Hekia Parata speaks a foreign language…or maybe that’s all politicians?

Hekia Parata was on the show this morning and I decided I needed a translator to help me decipher the answers given.

Question – There is a potential for class sizes to increase, is that correct?
Answer – There is a potential for that and we’ve made a conscience decision that one or two extra students in the middle year classes are acceptable if we can, at the same time, raise the quality of teaching across all of the classrooms.
Translation – Yes!

Question – If you’re going to raise the quality of teaching it’s not going to happen by the beginning of next year but class sizes may increase there seems to be a bit of a gap in the logic there.
Answer – Well, we have for the last ten years been raising the number of teachers we have in the NZ education system and in fact the number of teachers have increased at the rate of five times the rate of the number of students and we haven’t had five times the rate in the list of achievements so what we’re saying is we think we’ve got the quantity of teachers about right but now we need to make sure we raise the quality generally across the system.
Translation – Yes

Question – How is the performance pay going to work? Who is going to assess it? How are you going to judge if a teacher is performing well?
Answer – This is a part of a two year work programme which I announced yesterday, the appraisal system if a part of it, our proposal is to collaborate with the sector in the design of it, therefore both the process and features of it are yet to be determined.
Translation – We don’t know.

Question – So we don’t know how we are going to assess them yet, but we have announced that there is going to be an assessment where some of their pay will be based on it.
Answer – So we’re going to collaborate with the sector, the very sector you are referring to in the design of those features.
Translation – That is correct, we don’t know

Question – So we don’t know that answer yet we don’t know how they are going to be assessed?
Answer – Because it is a two year work programme that I announced yesterday.
Translation – That is correct, we don’t know yet.

And it went on….

Question – What education system in the world that you guys have looked at, that has the potential of having fewer teachers and more students, has actually worked for a better outcome for the students?
Answer – Well that’s the point we have to design a system that is particular to NZ so we’re not proposing to adopt any one system, but we’ve certainly been looking at all 65 of the countries with whom we participate both within the OECD, but also in the PISA process, so we would look to see what particular features work in what contect, whether or not they would be appropriate for NZ, but in the end those would only be advice and we would design what would fit the purpose for our country
Translation – ??????????

Question – Are there any examples at all with a government purposely applying a system where numbers of students go up and numbers of teachers come down, potentially, and that improves the outcomes for students, are there any examples of that in the world anywhere?
Answer – Well with respect, education has many dynamic moving parts, our system doesn’t perfectly match anybody elses, our system has a number of features…..[losing interest]…blah, blah, blah…..snoring noises…
Translation – No there are not any examples anywhere in the world.

So here are my main concerns.

Again we have a National government tinkering with an education system, using untested, unproven methods and holding them up as the answer.

Nobody would disagree that there are some people in teaching who shouldn’t be there, but to attack the problem with what is obviously a Treasury based solution, rather than an education based one is nonsense.

To announce a system that is going to grade (some say degrade) our teachers and base their pay on it, to commit to it for next week’s budget, and introduce it as of the start of next year…when you don’t know how you are going to assess the teachers…isn’t only poor politics, it down right criminal

You can listen to the whole interview here, just have you’re translator ready :o )

Ports back down, win for unions…but are we still at an impasse?

I interviewed Garry Parsloe a couple of weeks ago and we came to the conclusion together that the situation is at am impasse. If the Ports ultimately want contracting, and the unions want a collective contract then there is no way forward.

Today we hear from Richard Pearson from the Ports of Auckland that they have put a halt to contracting out the work for four weeks, and altough he claimed the Ports had a ‘bulletproof’ case, today they are heading back to the table ‘in good faith’.

Richard Pearson has admitted publicly that the best result for the Ports (in his opinion) is to end up with contracting out the work, so how can he come back to the table ‘in good faith’. As I stated in the post linked above to Garry Parsloe….

“[The Ports] have the right to contract, if they want to stick by that right to do, there is an impasse correct?”

To which Mr. Parsloe replied

“There is an impasse”

So here is my question…how is this going to be any different in 4 weeks from what the situation was last week? If both sides are at the same place, then nothing has changed.

The only logical conclusion I can come to is that the Ports have had legal advice maybe advising them their position isn’t ‘bulletproof’ so they are having to come back to the table before court action tells them to.

I just don’t see the resolution here being any different from what it was yesterday, last week, or last month

UPDATE: We have just offered Garry Parsloe to come on to today’s show and talk about the issue, he has declined. We will still be putting a call into Richard Pearson

Another Romney flip-flop over gas prices

Mitt Romney, the king of ‘flip floppers’, has done it again and this time it’s around gas prices.

Yesterday he spoke out about why prices were so high.

“When he campaigned he said he wanted to raise the price of gasoline,” Mr. Romney said of Mr. Obama at a pancake breakfast here Sunday. “He said that under him energy costs would skyrocket.”

So yesterday it was Obama’s fault that gas prices were so high less than a month ago…

“I think the American people know that to a certain degree gas prices are driven by what’s happening around the world, supply and demand.”

Mitt must not have gotten the memo sent out by the Republican Party to make sure places like FOX News were not talking up small improvements in the economy but focusing on gas prices and unemployment.

So what’s all the hub-bub about with gas prices? Sure the prices has gone up in America…but to what?

Prices in the weekend averaged $US3.81 a gallon.

$US3.81 id $NZ4.61 and a US gallon is 3.79 litres

That means in America they are paying the equivalent here in NZ of $NZ1.22 per litre, close to half what we are paying here…I think it’s time to get over it America and count your blessings

No wonder he was so grumpy today

I was at Car-fe today, if you are not aware it’s Matthew Ridge’s business and c an I say from a business model it is an awesome investment. I counted I think 40 cars that had either been cleaned, were being cleaned or were waiting to be cleaned…and that was only over an hour or so, Cha-ching!

I paid $60 for what the call ‘New Car’ and I have to say the outside looked great, probably about as good as you could get it looking…however the inside certainly did not look ‘new car’. There was plenty of vacuum-able grit/dirt left under the seats which was visible and the surfaces were only lightly wiped over. Outside great…inside average so maybe a ‘B’ grade…but probably not worth $60…if it was done to ‘New Car’ standard then it definitely would be worth the money.

Matthew was there rushing around the vehicles huffing and puffing, seeming a little gruff. I don’t know whether this is his usual business practice or if he was having a bad day and then I saw this article on stuff.co.nz.

It would appear sadly that his little girl and sporting superstar SBW have called it quits. As a dad it must be hard to have your little girl’s relationship splashed all over the papers…sheesh I wouldn’t want it.

I just wonder now if he was a little more distracted than he would be on any other day.

Gary Parsloe concedes PoA have the right to contract out work…which leaves Auckland with an impasse

Gary Parsloe, the President of the Maritime Union, confirms the Ports of Auckland has the right to contract out jobs however there is no way forward in the dispute between the Ports of Auckland and the Unions.

Now I have extrapolated slightly, but not illogically, from a conversation I had with him this morning.

We spoke for more than 10 minutes of which about half was spent trying to get Mr. Parsloe to answer the question, “Does the Ports of Auckland have the right to contract out the work?” The answers from him ranged from “No” to “We’re challenging it” to “We don’t believe in the way that they have done it” until I was finally able to explain in great details what I was asking him.

“I am not asking you have done it incorrectly? I am asking you do they have the right?”
“Yes they have the right to contract out and even if we’re working they have right to contract out parts of their business.”

An answer, I thought I had better double check…

“We agree then, that the business then, has the right to contract out the work?”
“Yes”

Which moved me onto the part of the conversation that actually interested me.

“If they have the right to do it, what did [the Ports of Auckland] need to do to end up with contracting out the work?”

To which the response was varied, but the theme was definite.

“We don’t want the contracting out!”
“We don’t want it to happen!”

So the Maritime Union, via its President is telling us that they are not going to negotiate around the contracting…they don’t want it and as I said in my interview, come hell or high water they will do what they can to stop it.

Now if you are a Union person you might think this is fair enough, I think it’s at best mischievous…and at worst down right dishonest as all we are hearing from the Union is that the Ports of Auckland are not bargaining “in good faith” that they are not participating in “good bargaining”. I would say that if one side wants to move towards contracting, and that is something that the other side refuses to even discuss, it would be the latter that is not working in good faith.

A couple of other interactions with Gary Parsloe to make sure I was 100% clear

“You don’t want them to contract out the work, so you will do anything to stop them contracting it out.”
“We’re trying to convince them not to.”

“Isn’t the truth you just don’t want to stop the contracting full stop.”
“We don’t want contracting.”

To which we come to the inevitable conclusion

“They have the right to contract, if they want to stick by that right to do, there is an impasse correct?”
“There is an impasse”

City of Auckland…there is an impasse

Click here for full interview Gary Parsloe for WEB

Crafer, Crafer everywhere with not an valid point to be seen

Oh my goodness! Are we still talking about why the ‘Chinese’ shouldn’t buy Crafer farms? This conversation has been going on for what feels like an eternity…and just like Christmas…it’s back before you know it.

The Overseas Investment Office authorised over 1,000,000 hectares of NZ land to be sold to foreign nationals or consortium’s from Germany, Australia, Canada, South Africa and many other predominantly ‘white’ countries…all I am looking for is consistency.

I don’t think NZ land should be sold off shore, although it’s not as serious as many would have you believe for a couple of reasons. One, they can’t take it anywhere, and two, when the foreign entity wants to sell it, NZers have the first rights again to buy it i.e. it’s not ‘lost forever’. However I think that leasing is the sensible option for overseas investors…but then again if I am a farmer and I want to sell…and no one can afford to buy my property…leasing may not be an option so why not sell to the highest bidder then?

Consistency would be showing the same kind of abhorrence to any international sale as we do to “the Chinese”. I think it’s undeniable that there is massive xenophobia and maybe even racism over this sale.

I wrote about this last year on my old blog. The audio link is no longer working in that post so here it is again, your typical talkback caller with no evidence, just rhetoric, posturing, xenophobia and ‘gut feelings’

We have a couple of possibilities here. One is that Crafer Farms does not sell, two is that it does sell. If it sells to a NZ company or individual it’s likely it will be for far less than an international bid…but it’ll be NZ owned (blah. blah, blah). If it sells to an international group they will inject far more into the economy to get the farms up and running. If it is bought by one of these Chinese groups they will make the milk powder in NZ, employing more Kiwis, and then send it to a part of the world where the children desperately need this kind of product…where is the dilemma?

The latest news is that ‘the latest’ conglomerate from Asia that wants to purchase the farms with the same old people wanting to block it making their loud voices and creating fear amongst Kiwis that ‘we’ll soon be paying to rent our own land’. Well that decision is out tonight or tomorrow. I am sure talkback will be busy.

Greed and some other deadly sins at the Ports of Auckland

The Ports of Auckland is currently being held to ransom by it’s workings looking for better pay and conditions. We can never know exactly what the ‘behind the scenes’ conditions are like but let me lay these details on you and you can make your own mind up.

Ports of Auckland has lost $27 million per annum of trade from this strike, that means Auckland City has lost income and the economy of Auckland will be worse off for it. The Maritime Union of New Zealand workers have been in negotiations for better pay and conditions since August 2011. What I want to know is what do they currently get, what have they been offered and what do they want?

According to a Damien Grant article in the NZ Herald on Sunday Port workers currently earn $91,000 per annum and seem to work just 26 hours a week. If this is accurate then that’s an hourly rate of $67.31 per hour…not bad. Without sounding too right wing and judgemental, these workers are typically unqualified and lowly educated. Some of them will have qualifications in areas such as operating special machinery or vehicles, but on the scale of a teacher, nurse or doctor there isn’t too many that would get turned away from this job…if there were any vacancies.

What they are being offered is as follows.

  • A 10% rise on hourly rates.
  • Performance bonuses of up to 20% on hourly rates.
  • Retention of existing entitlements and benefits.
  • And a new roster system that will provide increased operational flexibility while allowing workers to plan their rosters a month in advance.

So that’s a salary of more like $100,000, a bonus scheme which could take the total to more like $120,000, no losses of current entitlements and benefits and more flexibility to plan their work/life balance. Seems a pretty good deal to me.

What do they want? The answer is ‘More!’

I don’t have a problem with people striking, I also don’t have an issue with Unions and how they represent their members. My big issue with this from the Union side of things is that they now have a strangle hold on the Ports of Auckland, they know this strike has cost the Port $27 million so far (let alone what they are losing on a daily basis) and if they keep their foot on the throat the Ports will fold to their every demand. That doesn’t seem like negotiation to me, it seems like thuggery and bully-boy behaviour. How many Kiwi’s would like the chance to earn upwards of $120,000 per annum, in a little or no skilled job. What happens next when the Ports of Auckland lose more business and then need to lay people off due to their workload dropping…what will the Union do for those members then?

The remaining question is this. Is the Maritime Union currently doing what is best for their members? If they are then I guess they should continue this action, if they are not they are ultimately going to hurt the people who employ them to speak on their behalf.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 79 other followers

%d bloggers like this: