Ports management and board must account for disruption to Auckland
The Maritime Union says Ports of Auckland must be held accountable for the significant disruption they are imposing on Auckland.
A Chamber of Commerce survey reported today details the effect of the prolonged employment negotiations on Auckland businesses.
Maritime Union Garry Parsloe said that the negotiations should have been completed months ago.
“The reality is we have been continually trying to second guess what Port management really needs to get this employment agreement sorted.”
“We have tried several times to address rostering and utilisation issues, and recently tabled further a comprehensive new proposal.”
“The only response we have ever got is that they want total flexibility in the workplace and proposals that would see wharfies having no guaranteed days off, no protection against casualisation and a package that would significantly reduce their pay.”
Garry Parsloe said the problems identified in the Chamber survey were in addition to the impact of the dispute on workers in related industries like logistics and retail, customers, and residents of Auckland who all want this issue resolved.
“The Ports are one of Auckland’s most important assets, and they need to be run well on behalf of the city’s residents.”
“As current guardians of this asset, Ports management and governance are frankly not up to the job. They need to be held accountable for the inconvenience and cost to Aucklanders.”
“A complete change of culture is needed at Ports of Auckland, and people brought in who can run this asset properly for Auckland.”
Garry Parsloe said that although Chamber of Commerce head Michael Barnett has identified the problem he hasn’t offered any solutions.
“Instead of blinding supporting the Port company, why doesn’t he step up and put his energy into actually finding a solution, to get back the productive working Port we once had before Port leadership started mismanaging it so badly during these negotiations.”
“Barnett represents an old fashioned response to industrial relations, and it’s time we had modern employer organisations in New Zealand.”
The parties will next week jointly seek facilitation from the Employment Relations Authority, and Garry Parsloe said the Maritime Union would be taking all of the facilitator’s recommendations seriously.
The Christchurch Press, Saturday, 14/4/2012 has an excellent article that would probably be of benefit to everyone involved in the P. of A. dispute. It describes errors made by virtually everyone involved in the dispute, both participants and commentators. It is positive in that it identifies faults and offers solutions. It is general in that it is discussing the human race in general, not any particular event. It uses everyday situations to illustrate faults being discussed.
This is described in detail in the Christchurch Press, 14/4/2012, page C3.
A summary of some faults described is rephrased and listed below,
1. Sunk cost illusion:- Refusing to walk out of a lost cause.
2. In group bias :- My group is superior, than yours.
3. Attribution error :- Our failures are due to circumstances while other’s are due to their mistakes.
4. Affirming the consequence:- I am unhappy and have insufficient money. More money will make me happy.
5. Anchoring heuristic:- I am working shifts. I am unhappy. Perhaps you would be unhappy anyway.
6. Charisma effect :- I have been told that I am overworked and underpaid. It does not matter that I was happy. It must be correct.
7. Curing symptoms :- I am unhappy at work. Giving me more money and less work will make me happy.
Obviously I can not describe the entire subject in 7 lines. This is just to introduce you to something that would be of tremendous value in negotiating. It spells out clearly many points that have been made by various people over the last few months. Only the intelligent will see themself there. I can?(comment #2)
Some other faults on display:
• Ivory Tower Syndrome – I have never worked night shifts on heavy industrial equipment at a port. Yet I feel confident in explaining where others who do are getting it wrong.
• Ideological neutrality assumption – I see myself as being above the petty interests and squabbles of the world and instead believe that issues can simply be solved by following the advice of “the intelligent” whose intellectual superiority can overcome any obstacle. However in reality far from being neutral I work off the assumptions of the political and economic status quo and thus effectively take the side of the powerful and wealthy.
• Middle class post materialism – Because I have economic security in my own life, and have limited insight into economic reality in 21st century New Zealand, I am free to sermonize that others unhappiness with their income is merely a psychological problem.
• Self Maximizing Individual Rationality Argument – I will criticize others adherence to what I perceive as lost causes because I have no commitment to anything greater than myself, so I find it hard to understand how others may make a stand for principle and in doing so, create positive social change.
• Knowledge Gap Situation – Failure to understand some of the basic issues behind a situation can lead to suggestions that may or may not be useful.
How long does “Moderation” take?
Having worked long night shifts, on expensive equipment, and been riding a bike to work for 20+ years, am I qualified to comment?
The first time I worked all night in charge of expensive equipment, it was an adventure, a privilidge. Enjoying work is in the mind. The beauty of dawn, watching stars fade, a colourful sun-rise. The first time was a novelty. Years later, life was eternal misery, eventually deep peace. This was internal, inspite of work. $$$ can not buy happiness.
True. $$$ is useful for mortgages, doctors bills, food and so forth though. But if you are on a higher plane of existence, then those things probably have no meaning.