Reading POAL's 2011 Report

POAL produced a 2011 Annual Review. What does it tell us?

• 2.1% increase in profits
• EBIT up 5.3% on revenues up 7% (and revenues have now surpassed the pre-crisis 2008 data)
• Non-containerised cargo up 24%
• Containers up 3.1% to a record high of 894,383
• Hubbing and transhipment up 7.1%
• Transport of container5s up 9%
• Debt reduced by $19 million
• staff hours per container are falling

And, and let's think about this, an all time record for crane rates up 2.4% annually and up 4.1% across June quarters. POAL is now running at over 26 crane moves per hour, a massive improvement on the 19 moves in, say, the mid 1990s, and over the benchmark 20-25 moves per hour for the available gantry technology. This performance is around both the average and the median of international crane movement performance.This improvement has been made possible by twin-lifting, shorter shift changeovers, improved straddle-performance, and other organisational changes.

My point is simple, and one that Mr Parsloe makes - no wonder the CEO was putting on barbecues for his staff last year to celebrate their performance. POAL is doing pretty well, and the staff are doing a pretty good job, It would be nice to see this reported in the media.

There is one further interesting issue. Tauranga crane rates are better than those of Auckland. Several factors impinge. One is the sub-contracting of container work in Tauranga. Another is the physical configuration of Tauranga (more space for container movements). A third is the throughput of vessels and associated crane intensity. In other words, work organisation is only one, if important, factor in determining port productivity (also bearing in mind that crane movements are an imperfect measurement anyway).

The sticking point for MUNZ is casualisation, and nothing to do with productivity performance of its members, for we see that POAL itself celebrates that performance. Casualisation is POAL's attempt to match the sub-contracting model adopted by Tauranga. What workforce would, or should, accept casualised work as a price for improved performance to which it is already contributing greatly?