Fenton on Casualisation
Darien Fenton has true to form, defied David Shearer's directive that Labour would stay out of the POAL v MUNZ fight and posted on Red Alert. I trust she will be disciplined by the Leaders Office as soon as they actually form one. Fran Mold as Head of Media and Comms has a job here that already screams constructive dismissal before it has started looking after the likes of Fenton.
Fenton's post is all over the place, exhibiting no Mantrol. As we have come to expect from Fenton and MUNZ on precisely what the strike is all about. Darting from discussing the sensationalism of privatisation, asset sales and Pike River. But let me pull out her words on one of the many things that the MUNZ argument has switched to and from - "casualisation":
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. The POAL has proceeded to employ on a permanent basis.
Hang on some may say, is the Union not bravely leading the struggle against "casualisation" along with Third Woman on the Wharf, Helen "Clean Up" Kelly and the left?
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.
See - it is never quite that straightforward with Union bullies is it Darien? Best you stay out of it then and go back to watching the Mad Butcher specials for some weekend shopping.
There is a reason that David Shearer is in charge. He's actually thought about this, spoke with all sides and decided to stay out of it.
posted by Cactus Kate at 2:24 AM
5 Comments:
Oh dear; who'd have ever thought that the hierarchy of MUNZ would turn out to be a pack of hypocrites? It's little wonder that Shearer is maintaining a dignified silence.
It occurs to me that the answer lies entirely with MUNZ who could quite openly contract to POAL as POAL seem to so ardently wish and thereby MUNZ handle all employment issues themselves
In such fashion the problem is solved at a stroke UNLESS of course the simple economics of this situation do not work and they were uncompetitive in their tender for the contract
The other problem is that if the health and safety practices are anything like I saw late last year, then all concerned (POAL and the union) have a lot to answer for.
Guys were careening around in a van, with open doors, no seat belts and leaning out. Sadly I wasn't quick enough to get a photo.
Lance: Not entirely unusual - I seem to recall a lawsuit where a brand spanking new truck was been "driven" off the boat and managed to hit a forkhoist full of timber. Somewhere in the vicinity of $50K worth of damage to the truck, from memory.
Oh, and the straddle carrier that went a bit fast round a corner and, umm, fell over a couple of years back.
But then, once the jobs are contracted out, I suspect POAL will make H&S the responsibility of the contractors.
The time servers, especially of the unionist kind alway bang on about how much contractors/consultants are being paid, supposedly for doing not much at all, and how they could do the same job way better themselves.
I have seen not one of them have the b*lls to do what WorkerB said--get out and become a contractor themselves.
What they like is "tenure" and guranteed benefits.
And following on with from Lance's comments--we know some of the protagonists run their own weekday businesses while working for penal rates during the weekend.
Wonder what their record is of being a responsibile employer in their other life ?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home