- there will be no privatisation of POAL on his watch
- Ports management should accept the 2.5% pay rise, with roll-over and the promise of calm discussions about any further flexibilities in the port (over and above the many already in place)
- scurrilous pre-emptive strikes by the Right about a Mr Brown-MUNZ dependency are nonsense.
I'm beginning to think that the Ports management has over-played its hand. The truth about its agenda has, slowly, emerged, and the anti-MUNZ agenda has begun to change, with a spotlight now being played upon management. I think that this explains the obvious testiness on the part of Mr Gibson in a recent radio interview. From an ER position, the union is offering him a realistic deal. Refusing to make it will place management in an increasingly negative light.
The key to this is better communication from MUNZ. They have fallen down badly in the quality and tactics of their media campaign. They have not been in any way sophisticated enough in an environment in which the management (with a full PR department and a board including experienced privatisers) started ab initio to drive a privatisation agenda.
Call me ignorant if you like but I cannot understand why you people on the left think that employers do not have the right to set the work conditions.
ReplyDeletepdm, you are ignorant.
ReplyDeletepdm, you are ignorant. Generally an employer makes an offer to a prospective employee, and if it is accepted, an employment contract is formed. That employment contract carries on until it ends, usually through the employee resigning, retiring, being dismissed, dying or being made redundant.
ReplyDeletePeriodically, parts of the employment contract may be changed. This is done by negotiation, and in good faith. It is not done arbitrarily changing conditions.
Your comment is ridiculous, and would be just as silly if it read:
"...I cannot understand why you people on the right think that employees do not have the right to set the work conditions."
Robert Winter - the slow response of MUNZ may have done its members a terrible disservice; it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I agree that Mr Gibson may have overplayed his hand, however he is the type who would do so. In doing so he may have given MUNZ the opportunity it needs.
@AC: thank you for your patient explanation of the reciprocity that marks employment agreements. Of course, managers are usually, by the nature of their role and authority, first movers in the setting of agreements, but they are "agreements" or "contracts", not diktats or fiats.
ReplyDeleteRe POAL: I have been a strong advocate of negotiated change in POAL for many years. There are time when I have wished "a plague on both houses" for their mutual intransigence. I had hoped that the modest progress made under the two previous CEOs was to be taken forward towards a long-term positive-sum arrangement; it is likely that, instead, trust will be damaged by recent events. I despair of such outcomes.
Funny thing is, Robert, that I don't know of anyone who thinks one party or another has the right to dictate terms of employment. And I'm sure that's not due to a lack of acquaintances or inquisitiveness on my part.
ReplyDeleteAlso, commenters (or bloggers, for that matter) who use the phrase "...I don't understand..." are asking for trouble, it's a pet dislike of mine. My suggestions to pdm, and commenters who "do not understand", are:
- if you genuinely don't understand, try google first, then comment.
- if you meant to use a different phrase, for goodness sake, do so. Saying what you mean adds so much credibility to your argument.
- if you don't want to understand, please have the decency to admit it.
- overall, if you don't understand, that's a reflection on you and no one else.