Watch this video from this morning on The Nation.
After Jami-lee Ross has his bit to say about his bill they let Darien Fenton have a crack and she lies right from the get go about Ports of Auckland.
She calls that dispute a lock-out when it wasn’t. It started as a strike and only became a lock-out near the end after some violent scenes at the gates of the port.
Frustrated Auckland port workers marched to the waterfront through lunch-time traffic yesterday after voting “unanimously” to end a four-week strike, only to be denied entry.
Chanting “Whose port? Our port” and “Where’s the mayor? Not here”, the 100-odd workers had a police escort back to their picket outside Fergusson container terminal.
They had accepted a Maritime Union recommendation to end the strike after the council-owned port company undertook to the Employment Court on Wednesday to suspend plans to sack them and almost 200 other workers, and return to collective bargaining.
But even before casting their votes, they received word that the company had issued 14 days’ notice of a lockout against them.
So they had been on strike for 4 weeks before being locked out.
Why did Darien Fenton lie?
In looking at this issue, you have to weigh up a small legislative change of just 44 words including the title, against a union movement who are willing to lie to gather support for their contention that this is an excessive and draconian change to legislation.
After lying about the Ports of Auckland dispute Darien Fenton would have you all believe that this 44 word change to legislation is more draconian than the removal of compulsory unionism?
This chicken little behaviour of always suggesting the sky will fall in is unbecoming. It shows the union movement is out of touch with reality.
All this proposed law change does is return the the legal situation that existed between 1908 and 2000.
If allowing temporary workers is so extreme, why did NZ wait over 100 years to ban them? Why did 8 Labour prime ministers allow temporary workers if it iss so extreme? Why didn’t Michael Joseph Savage, Peter Fraser, Walter Nash, Norman Kirk, Bill Rowling, David Lange, Geoffrey Palmer and Mike Moore all do nothing to remove the “extreme” situation that is now threatening the industrial relations framework, like never before, if it is removed.
Or are the unions just a bunch of chicken littles always thinking the sky is falling when it isn’t and hasn’t.
The most disappointing aspect of all of this is the cowardice of Peter Dunne, who opposed the ERA in 2000, but seems to have forgotten that. It also seems he has forgotten some donations too, which appear undeclared…perhaps he might like to refresh his memory.