Port bosses sensitive to show of union power
CHRIS TROTTER
Relevant offers
Chris Trotter
OPINION: The machinery of a modern port dwarfs the men who work it. Vast sums of capital are bound up in each gantry crane and reach stacker, requiring their human operators to move the waiting cargo with speed and efficiency. These are solid, reliable men: worth every cent of their generous wage package.
The 300 waterside workers employed by the Ports of Auckland (POA) know exactly what they are worth, and with a tradition of unionisation extending back well over a century they know how to defend the wages and conditions the Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) and its predecessors have won. They also know the dangers inherent in deunionisation; the risk that is posed to every worker when the work rhythms and safety measures enforced by the union's collective contract are undermined by "self-employed" contractors.
It is in defence of their self-determined pace and rhythm of work and its critical importance to the health and safety of workers on and off the job that the members of MUNZ employed by POA have struck. The bitter experience of other workers across New Zealand has taught them that the moment the union's central role in determining the working conditions of its members is surrendered, then it ceases to be a union. It may still collect dues and celebrate May Day, but by facilitating the full restoration of managerial prerogatives on the "shop floor" it isthe employer's creature - not the workers'.
The unimpeded exercise of managerial prerogative is what lies at the heart of all great industrial disputes. "Flexibility" is the watchword - meaning the ability of the employer to call workers in and send them home, as required, without incurring penalty rates of pay. "Flexibility" empowers the employer to hire and fire at will; to raise or lower employees' wages according to the dictates of the market and without reference to the actual living expenses of individual workers and their families. "Flexibility" imposes on every worker an inescapable obligation to "give", while conferring upon every employer an unchallengeable right to "take".
That's why every union that takes root in a business enterprise and wins the recognition of its owners is, in its own small way, a revolution. At stake is the profits of that business: the proportion allotted to the shareholders and the proportion returned to the workforce in the form of higher wages and/or improved conditions. It's class war at its most basic, its most dynamic level. The unavoidable byproduct of, to quote Leonard Cohen's magnificent song Democracy: "the homicidal bitchin'/ that goes down in every kitchen/ to determine who will serve and who will eat".
And when all of those tiny revolutions are joined together the result can very easily add up to a big revolution. Data gathered by Britain's Office of National Statistics reveals in the starkest terms how Britain's top 1 per cent's share of total income declined as trade union membership rose. When expressed graphically, one almost becomes the mirror-image of the other. In 1978, when the wealthiest Britons' share of total income reached its nadir, the number of Britons belonging to a trade union attained its peak. Significantly, Margaret Thatcher's neo-liberal counter-revolution set about reversing the process less than a year later.
The whirlwind of abuse unleashed against MUNZ's Port of Auckland members reveals how acutely sensitive the employing class still is to even the slightest stirrings of union power.
The employers understand perfectly what is at stake and are furious at MUNZ for flexing its muscles so publicly.
Winning concessions in private is one thing, but by making the benefits of solidarity so obvious, and demonstrating the limits of managerial prerogative - at least on Auckland's publicly owned waterfront - MUNZ has crossed a line. A victory for the union at this point in the dispute could only be interpreted as a victory for all unionised workers.
And that's how revolutions begin.
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I work in the industry and have been on operations port tours at both Auckland and Tauranga, getting to ride in the straddles, cranes and tugs. All these boys love their jobs, they love the toys, and they get paid well to do something they enjoy. But MUNZ in Auckland is trying to keep PoAL in a strangle hold, and it is a strangle. Why does everyone assume multiple contracted stevedoring companies will take advantage of their staff in Auckland only, as they don't anywhere else in the country? Tauranga utilise three contracting stevedores and they are twice as productive and the workers are on similar wages. MUNZ have already lost at least 40 jobs and PoALs largest exporter, Fonterra, due to the strikes. At this point, they seem to be doing themselves a grave disservice.
I, as some others here, don't like unions. Sure, they have done a lot for us workers in the past, but the past isn't where we are living now. Now, they have the ability to hold companies to ransom.
I think if you run a business, you should be able to run it as you deem fit. Obviously, within reason. If shift workers are needed instead of full-time staff, why do full-time staff need to be hired? If you need more people at a certain time of the year, why can't you bring in casual employees to get you through? When did the employee get to decide the structure of the business?
Of course, before my haters come in, I'm not saying they don't deserve to get paid what they do. I'm sure it's hard work, and deserves more than the minimum wage. And i wouldn't take a higher income for manual labour, even with a degree.
Excellent article as always by Chris Trotter, consistently the voice of reason
Ian McKinnon #15 "More left-wing claptrap from a scribe with the merits of a rodent. These unionists are overpaid for their qualifications, and it will be good riddance to see the scum replaced by technology."
Your hatred of your fellow New Zealanders is apalling, Ian.
It is irrational anger like this, based on nothing more than prejudice, that keeps this country moving backward. No wonder thousands of New Zealanders are moving to Australia - where strong Unions maintain good wages and cionditions - rather than have to put up with attitudes like yours.
I wonder when you will be replaced by technology, Ian?
WOW! Some of the negative comments here from people likes of Maria/KT/John/Chris/Ian McKinnon are amazing. These people either have no clue about this situation or are living in another world.
10% pay rise Maria is what the POA CEO is offering, Unions have also made sure employees are paid what they are worth and providing safe working conditions. Without Unions, employees are paid what the employers decide and to hell with a decent working wage. Unions have been good and bad but with out them NZ is worst for it.
Since returning from overseas I now see NZ for what it is, a low wage economy/small little country with hope off a good wage becoming a thing of the past.
I can't help but laugh at the critics of this article - why did they even bother reading it let alone reply? must be morons if they expected it to be anything but pro the Maritime Union especially in this case. The POA board has shown no interest in negotiating working conditions with it's workers - they appear to have only one agenda - to casualise the workforce at all costs. Hopefully the board realize the futility of their retarded idealism but I won't be holding my breath. The board members will not face any of the hardship their workers families may from extended industrial action. I for one will be reaching in my pockets in support of the MUNZ if this situation develops negatively for it's members. toot toot
Thanks Chris for this well written article. I was also amazed to see in the Herald another great article written from the workers perspective by Matt McCarten. It is time that we are able to hear from the other side of the coin as to date we have only heard about the employers side. The reality is very different and we should hear from both sides.
@Emma 17. I think you skills and qualifications are only recognized and appreciated when your the CEO. Then your worth what your paid, especially when it comes to pay rises. No one else in the organization is, at least that's how it comes across.
Great article. There's nothing quite like some honesty and integrity about the true dynamics of a situation to clearly lay out the boundaries, implications and consequences of a dispute such as this.
Why I feel for the kids of ego-trippers
Here's some free PR advice for the Government
We must stop comparing ourselves to Aussie
NZ struggling to scratch up capital market
Mallard case raises questions of behaviour
Holmes' attack on Waitangi Day unjustified
Money-fuelled madness no way to live
Check the flippant remarks - and the lotto ticket
Thank goodness for Peters on Whanau Ora
Shearer can stay dry during parade rain
Sean Plunket: A holiday at Lyall Bay
Regifting is not just ok, it's great
I have no sympathy at all for unionised port workers.If they can't survive on $91k plus a year there is something wrong. Thet deserve everything they get including the DCM for holding this country to ransom.I spent two weeks working on a ship going from Bluff to Sydney and was so disgusted by the archaic unionised work practices of those on board that I resigned and flew back to NZ. Individual contracts will bring those rorting the country into the 21st century. Unions are long past their use by date and these "workers" need to get into the real world of a free market economy. As a matter of interest my father was a wharfie at Port Chalmers in 1951 and had to end up strealing food to keep his family fed beacuse of died in the wool communist union organisers who did not forego their pay during the strike. Chris Trotter is living in la ala land if he thinks trade unions still have a valid place in a modern economy and if he likes them so much why do they not allow them in Russia or the People's Republic?