Is it really about casualisation?

January 19th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

The have said their strikes and industrial action is because they are against casualisation at . Labour have also said this is what they are concerned about.

However blogs:

The problem with MUNZ’s, Fenton’s and the left’s argument about casualisation is that right now MUNZ is pursuing a case against POAL in the Employment Court to prevent the Port offering permanent jobs to “lashers”.
This is not a joke. They are AGAINST casuals getting permanent jobs.
It would be hilarious, if not so serious.
So what is it about?
You may think so, but not when the Union bullies (mainly old, white crusty’s like the charming couple we met yesterday on this blog) have the top jobs and like to take the overtime at their much higher rates rather than allow the lower paid workers to get permanent jobs.
It is indeed simply about patch protection. They don’t want outsiders working on the Ports. By outsiders, they mean Pacific Islanders and women. A MUNZ senior official was sacked for his racism against Tuvalu workers, and they have resisted workplace changes that would make it easier for women to work there – the result being 2/300 are women. We hear lots of people complaining that only 28% of Parliament is female – well how about a workplace which is so hostile to women they make up 1% of the workforce only?
If you think I am being harsh, read the extracts from the court documents Cactus has, and especially the letter from “Billy T James”
Tags: , ,

19 Responses to “Is it really about casualisation?”

  1. nasska (11,575 comments) says:

    I’m sure that there’s a simple explanation for this. ‘ross’ will be along shortly to show us why it is really the fault of the POA management & John Keys ably assisted by CK, DPF & the Whale.

    Step up ‘ross’. Your audience awaits you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dazzaman (1,140 comments) says:

    But aren’t the fulltimers there already too casual?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    No, its got nothing to do with, erm, what you think it has…

    Quick, look over there, tories being money grubbing bastards, grab the flag, lets go!! Socialism will save the world!!

    Or not. YMMV :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    This is interesting;
    ‘Meanwhile the Maritime Union has gone to court alleging that the company breached its obligation to bargain in good faith by offering more money to workers who left the union.
    Port company spokeswoman Catherin Etheridge said the company would lodge a counter-claim alleging among other things, that a placard claiming pay rates rates were as low as $13 an hour were untrue.’

    I can’t see how a placard could be argued to be seen as not arguing in good faith, or even arguing at all. On the other hand attempting to undermine a collective agreement already in place could be if that has actually taken place. I don’t think POAL can have it both ways, ‘negotiating’ with the union and undermining the talks by individualising union members – in fact probably being seen as attempting to bribe them. Looks like both sides might benefit with some directions from the court, and in the meantime keep working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dog_eat_dog (781 comments) says:

    So the union should be able to make whatever claim it wanted, even if it was untrue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    You mean to say Liarbore through their MUNZ support are thereby supporting both racism and sexism?

    Well heavens to betsy. I wonder what the Gweens position is on MUNZ? How about Mana’s?

    I also wonder what the lefties would be saying if there was a converse situation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Nostalgia-NZ (5,218 comments) says:

    dog_eat_dog (504) Says:

    January 19th, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    So the union should be able to make whatever claim it wanted, even if it was untrue?

    First of all is a placard a claim in terms of negotiating? Then secondly is attempting to undermine negotiations by individualising port workers good faith? A placard should have about a much relevance to negotiations as all the claims and counter claims as to what the worker’s wages are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (11,575 comments) says:

    reid

    It’s a puzzle….it seems only like yesterday when some forgettable no hoper from Labour (or maybe it was the Greens) was waxing eloquent about the lack of women on company boards. Some bleating about the income gap between men & women too. Apparently this was all to be fixed with another load of legislation & a dollop of pixie dust.

    Alas the electorate were again too dumb to realise that the Left knows best what’s good for them & returned National to the Treasury benches. Strange how we missed the bit about how women should represent 50% of the boards of directors AND the Auckland waterfront workforce.

    It must have been the media bias.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peterwn (3,274 comments) says:

    I thought Helen Kelly was a union leader. I would class her as a ‘follower’ if not a lemming.

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

    Interesting that DPF doesn’t provide any link to the Employment Court case. Did he not bother, since he doesn’t care what MUNZ’s reason for bringing the case is? Or is he deliberately telling us only one side of the story because linking to MUNZ’s side of the story would undermine the point of his post?

    Given his form parroting the “$91,000″ claims, I’m guessing it’s the latter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Didn’t Clare used to be a PR specialist in a former life?

    If so, shouldn’t she avoid ambiguity and paranoia in her statements?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. expat (4,050 comments) says:

    @ Pete, you gonna elaborate or just leave your accusations hanging with no backup buddy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Didn’t Clare used to be a PR specialist in a former life?

    If so, shouldn’t she avoid ambiguity and paranoia in her statements?

    Perhaps she sees them as invaluable tools to “manage the message”

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

    @ Expat, how can I elaborate if I don’t know what case DPF is talking about? All I can do is speculate, based on his past behaviour, that DPF is trying to con us.

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

    @ Expat: Although If I had to guess, I’d say the case probably involved offering casual employees full-time individual contracts that were inconsistent with the collective agreement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    pete – follow the link to Cactus and see her post.

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

    @ Pete George: where in particular? She might offer some actual evidence, but I couldn’t find it in her nearly-unreadable ramblings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nookin (3,352 comments) says:

    Pete, if you got off your backside and followed the inks you would soon find links to pdf copies of the two decisions. Not hard.

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

    @ Nookin: I looked. Couldn’t find them.

    edit: I’m talking about this case:

    right now MUNZ is pursuing a case against POAL in the Employment Court to prevent the Port offering permanent jobs to “lashers”.

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