Media Release: Rail and Maritime Transport Union
Wednesday 12 December, 2012

Mass Union Meeting Calls On Port CEO To Share Bonus

A mass meeting of members of the Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) a short time ago called on Lyttelton Port Company CEO Peter Davie to share his $600,000 bonus amongst port workers.

‘Today’s joint meeting of the union’s Lyttelton Port Branch and Canterbury Rail Branch voted unanimously in support of a resolution calling on Davie to divide the money amongst the workers at the port,’ said RMTU General Secretary Wayne Butson, who was in attendance.

‘The reality is that Lyttelton Port was kept operational by hundreds of people who dragged themselves away from their broken homes and their families in order to keep the flow of goods going into and out of Lyttelton,’ he said.

‘These men and women are amongst the many unsung heroes of the aftermath of the earthquake and to reward one man $600,000 is morally objectionable,’ he said.

‘We constantly hear platitudes from employers about how their greatest asset is their staff and how a happy workforce is a productive workforce. Well, these workers are not happy and they don’t feel valued when a guy in a suit gets all the recognition while they’re out there night after night, in all weathers, doing difficult and dangerous work, keeping Christchurch going’, he said.

‘It could be a long, hot summer on the waterfront’, he said.

--
www.firstunion.org.nz

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>