Keeping Stock: Why are they surprised?
There's a whole lot of faux outrage from the CTU this morning; Stuff reports:
Wharfies returning to work at the Ports of Auckland are being treated like thugs, being watched by security guards in their tearoom and by cameras on their equipment, their union claims.
The Council of Trade Unions is outraged over the moves, which president Helen Kelly says are designed to intimidate workers and feed "into the port's narrative that these workers are thugs".
Unionised workers returned to the port last week after it had been operated by a non-union crew for six weeks after a bitter break dispute between the Maritime Union and the company, which wants to casualise its
CTU president Helen Kelly said wharfies had found security cameras in all the straddle drivers and cranes.
''It's simply intended, in our view, to intimidate port workers. None of us want to work all the time in front of a security camera.''
Security guards in the workers' tearoom was ''feeding into the port's narrative that these workers are thugs''.
''It hasn't worked, the people of Auckland have got to know these wharfies and are backing them.''
The port has also banned the wearing of union paraphenalia. Workers in the past had ''proudly'' worn union badges and t-shirts to work, Kelly said.
''It's a message clearly that the port is anti-union.''
The latest moves by the port had left wharfies feeling ''incredibly bullied''.
''They are staunch union people, they are proud of the stance they took and they won't be bullied and intimidated.
These of course are the same union members who have insulted and threatened non-union members suring the course of the union's strike action at the port. These are the same union members who currently have cases before the Employment Court regarding acts of racism and intimidation. These are the same union members who tried to illegally block entry to the Auckland wharves, intimidating those who tried to legally access the area. The situation at the Ports of Auckland is potentially very volatile. Ports of Auckland Limited is ultimately responsible for the safety of its workforce. It must take whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure that EVERY employee has a safe workplace.
The CTU regards the measures as extreme. But Helen Kelly and her MUNZ brethren need to get their heads around the fact that it not an all-union workplace, and that those PoAL employees who have chosen not to join MUNZ for whatever reason have rights as well, as does the employer.
The CTU has a myopic view of industrial relations. Without employers there are no jobs, and without jobs, there would be no need for trade unions. Bad faith bargaining is not exclusive to PoAL in this dispute, and MUNZ is reaping what it has sown. Why are the unions surprised at PoAL's reaction?
I assume that you will, too, condemn the completely unprofessional release by Ports management of private employment data,now admitted, or the leaking directly by POAL managers of other data to the NBR about MUNZ Exec mambers.....Returns to work are many and frequent. There is very little, if any, fall-out as hyped by the Ports management. I can't find an EC or ERA case on this in recent years. We now also know clearly that the POAL strategy was to destroy the union, thus precipitating any poor feeling that might exist. This problem is, classically, a product of deliberate management strategy, as the piqued resignation of Mr Campbell indicates.
Ports of Auckland has admitted leaking an employee's personal information to a sewerblogger: The Council of Trade Unions says the Ports of Auckland has admitted leaking personal details about an employee who spoke out against the port. [...] President of the Council of Trade Unions Helen Kelly told Radio New Zealand a letter from chief executive Tony Gibson to the Maritime Union acknowledged the port was behind the leak. Ms Kelly said the letter does not name who was responsible for the leak, but it did state the leak was a response to Mr Walker speaking out publicly against the port. "They acknowledge they released it. They explain, in their terms, why they released it, and regardless of the fact they clearly agree that it probably breached the Privacy Act, that's implied in the letter. But they don't go on to say that they change, in fact they go on to say that they reserve the right to do it again." This is absolutely appalling, a gross abuse of power by the company, and they need to be held accountable for it. Some of that accountability will come from the Privacy Commissioner. But there needs to be more. These clowns have just cost Auckland ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars, as well as pissed all over the law. They need to lose their jobs for it. Sadly, given the way Ports of Auckland is run, they'll probably get a bonus instead for their "good work".
@ Anon - you have a point there. There has been a general lack of good faith across the board in this dispute; both parties are culpable.
Keeping Stock: Why are they surprised?
There's a whole lot of faux outrage from the CTU this morning; Stuff reports:
Wharfies returning to work at the Ports of Auckland are being treated like thugs, being watched by security guards in their tearoom and by cameras on their equipment, their union claims.
The Council of Trade Unions is outraged over the moves, which president Helen Kelly says are designed to intimidate workers and feed "into the port's narrative that these workers are thugs".
Unionised workers returned to the port last week after it had been operated by a non-union crew for six weeks after a bitter break dispute between the Maritime Union and the company, which wants to casualise its
CTU president Helen Kelly said wharfies had found security cameras in all the straddle drivers and cranes.
''It's simply intended, in our view, to intimidate port workers. None of us want to work all the time in front of a security camera.''
Security guards in the workers' tearoom was ''feeding into the port's narrative that these workers are thugs''.
''It hasn't worked, the people of Auckland have got to know these wharfies and are backing them.''
The port has also banned the wearing of union paraphenalia. Workers in the past had ''proudly'' worn union badges and t-shirts to work, Kelly said.
''It's a message clearly that the port is anti-union.''
The latest moves by the port had left wharfies feeling ''incredibly bullied''.
''They are staunch union people, they are proud of the stance they took and they won't be bullied and intimidated.
These of course are the same union members who have insulted and threatened non-union members suring the course of the union's strike action at the port. These are the same union members who currently have cases before the Employment Court regarding acts of racism and intimidation. These are the same union members who tried to illegally block entry to the Auckland wharves, intimidating those who tried to legally access the area. The situation at the Ports of Auckland is potentially very volatile. Ports of Auckland Limited is ultimately responsible for the safety of its workforce. It must take whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure that EVERY employee has a safe workplace.
The CTU regards the measures as extreme. But Helen Kelly and her MUNZ brethren need to get their heads around the fact that it not an all-union workplace, and that those PoAL employees who have chosen not to join MUNZ for whatever reason have rights as 
well, as does the employer.
The CTU has a myopic view of industrial relations. Without employers there are no jobs, and without jobs, there would be no need for trade unions. Bad faith bargaining is not exclusive to PoAL in this dispute, and MUNZ is reaping what it has sown. Why are the unions surprised at PoAL's reaction?
I assume that you will, too, condemn the completely unprofessional release by Ports management of private employment data,now admitted, or the leaking directly by POAL managers of other data to the NBR about MUNZ Exec mambers.....Returns to work are many and frequent. There is very little, if any, fall-out as hyped by the Ports management. I can't find an EC or ERA case on this in recent years. We now also know clearly that the POAL strategy was to destroy the union, thus precipitating any poor feeling that might exist. This problem is, classically, a product of deliberate management strategy, as the piqued resignation of Mr Campbell indicates.
Ports of Auckland has admitted leaking an employee's personal information to a sewerblogger: The Council of Trade Unions says the Ports of Auckland has admitted leaking personal details about an employee who spoke out against the port. [...] President of the Council of Trade Unions Helen Kelly told Radio New Zealand a letter from chief executive Tony Gibson to the Maritime Union acknowledged the port was behind the leak. Ms Kelly said the letter does not name who was responsible for the leak, but it did state the leak was a response to Mr Walker speaking out publicly against the port. "They acknowledge they released it. They explain, in their terms, why they released it, and regardless of the fact they clearly agree that it probably breached the Privacy Act, that's implied in the letter. But they don't go on to say that they change, in fact they go on to say that they reserve the right to do it again." This is absolutely appalling, a gross abuse of power by the company, and they need to be held accountable for it. Some of that accountability will come from the Privacy Commissioner. But there needs to be more. These clowns have just cost Auckland ratepayers tens of thousands of dollars, as well as pissed all over the law. They need to lose their jobs for it. Sadly, given the way Ports of Auckland is run, they'll probably get a bonus instead for their "good work".
@ Anon - you have a point there. There has been a general lack of good faith across the board in this dispute; both parties are culpable.