Looking closely at the EPMU, Ctd

Owl has sent me another email:

The Owl on makes an observation. (Source MED website)

In the 2005 accounts the EPMU spent $352,000.00 on Strategic Review. (Source MED website 2006 EPMU excel spreadsheets)

In 2006 (as per the EPMU excel spreadsheets filed on the MED website)

  • they made a ($1.154M) LOSS – the Owl has no problems with the spend or the loss and say good on EPMU evaluating their business models.

Changes sometimes incur costs. Well done

In 2007 EPMU filed Audited Accounts and the comparative figure for 9 months shows a 2006 LOSS of ($1.89M).

Since no notes to the accounts were registered and there is no 2005 or 2006 Audited Accounts it is hard to understand what makes up the variation of $736,000.00.

I am absolutely sure there is nothing wrong and have previously said the EPMU is a very well run Union.

So the Owl observation is this: The more clarity you provide to your organisation the better the public is informed – isn’t that the motion being put forward by Labour today in the House. Please note all this information is in the public domain.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Dave

    $352K is a bit rich fora Strategic review of an organization the size of EPMU, it would be interesting to see who carried out the review, was it an “inside organization” and how much did they do.   In the corporate world, that would cover a hell of a lot, probably a full strategy, systems & process review for an organization turning over circa $50 – 75 Mill, with recommendations to structure and new systems, and possibly some implementation consultants.   

    Would love to know what it said and the original scope of the review.    

  • Blokeintakapuna

    Please keep digging – there’s a stench of fetid corruption just waiting to be uncovered very, very soon… and with the Unions being the bully boy arm of the Labour Party, there’s likely to be all manner of unethical and unsavory behaviours just waiting for sunlight disinfectant also…
    In fact, it wouldn’t take much of a leap of imagination to understand that if the EPMU Union really are being as dodgy as their comrades in the Unite union… then they likely are operating illegally, knowingly against the law… where then does that leave Labour in the credibility spectrum being the political wing of the Unions?

    Does the Governor General need to launch an urgent enquiry? Especially in light of Labour deliberately attempting to steal almost $1Million in over-spend during the 2008 election…

    If it looks like a duck, sounds and walks like a duck….
    No smoke without fire…

    • AngryTory

      No need  for another fucking expensive inquiry:  just ban the unions

      Unionists and Ex-Unionists should never have the privilege of voting
      should never be eligible for any welfare (including super)
      should be banned from any employment 
      and like 1951, feeding a unionist should be treason

  • Owl

    The Owl draws no conclusion other than  to say that if full audited accounts were filed then the public/members would not need to second guess – that is what I am doing – second guessing.

    Labour wants transparency on POAL etc and putting it in the house today – I am just backing up their demands – transparency is GOOD


    • Bafacu

      It is possible (but unlikely) that, as the previous comapison was for a 9 month period, the Union may have made a profit of $736,000.00 duning the balance of the year.

      More of concern is the fact that no Audited Accounts have been filed for these peiods (as required by their Articles) so there is no way to verify any information.

      • Owl

        no the LOSS INCREASED from what they originally reported

      • ShaunHay

        Bafacu is right… if they made a 
        loss of  $1,890,000 for the nine months and then a profit of $736,000 in the following 3 months then the loss for the 12 month period would have been $1,154,000.

        When they change their financial year to 9 months they would compare the current 9 months to the $1,890,000 loss in the prior comparable nine month period.

         Uncertain if this actually happened… but as you say Bafacu, the bigger problem is the lack of audited financial accounts.

      • Timandtim

        Actually your theory could be right…however….consider this.
        The EMPU filed a return stating $ xxxx loss to a government department. But in actual terms haven’t you misled…
        It can be easily resolved. Just need them to file their returns.

        MED where are you on this….

  • Timandtim

    From NZ Herald today

    Labour’s ACC spokesman Andrew Little welcomed the inquiry as an opportunity to examine “the real problems plaguing the agency”.


  • Timandtim

    From Herald Today


    Labour’s industrial relations spokeswoman, Darien Fenton, meanwhile
    intends moving in Parliament today for legislation to be set down for a
    first reading for council-owned port companies and their subsidiaries
    to be subjected to official information disclosure laws.

    She said her bill would reverse the exclusion of port companies and
    their subsidiaries from the definition of council-controlled
    organisations in the 2002 Local Government Act.

    Auckland’s port dispute had highlighted the need for the companies to
    be opened to the same scrutiny faced by every other public institution,
    Ms Fenton said.

    doesnt the same apply?

  • Nosey

    this is good stuff

    who are you Owl?