# P&O



## Crazyface (Mar 18, 2022)

*This has got to be one of the worst offences against workers ever. Where possible people should refuse to use this dispicable company ever again.*


----------



## Neilds (Mar 18, 2022)

You're right, but I bet it will all be forgotten in a few months and when they come up with the cheapest deals........


----------



## Dando (Mar 18, 2022)

I wonder what the “European Tour”think given DP World own P&O


----------



## Neilds (Mar 18, 2022)

Dando said:



			I wonder what the “European Tour”think given DP World own P&O
		
Click to expand...

I imagine nothing at all


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 18, 2022)

Crazyface said:



*This has got to be one of the worst offences against workers ever. Where possible people should refuse to use this dispicable company ever again.*

Click to expand...

It's also illegal. Under employment law, any employer wanting to make more than 20 staff redundant need to give a statutory period of notice and go into a consultation period first. Also, any employer wanting to make more than 100 redundant needs to notify the govt 45 days in advance.

P&O have done neither.

Also, if they are making people redundant to replace then with cheaper agency / foreign labour, that's unfair dismissal.

I really hope they get taken to the cleaners, it's an atrocious way to act.


----------



## GreiginFife (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			It's also illegal. Under employment law, any employer wanting to make more than 20 staff redundant need to give a statutory period of notice and go into a consultation period first. Also, any employer wanting to make more than 100 redundant needs to notify the govt 45 days in advance.

P&O have done neither.

Also, if they are making people redundant to replace then with cheaper agency / foreign labour, that's unfair dismissal.

I really hope they get taken to the cleaners, it's an atrocious way to act.
		
Click to expand...

Bang on. Coupled with the rationale that a position being re-filled is not and cannot be classified as "redundant" unless the job description and duties are significantly different. 

I too hope that they are taken to the cleaners big time and cease to exist in very short order. I have a couple of friends that are affected by this that worked out of Dover.


----------



## RichA (Mar 18, 2022)

I wonder if they knew that they'd be kicking their employees out when they were filling in the forms to claim £10M in furlough payments to protect those jobs.
A friend quit his management job in a different industry during lockdown, when he heard similar plots being hatched by his company. He predicted that this kind of thing would happen.


----------



## woofers (Mar 18, 2022)

Although it’s a company action, it’s initiated and delivered by somebody. Just what kind of person is the guy (edit:Stephen Nee) who sat and delivered the Zoom message, and what kind of people are those sitting in buses waiting to take the jobs. Why are the top managers who sanction this crap never named?
I guess they are all people with no morals or sense of ‘doing the right thing’ at all.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 18, 2022)

Mods, does this need a thread merge with the DP World one?


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			It's also illegal. Under employment law, any employer wanting to make more than 20 staff redundant need to give a statutory period of notice and go into a consultation period first. Also, any employer wanting to make more than 100 redundant needs to notify the govt 45 days in advance.

P&O have done neither.

Also, if they are making people redundant to replace then with cheaper agency / foreign labour, that's unfair dismissal.

I really hope they get taken to the cleaners, it's an atrocious way to act.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree which P and O must of known about which then begs the simple question as to. Why?  Why did they do it this way.


----------



## backwoodsman (Mar 18, 2022)

I know that if I'd done similar in my work it would be illegal - and certainly wouldn't be redundancy, as the jobs are still there,  supposedly to be filled by cheaper people.  But did not somebody somewhere say that this was actually legal under maritime law?? (I'm just asking - I know nothing about maritine law). Either way, doesn't stop it being an absolutely atrocious way to deal with people.


----------



## GB72 (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			It's also illegal. Under employment law, any employer wanting to make more than 20 staff redundant need to give a statutory period of notice and go into a consultation period first. Also, any employer wanting to make more than 100 redundant needs to notify the govt 45 days in advance.

P&O have done neither.

Also, if they are making people redundant to replace then with cheaper agency / foreign labour, that's unfair dismissal.

I really hope they get taken to the cleaners, it's an atrocious way to act.
		
Click to expand...

Not supporting P&O at all but technically they are not making anyone redundant. If the job still exists to be given to an agency worked then the position has not been made redundant. From what I read, they have simply sacked everyone. If they have givne the correct contractual notice, they may not have done anything wrong so far as emplyment law is concerned.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 18, 2022)

GB72 said:



*Not supporting P&O at all but technically they are not making anyone redundant*. If the job still exists to be given to an agency worked then the position has not been made redundant. From what I read, they have simply sacked everyone. If they have givne the correct contractual notice, they may not have done anything wrong so far as emplyment law is concerned.
		
Click to expand...


The video from P&O told staff "your employment is being terminated with immediate effect on grounds of redundancy".

I'm sure they've had their lawyers all over this and are confident they can get away with it. 

As for the replacement staff, I've heard talk that it's basically slave labour shipped in from the Middle East. That may or may not be true, but it defies belief that P&O or their agents could recruit 800 trained staff in the UK without anyone getting wind of what was afoot.

It's good to see Govt ministers calling P&O out as "disgraceful". Let's hope they hammer them.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 18, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Totally agree which P and O must of known about which then begs the simple question as to. Why?  *Why did they do it this way.*

Click to expand...

I'm assuming the word came down from their Saudi owners. Human rights don't count for much over there.


----------



## drdel (Mar 18, 2022)

woofers said:



			Although it’s a company action, it’s initiated and delivered by somebody. Just what kind of person is the guy (edit:Stephen Nee) who sat and delivered the Zoom message, and what kind of people are those sitting in buses waiting to take the jobs. Why are the top managers who sanction this crap never named?
I guess they are all people with no morals or sense of ‘doing the right thing’ at all.
		
Click to expand...

He'll still get his bonus


----------



## stefanovic (Mar 18, 2022)

Been listening to the Radio 5 phone in and scarcely believable how workers treated. Like the security men with handcuffs.
Alan Sugar mentality. You're Fired. Not after one episode but in many cases up to 20 years loyal service.


----------



## BiMGuy (Mar 18, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Totally agree which P and O must of known about which then begs the simple question as to. Why?  Why did they do it this way.
		
Click to expand...

Probably to stop the staff stealing anything not screwed down and smashing the ships up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			It's also illegal. Under employment law, any employer wanting to make more than 20 staff redundant need to give a statutory period of notice and go into a consultation period first. Also, any employer wanting to make more than 100 redundant needs to notify the govt 45 days in advance.

P&O have done neither.

Also, if they are making people redundant to replace then with cheaper agency / foreign labour, that's unfair dismissal.

I really hope they get taken to the cleaners, it's an atrocious way to act.
		
Click to expand...

Not illegal is what I have been hearing this morning.  And as I don’t know how to link to another post…I posted the following…

A bit of factual background to the legislation that allows what P&O to do is given without comment.

A bill was presented in Oct 2021 to make illegal what P&O have done (though my understanding is that the bill would not have made fire and re-hire illegal).  The bill had cross-party support but a three line whip saw it blocked at 2nd reading.

Link to the debate and the background to the bill for anyone interested in the debate and to help inform our discussion is given below.

https://www.parallelparliament.co.u...ntandtradeunionrightsdismissalandreengagement

…also from what I have heard this morning…DP World are going to be a (key?) player in setting up and running the UKs new freeports that are being talked of.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 18, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not illegal is what I have been hearing this morning.  And as I don’t know how to link to another post…I posted the following…



*…also from what I have heard this morning…DP World are going to be a (key?) player in setting up and running the UKs new freeports that are being talked of.*

Click to expand...

yes, this was mentioned on the news last night, no doubt the Saudis will threaten to pull the funding for the freeports if the UK govt cracks down on P&O.


----------



## Canary_Yellow (Mar 18, 2022)

Are the replacement staff not being provided by a contractor? Presumably an overseas one with cheaper employees. 

As others have pointed out, it wouldn’t be a redundancy situation if the jobs still existed.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			I'm assuming the word came down from their Saudi owners. Human rights don't count for much over there.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they are based in the UAE, a different country to Saudi, but I know what you mean.


----------



## IanM (Mar 18, 2022)

Anyone Emailed the Tour to express their  disgust yet?

I had an email from them this morning selling something.   They got a snotty reply and a request to remove me from the mailing lists


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

GB72 said:



			Not supporting P&O at all but technically they are not making anyone redundant. If the job still exists to be given to an agency worked then the position has not been made redundant. *From what I read, they have simply sacked everyone. If they have givne the correct contractual notice, they may not have done anything wrong so far as emplyment law is concerned*.
		
Click to expand...

This must change. 

After receiving all that furlough money, they should be made to pay it all back.

Fire and rehire should be outlawed.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			yes, this was mentioned on the news last night, no doubt the Saudis will threaten to pull the funding for the freeports if the UK govt cracks down on P&O.
		
Click to expand...

More like when.

Now is the time for this lot in charge to prove what theyre actually about. Build back better?


----------



## GB72 (Mar 18, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			This must change.

After receiving all that furlough money, they should be made to pay it all back.

Fire and rehire should be outlawed.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Apologies if others read otherwise but I in no way support the action taken and just gave a little insight from my admitedly short time in employment.


----------



## phillarrow (Mar 18, 2022)

Crazyface said:



*This has got to be one of the worst offences against workers ever. Where possible people should refuse to use this dispicable company ever again.*

Click to expand...

Yep! They're on my blacklist now. Absolutely disgusting greed shameless behaviour. 
I wonder if their CEO took a hefty pay cut before they laid off these people. 🤔😡


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 18, 2022)

IanM said:



			Anyone Emailed the Tour to express their  disgust yet?

I had an email from them this morning selling something.   They got a snotty reply and a request to remove me from the mailing lists
		
Click to expand...

Yup they tried flogging me tournament tickets. Ave emailed and told them to shove it. Also unsubscribed. Thanks for the heads up👍


----------



## chrisd (Mar 18, 2022)

I assumed that normal unfair dismissal rules would apply to any worker with more than 2 years service,  but I was told that the employment was under Jersey law and this will not apply .


----------



## chrisd (Mar 18, 2022)

Canary_Yellow said:



			As others have pointed out, it wouldn’t be a redundancy situation if the jobs still existed.
		
Click to expand...

Back when I've been involved with redundancy I understood that it's not the job that's redundant its the the person , the job can still exist but you may not require so many staff to undertake the work. 

Replacing them with outside staff is, of course, a wholly different matter


----------



## Ethan (Mar 18, 2022)

This has happened for 2 reasons. One is a deliberate political choice (Redacted) and the other is the weakening of employment legislation and unions, so I guess that is too. I am sure many (redacted)s will feign shock and disgust, and many crocodile tears will be shed.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 18, 2022)

Worker rights are slowly (or quickly) getting eroded in the UK.  We now have free rein to do this.  So expect a few more of this. 
Despite that, the scale of this is staggering..   As someone said, all will be forgotten in a few weeks when cheap ferry deals come around.   Does anyone remember Carillion?


----------



## IanM (Mar 18, 2022)

Mudball said:



			Worker rights are slowly (or quickly) getting eroded in the UK.  We now have free rein to do this.  So expect a few more of this.
Despite that, the scale of this is staggering..   As someone said, all will be forgotten in a few weeks when cheap ferry deals come around.   Does anyone remember Carillion?
		
Click to expand...

As I understand it,  Uk employment laws are at not at  work here or it would be illegal. But  I've emailed a shipping contact for clarification.

Which employee protection laws do you think have been repealed recently?

I  don't expect any cheap ferry deals as a result, this was pure cost cutting.


----------



## chico (Mar 18, 2022)

Shame on anyone who travels with P & O ever again. This is like the last 150 years of workers rights have just disappeared overnight.


----------



## rulefan (Mar 18, 2022)

I wonder if this had anything to do with it?
_P&O Ferries Holdings lost £38.82m in 2019 and in 2020, the year during which COVID-19 first struck, it lost a further £85.95m. The accounts for 2021 have yet to be formally filed but the company said on Thursday that losses had increased to £100m during the latest year. _
I understand the RMT were demanding a pay rise but that may be a rumour.
Incidentally the cruise line (P&O Cruises) is unaffected by the developments as it is a separate business owned by Carnival UK.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

GB72 said:



			Totally agree. Apologies if others read otherwise but I in no way support the action taken and just gave a little insight from my admitedly short time in employment.
		
Click to expand...

No need to apologise. I like it when people bring knowledge and experience to threads instead of links to google and Twitter.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 18, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I wonder if this had anything to do with it?
_P&O Ferries Holdings lost £38.82m in 2019 and in 2020, the year during which COVID-19 first struck, it lost a further £85.95m. The accounts for 2021 have yet to be formally filed but the company said on Thursday that losses had increased to £100m during the latest year. _
I understand the RMT were demanding a pay rise but that may be a rumour.
Incidentally the cruise line (P&O Cruises) is unaffected by the developments as it is a separate business owned by Carnival UK.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder how much business P & O Cruises might lose as a consequence of people thinking they are part of the same company? Have to be honest and say I would have thought they were without your post.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 18, 2022)

I fail to see why we need an Arab run company to run our ports......isn't us controlling our infrastructure etc what Boris said would happen?

P&O can swing as far as I am concerned. I'd rather give my money to the French for the Tunnel than P&O now.


----------



## funkycoldmedina (Mar 18, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I fail to see why we need an Arab run company to run our ports......isn't us controlling our infrastructure etc what Boris said would happen?

P&O can swing as far as I am concerned. I'd rather give my money to the French for the Tunnel than P&O now.
		
Click to expand...

Our infrastructure has been for sale for years. Bloody awful decision decades ago but it's now the norm


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 18, 2022)

funkycoldmedina said:



			Our infrastructure has been for sale for years. Bloody awful decision decades ago but it's now the norm
		
Click to expand...

I don't disagree one bit....


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 18, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I wonder if this had anything to do with it?
_P&O Ferries Holdings lost £38.82m in 2019 and in 2020, the year during which COVID-19 first struck, it lost a further £85.95m. *The accounts for 2021 have yet to be formally filed* but the company said on Thursday that losses had increased to £100m during the latest year. _
I understand the RMT were demanding a pay rise but that may be a rumour.
Incidentally the cruise line (P&O Cruises) is unaffected by the developments as it is a separate business owned by Carnival UK.
		
Click to expand...

2021 accounts aren't due until 30 Sept '22.
P&O Cruises/Carnival have made an announcement that they are unrelated, though I expect they'll still suffer from the public perception.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 18, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I fail to see why we need an Arab run company to run our ports......
...
		
Click to expand...

It's not a case of 'need'! UK is traditionally pretty open/encouraging to ownership of/investment in UK companies by foreign interests. These days, UK companies are minnows compared to the sharks of those elsewhere.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

Dont forget there were many paid public office workers who vetoed against changing the law on Fire and Rehire.

The french and Dutch  have kept their jobs too.


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			It's not a case of 'need'! UK is traditionally pretty open/encouraging to ownership of/investment in UK companies by foreign interests.
		
Click to expand...

Usually decided by who gives the biggest backhander, no?


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 18, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			Usually decided by who gives the biggest backhander, no?
		
Click to expand...

Seems very cynical! I couldn't comment. Are you sure you've got the right thread?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 18, 2022)

The way that this has been done would have been illegal if the bill of Oct 2021 had not been blocked - so it might not even have happened.  I also wonder whether non-UK P&O channel and N Sea seafarers have had the same happen to them, and if not then why not.  Plus I believe that our PM was speaking directly with one of the main shareholders of DP World when in Dubai the day before the announcement.  Was he informed of what P&O were planning to do.  If not he needs to ask why not.  If he was we need to know what he said to the shareholder.

The problem with this subject is that so much background and context to it is political….and that cannot be discussed.  However, I am finding much of the wailing coming from certain quarters rather hypocritical and stomach churning given that what has occurred is an almost inevitable consequence of our current and new circumstances.  If it hadn’t been P&O it will have been someone else; and if not now then it would have been in the not to distant future.  I find it all very depressing and upsetting.

Anyway.   Did the DP World sponsorship of the European tour happen with their knowledge that this announcement was coming.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 18, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I fail to see why we need an Arab run company to run our ports......isn't us controlling our infrastructure etc what Boris said would happen?

P&O can swing as far as I am concerned.* I'd rather give my money to the French for the Tunnel* than P&O now.
		
Click to expand...

You would be giving 55% of your money to the French, 5% to Belgium and 40% to the Canadian investment company that Osborne sold the UK's 40% stake to.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 18, 2022)

Carnival P&O very different from P&O..  I mistook them once when I did some work for them many years ago. Got a big telling off but we’re kind to say that this is a common problem…. Expect some level of PR to kick in. Having said that the cruising industry is in doldrums due to Covid.  Carnival itself was bought partially by the Middle Eastern folks when their shares tanked from $80 to about $6… they are now reaping the reward. 

(My guess is) I doubt DP knew about the plan to sack enmass. They would have told PO to get their act together and find their money by cutting things. Exact course of action would have come from PO itself.  The fact that Boris was at DP will just be a coincidence and bad timing.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 18, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			You would be giving 55% of your money to the French, 5% to Belgium and *40% to the Canadian investment company that Osborne sold the UK's 40% stake to*.
		
Click to expand...

Was that High Speed One? That went to 2 Canadian Pension funds.


----------



## GB72 (Mar 18, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			No need to apologise. I like it when people bring knowledge and experience to threads instead of links to google and Twitter.
		
Click to expand...

Never use Google unless I forget how to spell something


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Seems very cynical! I couldn't comment. Are you sure you've got the right thread?

Click to expand...

Not cynical, just very accurate.

I'd love to be able to write what i really mean. Unfortunately i cant.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 18, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			Not cynical, just very accurate.

I'd love to be able to write what i really mean. Unfortunately i cant.
		
Click to expand...

Let me guess.....As a member of the tax dodging, rip off merchants club you think they're a fine bunch of fellows?


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

Bunkermagnet said:



			Let me guess.....As a member of the tax dodging, rip off merchants club you think they're a fine bunch of fellows?

Click to expand...

Oi, i've never dodged tax in my life.

Not quite, but i remember a phrase that was often used...... "Project Fear". I'll leave it there.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Mar 18, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



*Oi, i've never dodged tax in my life.*

Not quite, but i remember a phrase that was often used...... "Project Fear". I'll leave it there.
		
Click to expand...

Never said you had sir, just repeating the common thoughts about anyone self employed


----------



## Stuart_C (Mar 18, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*The way that this has been done would have been illegal if the bill of Oct 2021 had not been blocked -* so it might not even have happened.  I also wonder whether non-UK P&O channel and N Sea seafarers have had the same happen to them, and if not then why not.  Plus I believe that our PM was speaking directly with one of the main shareholders of DP World when in Dubai the day before the announcement.  Was he informed of what P&O were planning to do.  If not he needs to ask why not.  If he was we need to know what he said to the shareholder.

The problem with this subject is that so much background and context to it is political….and that cannot be discussed.  *However, I am finding much of the wailing coming from certain quarters rather hypocritical and stomach churning given that what has occurred is an almost inevitable consequence of our current and new circumstances*.  If it hadn’t been P&O it will have been someone else; and if not now then it would have been in the not to distant future.  I find it all very depressing and upsetting.

Anyway.   Did the DP World sponsorship of the European tour happen with their knowledge that this announcement was coming.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on. 

The local MP even had the audacity to show her face at the Demo of the sacked workers.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 18, 2022)

Mudball said:



			...
(My guess is) I doubt DP knew about the plan to sack enmass. They would have told PO to get their act together and find their money by cutting things. Exact course of action would have come from PO itself. ...
		
Click to expand...

I seem to remember posting earlier that I can't believe that DP wouldn't have been informed of that action, if maybe not the horrendous details and method of dissemination.

However, I suspect that we may not be being told the full story. It's quite possible that the 800 would/will be paid whatever they are due in lieu of notice - for 'security' (fear of reprisals etc) reasons. Even if employed under Jersey law, there are statutory redundancy payments (probably not relevant as being replaced) and minimum notice periods, if dismissed, are aligned to UK ones. It may be significant that the statement in the vid seemed to be along the lines of 'this is your last day of work' rather than 'hereby terminated' or similar.
Still obscene, but maybe not 'illegal' as some have claimed. And there was some mention of a 'leaving package' that might be related (or complete bollox!).


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 19, 2022)

"Legal" or "illegal" in employment regulations can give a false impression.

If employment regulations have been breached, the victims can seek compensation through an employment tribunal. A successful outcome can be monetary and/or re-instatement.

The tribunal has no power to impose a "penalty" on the employer. Merely an instruction to pay wages/due holiday pay/pay in lieu of notice/etc.

Thus the impression of "getting away with it" is nonsense. Employers suffer no penalties for this type of breach of employment law. They merely have to pay the workers what they are due.

Employment law is very weak. It stinks.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 19, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			...
Thus the impression of "getting away with it" is nonsense. *Employers suffer no penalties for this type of breach of employment law*. They merely have to pay the workers what they are due.

Employment law is very weak. It stinks.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not financially, but reputational damage _can_ have financial impact (such as loss of potentiaal customers), at least in a 'free' economy. It's just not obvious as direct fines.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 19, 2022)

IanM said:



			As I understand it,  Uk employment laws are at not at  work here or it would be illegal. But  I've emailed a shipping contact for clarification.

Which employee protection laws do you think have been repealed recently?

I  don't expect any cheap ferry deals as a result, this was pure cost cutting.
		
Click to expand...

Wasn’t the Fire & Rehire bill blocked by the Govt (was it because it was raised by the Opposition rather than ‘The Event’).. EU worker rights are protected esp when unionised.  
A bit skweeky bum time on GMB this morning.. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504744968430182403


----------



## larmen (Mar 19, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Maybe not financially, but reputational damage _can_ have financial impact (such as loss of potentiaal customers), at least in a 'free' economy. It's just not obvious as direct fines.
		
Click to expand...

When we drive to France for holidays we can vote with our wallet and book another carrier. But commercial freight, they go the cheapest deal they can get. P&O might lose a few caravans and cars, but they could stack themselves with lorries.
That’s just my guess.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 19, 2022)

Is one of the get outs here that the ship is not registered in the UK so rates of pay, conditions etc are not covered by UK law? P & O are saying they are going to halve wage costs by doing this so either the existing staff were on big money or the pay, with an agency also taking a cut, is well below minimum wage.

Does anyone know?


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 19, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Is one of the get outs here that the ship is not registered in the UK so rates of pay, conditions etc are not covered by UK law? P & O are saying they are going to halve wage costs by doing this so either the existing staff were on big money or the pay, with an agency also taking a cut, is well below minimum wage.

Does anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

According to the BBC, the agency staff are being paid £2.60 an hour.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 19, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			According to the BBC, the agency staff are being paid £2.60 an hour.
		
Click to expand...

That's clearly against the law in the UK. Presumably it's about where it's registered then and that trumps all.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 19, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Maybe not financially, but reputational damage _can_ have financial impact (such as loss of potentiaal customers), at least in a 'free' economy. It's just not obvious as direct fines.
		
Click to expand...

I think they weighed that possibility up and still went for the cuts now, build back reputation later based on cheap pricing. 
So often in transport and service it is a race to the bottom in working conditions and pay.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 19, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			I think they weighed that possibility up and still went for the cuts now, build back reputation later based on cheap pricing.
So often in transport and service it is a race to the bottom in working conditions and pay.
		
Click to expand...

I'd normally simply 'Like' your post, as I totally agree with it. But 'like'-ing such an environment simply grates!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 19, 2022)

I have no doubt that people will still use P&O because they will provide cheap travel across the channel - many people won’t care about their actions because people will just look at what cost savings they can make


----------



## Imurg (Mar 19, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have no doubt that people will still use P&O because they will provide cheap travel across the channel - many people won’t care about their actions because people will just look at what cost savings they can make
		
Click to expand...

After all..thats why people use Ryanair.....


----------



## Billysboots (Mar 19, 2022)

Imurg said:



			After all..thats why people use Ryanair.....
		
Click to expand...

I know an ex Ryanair pilot who says he wouldn’t fly with them as a passenger. He left owing to concerns over cost cutting and how that impacted on maintenance programs. Slightly concerning for those of us who are nervous fliers, although I won’t travel with them owing to the way they treat customers with such disregard. I’d rather pay a few quid more and book a different carrier.

As for P & O, I absolutely agree people will continue to travel with them. Fare paying passengers invariably don’t look beyond the cost, and certainly won’t consider the company’s lack of morals when booking a cheap crossing.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 19, 2022)

So P&O sack their UK-based staff, but not those in Ireland and France. Presumably because EU law offers them a better level of protection?


----------



## IanM (Mar 19, 2022)

The Ships are flagged outside both uk and EU so some of the narrative is deliberately incorrect.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 19, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			So P&O sack their UK-based staff, but not those in Ireland and France. Presumably because EU law offers them a better level of protection?
		
Click to expand...

Would the UK have unravelled that legislation already? I know from dealing with a French company that their workers protection far exceeds that of ours, to the point of it being a big issue for employers. The protection will likely be country dependent rather than eu.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 19, 2022)

IanM said:



			The Ships are flagged outside both uk and EU so some of the narrative is deliberately incorrect.
		
Click to expand...

Genuine question… does it matter where it is flagged. When someone joins as a crew on one of the P&O.. do they contract with the ship or the owner? For large merchant ships, I believe you are linked to the ship rather than say Mersk. But I was assuming that for a ferry service, you could be rostering as a shift and be on any boat. 
Also they must be operating mostly in U.K. territorial waters rather than international… so U.K. laws apply. 

Ofcourse my assumption may be wrong (not the first time).  But that does not explain why only U.K. staff were fired but not the EU ones.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Mar 19, 2022)

Imurg said:



			After all..thats why people use Ryanair.....
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. The general public just want to get from A to B as cheaply and quickly as possible


----------



## sunshine (Mar 20, 2022)

Currently fashionable for sponsors to drop when the subject is bad PR (Mickelson, Chelsea etc). Will be interesting to see if the European Tour takes action and drops DP World. 

Greg Norman must be loving this. Deflecting attention away from his sponsors.


----------



## woofers (Mar 20, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have no doubt that people will still use P&O because they will provide cheap travel across the channel - many people won’t care about their actions because people will just look at what cost savings they can make
		
Click to expand...




Imurg said:



			After all..thats why people use Ryanair.....
		
Click to expand...

I think you can apply the “cheapest” and “cost savings” to virtually everything, not just travel


----------



## Mudball (Mar 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Currently fashionable for sponsors to drop when the subject is bad PR (Mickelson, Chelsea etc). Will be interesting to see if the European Tour takes action and drops DP World.

Greg Norman must be loving this. Deflecting attention away from his sponsors.
		
Click to expand...


I doubt it... In the wider context, the P&O is almost not relevant to the Tour.   Also it is not DP who did it.   Of course things may become sligthly more heated if English and Irish golfers start making noise.  But highly unlikely.    Dont hold your breath on this.  3 days into the saga, it has already moved to the back pages.


----------



## woofers (Mar 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Currently fashionable for sponsors to drop when the subject is bad PR (Mickelson, Chelsea etc). Will be interesting to see if the European Tour takes action and drops DP World.
		
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely, DP World may be the parent company but haven’t really been highlighted as “bad boys”. Although on their website they have a governance section and a link to their Code of Ethics, which includes reference to “modern slavery“ - if £2.60 an hour isn’t modern slavery, what is?
The Tour will do nothing, they are happy to sanction events in Saudi Arabia and run their flagship Race to Dubai, the very place DP World are owned and run from.
And anyway, I suspect NO tour professional golfers use ferries.


----------



## larmen (Mar 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Currently fashionable for sponsors to drop when the subject is bad PR (Mickelson, Chelsea etc). Will be interesting to see if the European Tour takes action and drops DP World.

Greg Norman must be loving this. Deflecting attention away from his sponsors.
		
Click to expand...

Do they have any big contracts with businesses like Eddie Stobart or Kühne & Nagel?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 21, 2022)

Mudball said:



			Genuine question… does it matter where it is flagged. When someone joins as a crew on one of the P&O.. do they contract with the ship or the owner? For large merchant ships, I believe you are linked to the ship rather than say Mersk. But I was assuming that for a ferry service, you could be rostering as a shift and be on any boat.
Also they must be operating mostly in U.K. territorial waters rather than international… so U.K. laws apply.

Ofcourse my assumption may be wrong (not the first time).  *But that does not explain why only U.K. staff were fired but not the EU ones.*

Click to expand...

Clearly it must be that P&O don’t have any EU resource that they want to replace - or maybe they don’t actually have any…with all EU-based being non-EU registered or something like that 🤔


----------



## theoneandonly (Mar 21, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			According to the BBC, the agency staff are being paid £2.60 an hour.
		
Click to expand...

The article today suggests as little as £1.81 ph


----------



## greenone (Mar 21, 2022)

Imurg said:



			After all..thats why people use Ryanair.....
		
Click to expand...

I'd rather walk/swim than give Michael O'Leary a penny.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 21, 2022)

Billysboots said:



			...
As for P & O, I absolutely agree people will continue to *travel* with them. Fare paying *passengers* invariably don’t look beyond the cost, and certainly won’t consider the company’s lack of morals when *booking a cheap crossing*.
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			I have no doubt that people will still use *P&O* because they will *provide cheap travel across the channel* - many people won’t care about their actions because people will just look at what cost savings they can make
		
Click to expand...

Remember that P&O Cruises - the travel company - is nothing to do with P&O Freight (the company that did this obscene bit of industrial relations). They are completely separate companies owned by completely separate companies. Their only connection is that they used to be part(s) of the same company (P&O).


----------



## Ethan (Mar 22, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Clearly it must be that P&O don’t have any EU resource that they want to replace - or maybe they don’t actually have any…with all EU-based being non-EU registered or something like that 🤔
		
Click to expand...

The staff fired were contacted according to UK law. Those on the Belfast-Liverpool line are contracted under Dutch law and are not being fired. Those hired under Irish law are not being fired.


----------



## IainP (Mar 22, 2022)

Seems like the picture still isn't fully clear.

BBC news story yesterday :
"Some of P&O's ferries are registered in Cyprus, meaning they do not have to pay the minimum wage required by UK law."


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 22, 2022)

Ethan said:



			The staff fired were contacted according to UK law. Those on the Belfast-Liverpool line are contracted under Dutch law and are not being fired. Those hired under Irish law are not being fired.
		
Click to expand...

Ah right…nuff said… Rather explains the silence of others…😕


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 22, 2022)

I don't know how Dutch and Irish employment law differs from ours but...

There is no enforcement of UK employment law. There is no Employment Law watchdog or agency to enforce the law.
The only system we have is Employment Tribunals.
If you find that your employer has breached employment law you must take them to a tribunal.
Who fancies taking one's employer to court while still working for them? I did that once.

P&O know whether they have breached the law or not. Even if they know that they have, it has not deterred them from doing so.
The former employees must take the Employment Tribunal route for there to be any redress. If they seek to do this in a collective action, it could take a couple of years to organise.
Successful action will result in re-instatement or any financial compensation that the court finds appropriate. The £££ compensation will not exceed money that was due in wages, accrued holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. The tribunal has no power to award more than this for "wrongdoing". The length of time and anguish that such action takes is just not worth it. I know this from experience. Far better to deploy one's energy and time in seeking alternative employment.
Re-instatement? Who wants to go back and work for an employer who has just treated you like a piece of poo on the bottom of a shoe?

UK employment law stinks.
Not so much the regulations themselves, but the fact that there is no enforcement and no penalties imposed on employers for breaches of the law.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 23, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			I don't know how Dutch and Irish employment law differs from ours but...

There is no enforcement of UK employment law. There is no Employment Law watchdog or agency to enforce the law.
The only system we have is Employment Tribunals.
If you find that your employer has breached employment law you must take them to a tribunal.
Who fancies taking one's employer to court while still working for them? I did that once.

P&O know whether they have breached the law or not. Even if they know that they have, it has not deterred them from doing so.
The former employees must take the Employment Tribunal route for there to be any redress. If they seek to do this in a collective action, it could take a couple of years to organise.
Successful action will result in re-instatement or any financial compensation that the court finds appropriate. The £££ compensation will not exceed money that was due in wages, accrued holiday pay and payment in lieu of notice. The tribunal has no power to award more than this for "wrongdoing". The length of time and anguish that such action takes is just not worth it. I know this from experience. Far better to deploy one's energy and time in seeking alternative employment.
Re-instatement? Who wants to go back and work for an employer who has just treated you like a piece of poo on the bottom of a shoe?

UK employment law stinks.
Not so much the regulations themselves, but the fact that there is no enforcement and no penalties imposed on employers for breaches of the law.
		
Click to expand...

We hear today that the government is taking legal action against P&O.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 23, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We hear today that the government is taking legal action against P&O.
		
Click to expand...

The boss said he thinks that P&O has broken the law....  so you can expect they broke the law..


----------



## greenone (Mar 23, 2022)

They wouldn't be offering what they are offering if they were following the law. They are just trying to take the short term hit in the expectation that it will blow over and it will go back to normal in a couple of months with a vastly reduced wage bill.


----------



## greenone (Mar 23, 2022)

On the Larne to cairnryan route the ferry would never leave British territorial waters so would have thought international maritime law would not come in to it.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 23, 2022)

Mudball said:



			The boss said he thinks that P&O has broken the law....  so you can expect they broke the law..
		
Click to expand...

I heard comment today that the need to provide 45days notice, as was earlier cited as the basis for court action, did not apply to P&O and their UK staff.  I do not know if this is the case.


----------



## Ethan (Mar 23, 2022)

Mudball said:



			The boss said he thinks that P&O has broken the law....  so you can expect they broke the law..
		
Click to expand...

When would he ever tell a porkie?


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 23, 2022)

Mudball said:



			The boss said he thinks that P&O has broken the law....  so you can expect they broke the law..
		
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that there is actual 'law-breaking'. Taken to the limit perhaps, but reports of sizeable (apparently some >£100k) payoffs (redundancy deals) indicate that the wording of that obscenely presented announcement 'your last day of work for P&O Freight' was, indeed, not the whole story - with redundancy deal(s) to be handled later. The company likely preferred to deal with it that way than have unhappy crew members on board during their 'notice period'.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 23, 2022)

greenone said:



*They wouldn't be offering what they are offering if they were following the law.* They are just trying to take the short term hit in the expectation that it will blow over and it will go back to normal in a couple of months with a vastly reduced wage bill.
		
Click to expand...

Given that they lost 100m last year, 86m the year before (both Covid affected) and (just under) 40m in 2019, it would need to be a heck of a wage bill reduction!
FWIW. The bit in bold makes no sense - to me!


----------



## Robster59 (Mar 23, 2022)

I wonder if the management have taken any wage hit?


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 23, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			I very much doubt that there is actual 'law-breaking'. Taken to the limit perhaps, but reports of sizeable (apparently some >£100k) payoffs (redundancy deals) indicate that the wording of that obscenely presented announcement 'your last day of work for P&O Freight' was, indeed, not the whole story - with redundancy deal(s) to be handled later. The company likely preferred to deal with it that way than have unhappy crew members on board during their 'notice period'.
		
Click to expand...

40 staff out of 800 are getting 100k payouts.  Some are getting 15k.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 24, 2022)

Mudball said:





SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			We hear today that the government is taking legal action against P&O.
		
Click to expand...

The boss said he thinks that P&O has broken the law....  so you can expect they broke the law..
		
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60849957


----------



## Mudball (Mar 24, 2022)

Foxholer said:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60849957

Click to expand...

Aah.. the death of sarcasm...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 24, 2022)

And listening to an employment lawyer last night, if there has been law-breaking by P&O on this then it would be for the Trades Unions to initiate the court action and not the government…oh the irony of that on more than one front.


----------



## chrisd (Mar 24, 2022)

greenone said:



			They are just trying to take the short term hit in the expectation that it will blow over and it will go back to normal in a couple of months with a vastly reduced wage bill.
		
Click to expand...

As it will do. Most of the lorries are continental fleets and drivers. Their bosses will take the cheapest crossing available which is quite understandable given it's another country's issue.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 24, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And listening to an employment lawyer last night, if there has been law-breaking by P&O on this then it would be for the Trades Unions to initiate the court action and not the government…oh the irony of that on more than one front.
		
Click to expand...

I think you should abandon this line of enquiry, trying to show this as incompetence or result of Big events, will only sink your ship against the 'political post' iceberg..  focus on current events only and dont bring into it the wider context.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 24, 2022)

chrisd said:



			As it will do. Most of the lorries are continental fleets and drivers. Their bosses will take the cheapest crossing available which is quite understandable given it's another country's issue.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.   and the reason that happens is because the consumer wants everything cheap.  it has a knockon down the supply chain..


----------



## chrisd (Mar 24, 2022)

Mudball said:



			I agree.   and the reason that happens is because the consumer wants everything cheap.  it has a knockon down the supply chain..
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does, but its understandable that consumers want stuff as cheap as is reasonable. P&O  will have struggled during Brexit and Covid though but I've no time for them. 

When the Icelandic volcano erupted we were in Portugal and couldn't fly home and eventually made our way to Calais, P&O had been doing dirt cheap crossings for foot passengers for years, but as soon as this happened they bumped the crossing price to Dover right up and shafted thousands of returning people - they haven't had a penny from me since!


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 24, 2022)

GB72 said:



			Not supporting P&O at all but technically they are not making anyone redundant. If the job still exists to be given to an agency worked then the position has not been made redundant. From what I read, they have simply sacked everyone. If they have givne the correct contractual notice, they may not have done anything wrong so far as emplyment law is concerned.
		
Click to expand...

Employment law doesn't allow people to be sacked unless it's for disciplinary reasons that can be shown as gross misconduct.   An employment Tribunal would find the Employer guilty of unfair dismissal in this case and award compensation to the Employees and could also insist they were given their jobs back.


----------



## rudebhoy (Mar 24, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Employment law doesn't allow people to be sacked unless it's for disciplinary reasons that can be shown as gross misconduct.   An employment Tribunal would find the Employer guilty of unfair dismissal in this case and award compensation to the Employees and could also insist they were given their jobs back.
		
Click to expand...

If they were bound by UK law. My understanding is the ships are registered in Cyprus, and governed by Cypriot employment law.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 24, 2022)

One of the bosses was in front of a commons committee this morning. He pretty much accepted the company broke the law. Their thinking was that the unions would never accept what was happening so why go through the consultation period. I think they just saw strikes and problems and went for the nuclear option.

The above is no defence incidentally, you can't pick and choose the laws to follow.

What this has highlighted though is the scandalously low wages in the shipping industry. Long haul, freight boats pay these wages, have done for many years. People ignore it because it is not as visible as a passenger vessel, until now......The concept of flags of convenience / registration allows too many workers to be trodden on.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 24, 2022)

rudebhoy said:



			If they were bound by UK law. My understanding is the ships are registered in Cyprus, and governed by Cypriot employment law.
		
Click to expand...

Cypriot employment law isn't all that much different to UK law for much of the areas relevant to this case.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 24, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			One of the bosses was in front of a commons committee this morning. He pretty much accepted the company broke the law. Their thinking was that the unions would never accept what was happening so why go through the consultation period. I think they just saw strikes and problems *and went for the nuclear option.*

The above is no defence incidentally, you can't pick and choose the laws to follow.

What this has highlighted though is the scandalously low wages in the shipping industry. Long haul, freight boats pay these wages, have done for many years. People ignore it because it is not as visible as a passenger vessel, until now......The concept of flags of convenience / registration allows too many workers to be trodden on.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly correct.
An appropriate consultation and negotiation period would have cost P&O in man-hours of non-profit-making work.
They weighed up their options and went for the quickest cheapest strategy.
Makes no difference to the employer if they broke the law, they suffer no penalty.
The sacked employees will get what they are due, I hope.


----------



## Robster59 (Mar 25, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			Exactly correct.
An appropriate consultation and negotiation period would have cost P&O in man-hours of non-profit-making work.
They weighed up their options and went for the quickest cheapest strategy.
Makes no difference to the employer if they broke the law, they suffer no penalty.
The sacked employees will get what they are due, I hope.
		
Click to expand...

The concern on this is precedent.  If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same?  They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.


----------



## phillarrow (Mar 25, 2022)

Robster59 said:



			The concern on this is precedent.  If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same?  They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.
		
Click to expand...

I'm going to self-report this post because I think it might be a bit close to the knuckle with respect to the 'no politics' rule but...

Why would P&O, or any other company, feel they *shouldn't* put two fingers up to the establishment and the law, when the 'establishment' themselves so flagrantly break the very laws and rules they introduce? We have seen so many examples in recent years, from politicians, to the police, to unelected councillors and Lords, it is just totally normal for powerful people to *know* they can do whatever they want with total impunity. 

I'm not saying this to score points against any particular party, but I do think it is evidence of the importance of having an establishment (be it the Police, the judiciary, or the sitting government) who lead by example and abide by their very own laws. Without this, they simply empower others who also wish to believe they are above the law!


----------



## IanM (Mar 25, 2022)

Really?  I guess that excuse will stand up well in court.   About as well as "I wasn't actually at the funeral, I was just carrying the wreath!"


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 25, 2022)

Robster59 said:



			The concern on this is precedent.  If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same?  They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, there has to be sufficient penalties to ensure the proper procedures are followed.
In this case, however, I can understand how the employers might be worried about what might happen to their assets, or the freight they are carrying, during the notification period. All sort of potentially disastrous 'accidents' could happen. That may indicate a horrible lack of trust/integrity, but the potential and consequences would be enormous.
Some sort of 'in lieu of notice' clause needs to be part of the contract of employment - and it needs to be adequate, at least better than might be expected if the existing procedures were followed.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 25, 2022)

Robster59 said:



			The concern on this is precedent.  If the employer is allowed to knowingly break the law, with no penalty or comeback, what is there to stop other companies doing exactly the same?  They have basically put two fingers up to the law and the establishment.
		
Click to expand...

Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it.  That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against.  Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law, then maybe that is all that is left to them, and in a way they are legally obliged to break the law…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Mar 25, 2022)

Some interesting points raised recently.
There is no such thing as "contract of employment" anymore. The employer is required to set out "terms and conditions of employment" within 13 weeks of engagement. They might have "contract of employment" written at the top of the page, but there is no "contract" other than a mutual obligation to work and to pay for work.
In such a case as a mass sacking as has happened here, the employer is obliged to pay only the statutory requirement and no more.
The only deterrent for an employer who contravenes employment regulations is the very clunky Employment Tribunal system.
I see many here as indignant as I am with regards to possible enforcement of employment regulations and possible penalties for erring employers, but we have no system for this at present in this type of situation.


----------



## IanM (Mar 25, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it.  That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against.*  Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law,* then maybe that is all that is left to them, and i*n a way they are legally obliged to break the law*…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.
		
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense.

If they break the law they are personally liable for many things even outside the scope of their own role.  Their role is indeed to maximise shareholder value, but always within the law.  You need to go away and read about the obligations of directors and NEDs.  Apologies for being blunt, your remark *"in a way they are legally obliged to break the law!"  * Got to be the silliest thing I have read in a while.

P&O's timing wasn't accidental, and says more about their attitude than anything else.  

Some of the stuff on here is getting hysterically funny..


----------



## Robster59 (Mar 25, 2022)

phillarrow said:



			I'm going to self-report this post because I think it might be a bit close to the knuckle with respect to the 'no politics' rule but...

Why would P&O, or any other company, feel they *shouldn't* put two fingers up to the establishment and the law, when the 'establishment' themselves so flagrantly break the very laws and rules they introduce? We have seen so many examples in recent years, from politicians, to the police, to unelected councillors and Lords, it is just totally normal for powerful people to *know* they can do whatever they want with total impunity.

I'm not saying this to score points against any particular party, but I do think it is evidence of the importance of having an establishment (be it the Police, the judiciary, or the sitting government) who lead by example and abide by their very own laws. Without this, they simply empower others who also wish to believe they are above the law!
		
Click to expand...

"Everybody else is doing it" is not an excuse in law.


----------



## phillarrow (Mar 25, 2022)

Robster59 said:



			"Everybody else is doing it" is not an excuse in law.
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more and, just in case there is any confusion, I think what P&O have done is utterly disgusting. I just don't think there's any mileage in asking them to care about the establishment or the law, given recent events regarding those that represent both.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 25, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Though the conflict that is raised is that the CEO and Board of a listed company have, as their top priority, shareholder value…and they are legally obliged to do whatever is required to maximise it.  That’s why it’s often that boards of major corporates and listed companies will find themselves having to recommend that shareholders should accept a takeover offer…despite their often being very strong opinion, both public and within the company, against.  Now where a board considers that the only way to keep the company afloat, and so maintain shareholder value, is to break the law, then maybe that is all that is left to them, and in a way they are legally obliged to break the law…in whatever limited or indeed unlimited ways are open to them.
		
Click to expand...

Legally obliged to break the law… really??  Maximising shareholder wealth is a requirement but not a legal one.  There are performance KPIs but that does not make it legal. 

the basic principle of law says *Ignorantia juris non excusat.  *
 "ignorance of the law excuses no one" so you may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.  But in this case they say they willing broke it. 

On another Boris says the boss should quit because he broke the law… ah the irony


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 25, 2022)

IanM said:



			Utter nonsense.

If they break the law they are personally liable for many things even outside the scope of their own role.  Their role is indeed to maximise shareholder value, but always within the law.  You need to go away and read about the obligations of directors and NEDs.  Apologies for being blunt, your remark *"in a way they are legally obliged to break the law!"  * Got to be the silliest thing I have read in a while.

P&O's timing wasn't accidental, and says more about their attitude than anything else.

Some of the stuff on here is getting hysterically funny..
		
Click to expand...

Just suggesting that they may have felt it was their only recourse to stop the business going bust.  As clearly they did.   CEO would say that the business has been saved and so it was worth it, but I would expect the CEO to resign regardless of what he felt his responsibilities to the business were when he was faced with its collapse.  He directed his company to break the law, or he was at least aware of what would be done would break the law, and therefore as the boss he takes the hit and should resign.


----------



## IanM (Mar 25, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Just suggesting that they may have felt it was their only recourse to stop the business going bust.
		
Click to expand...

Not a blooming chance.

The HR Director would have waved a red flag and I cannot believe they continued. 

Maybe he thought the war in Ukraine would provide a news blackout for this.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 25, 2022)

Sums it up … don’t blame him..


----------



## IanM (Mar 25, 2022)

Some of the press comments are way off. 

MCA have already impounded a vessel for breach of competence regulations. Operators also have personal liability for certain breaches.   
More to come, certainly.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 25, 2022)

Mudball said:



			Legally obliged to break the law… really??  Maximising shareholder wealth is a requirement but not a legal one.  There are performance KPIs but that does not make it legal.

the basic principle of law says *Ignorantia juris non excusat.  *
"ignorance of the law excuses no one" so you may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.  But in this case they say they willing broke it.

On another Boris says the boss should quit because he broke the law… ah the irony
		
Click to expand...

Sometimes a company can break employment law deliberately due to it being the least damaging option.

I once had a very disruptive Employee who was not only creating problems with other employees but taking every opportunity to disrupt business for the company while being very careful not to be guilty of gross misconduct.   Talking to him and trying every available way to resolve the matter wasn't working.  Our Solicitor suggested that we should tell him not to take his coat off the next morning as he was sacked without notice.  The Solicitor said that at that time the worse outcome would be a Tribunal finding the Company guilty of unfair dismissal with a fine of around £8K.

We decided not to do this and eventually he left with an agreed sum and signed a non disclosure agreement (Seemed like it was what he was after).  The point being there can be a situation where the removal of a troublesome Employee can be worth the cost.  I'm not suggesting the way P&O have dealt with these Employees is defendable though, it stinks.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 25, 2022)

IanM said:



			Some of the press comments are way off.
...
		
Click to expand...

Which ones?


IanM said:



			...
MCA have already impounded a vessel for breach of competence regulations. Operators also have personal liability for certain breaches.
More to come, certainly.
		
Click to expand...

Good! I think! Not actually surprising, as there doesn't seem to have really been much time to train the replacements fully.
It would appear one (in Hull) passed MCA inspection.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 26, 2022)

I’m baffled about P&O ferries could have got into this mess in the first place.  Yes business clobbered for a couple of years by the pandemic but grants, furlough etc…and over the last few months things should have been getting back to normal.  And it’s an incredibly busy route…just put prices up a bit.  Everyone else is.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 26, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I’m baffled about P&O ferries could have got into this mess in the first place.  Yes business clobbered for a couple of years by the pandemic but grants, furlough etc…and over the last few months things should have been getting back to normal.  And it’s an incredibly busy route…just put prices up a bit.  Everyone else is.
		
Click to expand...

Boat maintenance, port fees, fuel, loan repayments etc all needed to have been paid these last few years. They've had 2 years of virtually no foot or car traffic, haulage only. I'm not at all surprised they have lost millions, same as the airlines. Margins on these routes are tight, the slightest blip impacts massively and 2 years of a pandemic is more than a blip.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 26, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Boat maintenance, port fees, fuel, loan repayments etc all needed to have been paid these last few years. They've had 2 years of virtually no foot or car traffic, haulage only. I'm not at all surprised they have lost millions, same as the airlines. Margins on these routes are tight, the slightest blip impacts massively and 2 years of a pandemic is more than a blip.
		
Click to expand...

Ah right.  But being critical transport infrastructure you'd have thought the government would have helped out with a 'bridging' loan of some sort - or taken them on board for a while as has been done for at least one of the rail companies (btw that's just an obvious question without any political undertones or implications).  

Maybe P&O didn't ask.  Dunno.  Does anyone know?


----------



## drdel (Mar 26, 2022)

A Government only has the money they collect from tax payers. It is not the Stock Market.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 26, 2022)

drdel said:



			A Government *only* has the money they collect from tax payers. ...
		
Click to expand...

Not (entirely) true!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 26, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Ah right.  But being critical transport infrastructure you'd have thought the government would have helped out with a 'bridging' loan of some sort - or taken them on board for a while as has been done for at least one of the rail companies (btw that's just an obvious question without any political undertones or implications). 

Maybe P&O didn't ask.  Dunno.  Does anyone know?
		
Click to expand...

A loan still has to be paid back though. Taking loans is just adding to your debts, it doesn't resolve the issues.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 26, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Boat maintenance, port fees, fuel, loan repayments etc all needed to have been paid these last few years. They've had 2 years of virtually no foot or car traffic, haulage only. I'm not at all surprised they have lost millions, same as the airlines. Margins on these routes are tight, the slightest blip impacts massively and 2 years of a pandemic is more than a blip.
		
Click to expand...

They lost money (£39.8m) in the year before Covid arrived too.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 26, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			They lost money (£36m) in the year before Covid arrived too.
		
Click to expand...

Clearly not going in the right direction then. Throw in the pandemic which screwed over all overseas transport and it's not hard to see how they are in big trouble. What they did is not the answer but the company needs some sort of overhaul or change of tack or they would be / will be going into administration.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 27, 2022)

Interesting seeing new TV ad letting us know that even though P&O Cruises have the same first couple of letters as another company we might have heard of, they are totally separate business and nothing to do with the other one we might have heard of.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Mar 27, 2022)

drdel said:



			A Government only has the money they collect from tax payers. It is not the Stock Market.
		
Click to expand...

Governments do, however, do bail outs where a business is UK-critical, or indeed sometimes take them into public ownership.  Just surprised that a critical part of the UK transport infrastructure has got into such a mess that it had to resort to breaking the law to stay afloat.


----------



## Tashyboy (Mar 28, 2022)

It has now been revealed that P and O are paying less than the minimum wage. Something that will apparently rectified. But where are these new workers living. If in the UK then surely they must be on the minimum wage at least.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Mar 28, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			It has now been revealed that P and O are paying less than the minimum wage. Something that will apparently rectified. But where are these new workers living. If in the UK then surely they must be on the minimum wage at least.
		
Click to expand...

Possibly on the ship, possibly in 'company supplied' accommodation in Europe which will be taken off their wages, 6 in a portakabin etc. It's a murky one but hopefully this is a loophole that is getting closed.

Whether the original workers get their old jobs back then depends, possibly, on the gap between their wages and the new, minimum wage, wage.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 28, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Possibly on the ship, possibly in 'company supplied' accommodation in Europe which will be taken off their wages, 6 in a portakabin etc. It's a murky one but hopefully this is a loophole that is getting closed.

Whether the original workers get their old jobs back then depends, possibly, on the gap between their wages and the new, minimum wage, wage.
		
Click to expand...

It's complicated .  It's a matter of what's the difference between the potential compensation they will need to pay off the old workforce and the salaries they will have to pay the new.  There's also the experience the old workforce had doing the job verses how long the new will need to reach the same productivity.   The losses they've made will still be there unless they are cash rich enough to write them off.    Without looking into their balance sheet there's also the question of whether the wage bill is the main or only loss making part of their business.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 28, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			It has now been revealed that P and O are paying less than the minimum wage. Something that will apparently rectified. But where are these new workers living. If in the UK then surely they must be on the minimum wage at least.
		
Click to expand...

Inference would be that they are not 'UK workers' then - irrespective of where then. I believe several of the ships are registered in Cyprus and/or maybe Jersey, so perhaps UK's minimum wage doesn't apply to the 'new' workers.


----------



## SocketRocket (Mar 28, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Inference would be that they are not 'UK workers' then - irrespective of where then. I believe several of the ships are registered in Cyprus and/or maybe Jersey, so perhaps UK's minimum wage doesn't apply to the 'new' workers.
		
Click to expand...

Grant Shapps seemed to be suggesting their actions were illegal under employment law as they have not consulted with the employees.   The flag of convenience seems to only be pertinent to who they give notice to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60792039


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 28, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Grant Shapps seemed to be suggesting their actions were illegal under employment law ....
		
Click to expand...

That was admitted by the CEO! And he also stated that it was deliberate - but as a last resort.


----------



## Mudball (Mar 31, 2022)

First P&O.. now Foxes.. unfortunately this won’t be the last either ..

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/business/predatory-bosses-feel-the-heat-at-foxs-glacier-mints/


----------



## pauljames87 (Mar 31, 2022)

Mudball said:



			First P&O.. now Foxes.. unfortunately this won’t be the last either ..

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/business/predatory-bosses-feel-the-heat-at-foxs-glacier-mints/

Click to expand...


If only it made illegal 

If only we had some kind of system in which laws could be made regardless of who brings the idea to the table


----------



## Mudball (Mar 31, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			If only it made illegal

If only we had some kind of system in which laws could be made regardless of who brings the idea to the table
		
Click to expand...

In the old days, the job of the opposition was to oppose.. these days the job of the govt is to oppose the opposition and call them fatty or something. Grown up debate is not for us


----------

