by Denise Roche
Although there’s been no industrial action by the Maritime Workers of New Zealand (MUNZ) wharfie members at the Ports of Auckland since early April the dispute is not yet settled – and it looks like it may well ignite again.
The latest in this messy and frequently dirty dispute is the creation of a new ‘union’ which wants to enter the bargaining arena with the Ports management. The new organisation, Port Pro Inc, represents 30 or so stevedores on the wharf and is led by a former MUNZ member. There is some doubt about whether it is a proper union – which means that it operates at arms-length from the employer – because in a newsletter from the company workers were told to contact one of the managers for details on how to join up.
Port Pro Inc offers a new threat to settling the dispute. MUNZ has been negotiating with the Ports of Auckland management since last year over the wharfies collective employment agreement and have been fending off the Port’s desire to casualise the work force and contract out the jobs. Since April they have been undergoing ‘facilitated bargaining,’ in an attempt to reach an agreement.
With a new union on the site that wanting to negotiate their own collective employment agreement the Ports of Auckland management may well settle with Port Pro Inc before the MUNZ collective is finalised. Not only does this mean that there’s the risk of the Port Pro Inc undercutting and settling for less than MUNZ there’s also the fact that the MUNZ collective agreement expires at the end of September. If there’s a new Port Pro Inc agreement in place the company is legally obliged to offer that agreement to new workers. The net result is that the bargaining power of the MUNZ union is seriously undermined.
It’s worrying that Port Pro Inc has entered the fray. But when you consider all the other dodgy dealings that the Ports management have displayed during this dispute – some of which I outlined earlier this year in this blog – perhaps it’s not so surprising to see the arrival of a scab union on the scene.
We saw this type of union-busting techniques in the 1990’s under the last National Government.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by Denise Roche on Fri, September 28th, 2012
Tags: Maritime Union, Ports of Auckland
More posts by Denise Roche | more about Denise Roche
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
http://thestandard.org.nz/port-transparency-bill-read-tomorrow/#comment-522654
“I think it is being far too optimistic to call POAL a win for the Union movement.
POAL management are committed to Union busting regardless of the cost.
As they have spent more than 30 million so far, (34 Million. Not counting the losses to shippers, freight companies and customers) more than they will ever save, trying to remove MUNZ, they cannot fail. It would destroy their future employment prospects as Union busters.
If I lost my employer 34 million in an ideological failure I would be tendering my resignation fast. This mob do not even appear concerned.
Apparently Hide sowed up the port corporatisation so effectively that the owners, the people of Auckland, cannot even sack the board and management which are destroying their port for an anti worker agenda.
Rodney Hide’s herald article exemplified the sheer spite, bile and hate directed towards employees who dare to assert any rights. And repeated the same discredited numbers. When are any so called “journalists” going to check his facts?
At present NACT intend to introduce laws so the same thing cannot happen again. Removing requirements for good faith from employers and the requirement to come to an agreement, for example.
POAL are taking the McD’s approach. Attrition of union members. Which seems to be USA SOP when Union busting.
Reducing the hours and conditions of union non-permanents so they have to quit. POAL have just employed a further 40 odd non-union casuals while at least 20 union members have left, changing the balance.
The sad thing is it is the more skilled, who can get other jobs, have been the first to get sick of the crap going on, and left.
There is now a whole gang of unskilled wallies off the street whose crane rates and abilities are well below the rest.
Obviously Union busting comes ahead of increases in port efficiency.
Any business which is publicly owned or contracts to the Government should be subject to the OIA.
The pretense of commercial sensitivity is used too often to hide what they are doing with our money.”"
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Denise,
Disappointed and interesting that you are propagating the same derrogatory terms used by the unions past and present – ‘scab’. Disappointing especially since I voted for you!
Another point to note is that historically, the term was used for a labour pool that was specifically brought hired to take the place of those on strike. From what I understand about the Ports of Auckland dispute, these guys you are so ignorantly calling scabs were already working in the company having chosen not to join the union or having left the union (correct me if i’m wrong). This means, they were just doing their jobs (and not taking the jobs of the striking workers) and are being attacked for exercising their constitutional right! how ironic.
I voted Greens. I clearly lean left, but I seem to be among the few that are listening to both sides of the story (and yes there are two sides) and reading between the lines! And before you and other who blindy follow attack me, no. I do not think the company is blameless. I don’t agree with their campaign to contract out, but I’ve been going through their timeline and it makes me wonder why the MUNZ (who claim that their members just want to be able to work) did not respond to POALs first proposal (copied from their website – http://needforchange.poal.co.nz/downloads/POA61_timeline_v8.pdf):
6/7 September – POAL present new draft Collective Agreement (CA)Proposal for three year term:
• 2.5% increase in wages each year of the three year term.
• Current entitlements protected.
No official response received.
or their offer dated 27 October: POAL present Revised CA Proposal 4: new draft CA for 12 month term:
• 2.5% increase in wages.
• Current entitlements protected.
• $200 signing bonus.
• No redundancies or further contracting out during CA term.
• MUNZ participates in Continuous Improvement plan,which the rest of the company is participating in to see how the port can be made more
effective and efficient.
No official response received.
and then again on 11 November:
POAL present Revised CA Proposal 5: Proposal 4 but based on current expired CA and Continuous Improvement workshop with TRACC consultant.
No official response received.
Seems like all of this could have been avoided if the Union engaged properly with the Company at this time!
I’m sure I don’t know the whole story, but its clear that neither do you. Just begs the question- Are you supporting and blindly following the Union because of your ideologies or do you know something more than the rest of us regarding this dispute that has you speaking for MUNZ and against the staff who having found they didn’t agree with MUNZ left that Union at great personal cost to themselves (if the stories of bullying by the union are to be believed)?
Like or Dislike:
7 
6 (+1)
Thank you, Denise, for telling it like it is. I am not involved in the Ports of Auckland dispute. I don’t even live in Auckland, but as a union member in Aotearoa I can see that you are simply calling a spade a spade.
Technically, I think that Port Pro Inc. could be characterised as a “Yellow Union” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union).
I had a friend who was involved with the British Rail, Maritime & Transport workers Union, employed on the London Underground. Here’s what the London Transport Regional Council of the RMTU has to say about these things (http://www.rmtlondoncalling.org.uk/node/661):
“Some people choose to join a yellow union in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be called out on strike and that their leaders will support them when they decide to come into work across… picket lines. These are bad people and whilst they may technically claim not to be scabs, they are to all intents and purposes, scabs.”
In contrast to Anya Martin, I voted for my local Green candidate at the last election *in the hope that* the Green Party would not forget the lessons of trade unionism learned through the bitter struggles of past (and present) generations. They are well described – in our bicultural nation – as he taonga tuku iho no nga tupuna.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
A great song, to add to the discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1nXdMcVSkU
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)