no rosters and are not on call, whether or not that supposed extra $20,000 is the singular difference in the overall picture the wharfies have turned down more money in the interests of job security. The alleged 20,000 needs to put into context of the whole argument and strikes should be avoided at all costs, the hard to do issues set aside to be resolved over time, Gibson and the union pull their heads in and get back to what they’re paid for – working the port.
January 17th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Could someone explain why the POAL doesnt take the opportunity of making them all redundant and paying them out.
If they dont except the offer then the should rewrite their contracts with all redundancy payments removed and that will flush them out of the hand out collecting depots.
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Can some one tell me the amount of losses the POA is running at. Didnt they make a $14m profit.
The workers are doing their jobs but the bean counters want more profit, more profit, more profit. Greed is whats causing the global financial crisis, not unions and workers.
Vote:January 17th, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Just Thinking: not much thinking there. Are you saying that a profit that doesn’t cover the cost of capital is fine? If they made $1 profit that’d also be fine? Even though Auckland ratepayers have to make up the difference? Try thinking a bit harder.
Vote: