The post you are reporting:
Gary, I don't know the DHB management personally, It would be up to the DfT to make a decision on whether the present management should remain. I had only mentioned the DHB as such, without any reference to the senior management.
In other words, I was referring to the institution as a structure, to the staff in general.
If there is an outcry against the senior management, I'd suggest this be addressed to the DfT, as they are ultimately responsible for the Port. My point was, that in the future, the management of the Port should be appointed according to their skills by Gov. central or local.
If there is an issue on methods of employment and salaries at the Port, I would vigorously put the case forward at the appropriate levels in high, and also publicly, but this should be something for the concerned employees to do or to request that it be done on their behalf (Union representatives? spokespersons?).
In my representation this year I did mention the DHB management's claims in their renewed bid are contradictory, as they talk of "privatising the Port in order to motivate the staff" and some other bla bla, and pointed out that if this were the case, then it would suggest that, to date, the staff are not sufficiently motivated, and that perhaps this would require an investigation on the part of the DfT.
All in all, I did talk tough and in a straight forward fashion regards DHB's renewed bid.
Did you also suggest to the DfT an investigation into the conduct of DHB management, Gary, regards motivating what would appear to be under-motivated staff?
