At your inconvenience
Unions should consider the realties of today’s brave, new and not-so-lucrative port world
The International Transport Workers’ Federation’s threat to unceremoniously brand the Ports of Auckland as its first Port of Convenience sets a worrying precedent.
Launched back in 2006, the ITF’s PoC campaign is fixed on ensuring “decent standards” across the world’s ports. There has been little in the way of headline news since the start of the campaign... until now: Auckland’s ongoing labour troubles have put the port firmly in the ITF’s crosshairs.
One of the campaign’s big sticking points is the trend of “casualisation” or replacing experienced dockers with temporary workers, something that the ITF says Auckland has fallen foul of. However, it seems that there are some Chinese whispers at play with the London ITF head office wading into the debate with less than all the facts.
ITF big-wigs stated in an open letter that Auckland’s 300-strong workforce had been threatened with job losses if they did not sign up to standard agreements outside the national union agreement. However, Auckland’s firm rebuttal says there is no such thing as a “national union agreement” in New Zealand.
The ITF continued, stating that Auckland is trying to remove the collective agreement with Maritime Union of New Zealand, something also disputed by the port. The coup de grâce of the ITF statement threatens to brand Auckland as its first ever Port of Convenience.
Unsurprisingly, port spokeswoman Catherine Etheredge has described the ITF threats as “entirely unwarranted and unhelpful”.
A PoC branding effectively means that the port will receive “special attention politically and industrially”, and the ITF promises to fire up its docker and seafarer affiliates around the world “to take immediate lawful action”. In essence, if Auckland is branded a Port of Convenience ships may bypass the port altogether.
Auckland is reeling from lost Fonterra and Maersk business; further strike disruption will likely jeopardise the remaining business, something the unions seem ignorant of.
Speaking to Port Strategy, Ports of Auckland general manager Sales, Marketing and Logistics, Craig Sain says: “The need for change at Auckland is strong and commercially based. We believe the ITF’s involvement is unwarranted – especially given that sub-contractors are already operating here and at Tauranga.”
But perhaps Mr Sain’s most telling statement is that the ITF “should reflect on the fact that any intervention by them would only serve to further damage the job prospects of port workers here in Auckland”.
It’s no co-incidence that the POC campaign name is so aligned with the ITF’s long standing flags of convenience fight. Both campaigns battle against a “general lowering of standards for commercial gain”.
But the nature of the port handling beast is that work demands change. In a hotly competitive and recession-challenged industry, there needs to be flexibility to be able to adapt to a changing environment, as the sudden loss of Maersk and Fonterra business at Auckland aptly demonstrates.
With workforce flexibility there is actually more chance of workers keeping their jobs, albeit in a reduced form while the port rides out the rough patch. While we are not advocating that ports are allowed to ride roughshod over workers’ rights, workers and unions need to look at the bigger picture.
All a Ports of Convenience branding will do is further endanger jobs at the labelled port as business slips away to more ‘amenable’ ports.
Perhaps unions should be less free and easy with such pigeon-holing and consider the commercial realties of today’s brave, new and not-so-lucrative port world.
Images for this article - click to enlarge
Unless otherwise stated, all images copyright © Mercator Media 2012. This does not exclude the owner's assertion of copyright over the material.
