FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > P&O Ferries sacks 800
P&O Ferries sacks 800
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P&O Ferries sacks 800 workers but crew refuse to leave ships https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001 Surely these workers have rights?" Social dumping at its finest. It happens in my industry too, foreign workers are just cheaper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When I was at sea the company got rid of all uk deckhands and replaced with cheap foreign crew " What the damn hell!!! Shouldn’t be allowed to do that to you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P&O Ferries sacks 800 workers but crew refuse to leave ships https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001 Surely these workers have rights?" The numbers don't add up. P&O are shouting about losing £100 million. Assuming that 800 people have been sacked, then if we assume that each person from captain to deck hand earns, say, £50,000 per year, then they will save £40,000,000. However, it seems that these 800 people are being replaced, so the saving will be less than £40 million. If they pay the new crews half the wages, they save about £20 million. That leaves £80 million of losses. Before we factor in the cost of not operating for weeks. Or the cost of training the new crews. Meanwhile, the freight only service from Teesport to Europort is functioning fine. There is something important which we plebs (members of the general public) are not being told. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that munity? " In the words of Captain Pugwash...... It certainly is, able semen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P&O Ferries sacks 800 workers but crew refuse to leave ships https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001 Surely these workers have rights? The numbers don't add up. P&O are shouting about losing £100 million. Assuming that 800 people have been sacked, then if we assume that each person from captain to deck hand earns, say, £50,000 per year, then they will save £40,000,000. However, it seems that these 800 people are being replaced, so the saving will be less than £40 million. If they pay the new crews half the wages, they save about £20 million. That leaves £80 million of losses. Before we factor in the cost of not operating for weeks. Or the cost of training the new crews. Meanwhile, the freight only service from Teesport to Europort is functioning fine. There is something important which we plebs (members of the general public) are not being told." The deck hands won't be close to that amount. One, maybe two per ship might be. The new crews will be paid considerably less, via a third party, paying no UK tax or NI. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quite a lot of chat on Twitter about this and people suggest that this is what "deregulation" means. I.E. the removal of ALL employee protection. It appears that this does not impact French employees as EU regulations exist to safeguard the citizens of its member countries. I find it hard to believe that British workers can be sacked just like that and replaced with agency staff - surely people have workers rights! Even if British workers are not protected by EU laws, I was under the impression that any laws that were in place prior to Brexit were carried through and augmented! This is a ridiculous situation. " This isn't new, it's been happening in the maritime industry for years. The French shore based staff will be secure, as will the UK based staff. Those on the boats could be hired from anywhere in the world and most ships in the world will have similar international crews. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quite a lot of chat on Twitter about this and people suggest that this is what "deregulation" means. I.E. the removal of ALL employee protection. It appears that this does not impact French employees as EU regulations exist to safeguard the citizens of its member countries. I find it hard to believe that British workers can be sacked just like that and replaced with agency staff - surely people have workers rights! Even if British workers are not protected by EU laws, I was under the impression that any laws that were in place prior to Brexit were carried through and augmented! This is a ridiculous situation. This isn't new, it's been happening in the maritime industry for years. The French shore based staff will be secure, as will the UK based staff. Those on the boats could be hired from anywhere in the world and most ships in the world will have similar international crews." Seems totally wrong. 800 people suddenly without a job and with no notice. Terrible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quite a lot of chat on Twitter about this and people suggest that this is what "deregulation" means. I.E. the removal of ALL employee protection. It appears that this does not impact French employees as EU regulations exist to safeguard the citizens of its member countries. I find it hard to believe that British workers can be sacked just like that and replaced with agency staff - surely people have workers rights! Even if British workers are not protected by EU laws, I was under the impression that any laws that were in place prior to Brexit were carried through and augmented! This is a ridiculous situation. This isn't new, it's been happening in the maritime industry for years. The French shore based staff will be secure, as will the UK based staff. Those on the boats could be hired from anywhere in the world and most ships in the world will have similar international crews. Seems totally wrong. 800 people suddenly without a job and with no notice. Terrible " I agree, it's awful. Unfortunately, despite it being very unpopular, it's not uncommon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quite a lot of chat on Twitter about this and people suggest that this is what "deregulation" means. I.E. the removal of ALL employee protection. It appears that this does not impact French employees as EU regulations exist to safeguard the citizens of its member countries. I find it hard to believe that British workers can be sacked just like that and replaced with agency staff - surely people have workers rights! Even if British workers are not protected by EU laws, I was under the impression that any laws that were in place prior to Brexit were carried through and augmented! This is a ridiculous situation. " The bit I read on the BBC said both British and French workers are affected in the same way. I think your correct that all EU rules were carried over into UK rules. It seems P&O have found a loop hole of some sort. Your definitely correct to say it is a ridiculous situation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"DFDS for certain and I think maybe Stena have been doing this for years . The crews are non domicile mostly from the Philippines . They live on the boats and are paid a fraction of European crews. It’s basically exploitation by any other measure . " It is and it isn't. Those crew will be paid well in their countries. But it is social dumping, we just don't have any rules against it, unlike other countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame." Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit....." This is nothing to do with Brexit, it's been common place in the marine industry for decades The news may dress it up as Brexit or covid fall out but it's not, it's just the narrative they are spinning. This isn't new | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit....." FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P&O Ferries sacks 800 workers but crew refuse to leave ships https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001 Surely these workers have rights?" . Of course they have rights. That is why they will be getting redundancy money as compensation. Without knowing the size of the redundancy payments none of us are in a position to pass judgement on P&O. There operate in a competitive environment where everyone wants goods as cheap as possible. Up to the first £30,0°0 of any redundancy payment will be tax free . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame." . The government have no control over consumer spending or how P &O operate their services . It is difficult to see how the UK government could be held accountable for the actions of a company outside the UK. The UK government cannot be expected to control a private company. Most people made redundant obtain work elsewhere and as a result of the redundancy package the net impact on their life is positive . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"DFDS for certain and I think maybe Stena have been doing this for years . The crews are non domicile mostly from the Philippines . They live on the boats and are paid a fraction of European crews. It’s basically exploitation by any other measure . It is and it isn't. Those crew will be paid well in their countries. But it is social dumping, we just don't have any rules against it, unlike other countries." They are paid well in comparison to working on a ferry in the Philippines but they don’t get compensation for living away from home so long and don’t get the basic going rate for the job in Europe. It’s exploiting their citizenship of a poorer society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit" The rules allowing this are nothing to do with Brexit. The financial losses at P&O have been increased by Brexit. So yes it is partially to blame whether you like it or not. Covid has also added losses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quite a lot of chat on Twitter about this and people suggest that this is what "deregulation" means. I.E. the removal of ALL employee protection. It appears that this does not impact French employees as EU regulations exist to safeguard the citizens of its member countries. I find it hard to believe that British workers can be sacked just like that and replaced with agency staff - surely people have workers rights! Even if British workers are not protected by EU laws, I was under the impression that any laws that were in place prior to Brexit were carried through and augmented! This is a ridiculous situation. This isn't new, it's been happening in the maritime industry for years. The French shore based staff will be secure, as will the UK based staff. Those on the boats could be hired from anywhere in the world and most ships in the world will have similar international crews. Seems totally wrong. 800 people suddenly without a job and with no notice. Terrible " . Before passing judgement you should maybe assess the compensation packages offered. If they are generous it should not be a problem . Many workers may be glad to receive a lump sum of tax free cash and obtain employment elsewhere or retrain . People are forward looking and progressive. . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in government that let this happen should hang their heads in shame." The quotation below indicates that Brexit is irrelevant to the trade situation with NI . I think P &O operate out of Larne so their situation should be similar . Belfast Harbour had its busiest ever year for freight traffic in 2021, with volumes surpassing pre-Covid levels. The harbour handled 25.6 million tonnes of freight, up 9% on 2020 and almost 7% more than in 2019. It said a bounce back in global trade and the impact of improved port infrastructure contributed to the performance. The impact of Brexit and the Northern Ireland Protocol is also having an impact on trade patterns. Michael Robinson, Belfast Harbour's port director, said: "Following the UK's exit from the EU, changes in roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) traffic volumes on routes between Ireland and Great Britain have taken place. "All Northern Ireland ports, including Belfast, have experienced improved trade volumes whilst grace periods continue to apply." Goods leaving Northern Ireland ports for Great Britain do not face any checks or controls. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit....." Volumes actually increased ( see quote ) In the twelve months to September 2021 in NI, the estimated total tonnage of inward traffic increased by 5.0% to 16.9 million tonnes, and outward traffic increased by 10.1% to 11.4 million tonnes. For the UK as a whole, the volume of inward traffic in the twelve months to September 2021 increased by 2.8% to 284.8 million tonnes and outward traffic decreased by 2.6% to 152.4 million tonnes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Timing is interesting. Johnson visits UAE asking for an increase in oil production. Dubai based/sovereign wealth owned company sacks 800 British staff to replace them with cheaper agency workers. Deals being struck?" Not impossible, is it? Frankly, the Tory hypocrisy on these job losses is entirely predictable. They didn't give a shit when they were making miners, steelworkers and shipbuilders redundant, did they? This is capitalism in the raw - the very thing they espouse as part of their DNA. If they're complaining about it, you can be sure they don't mean it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I can't get over is how it was done. Via a pre recorded video call Then security paid for by P&O Telling all employees they had to leave immediately whilst the agency workers sat in minibuses in the car park. " Thats certainly one way to trash your brand name! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What I can't get over is how it was done. Via a pre recorded video call Then security paid for by P&O Telling all employees they had to leave immediately whilst the agency workers sat in minibuses in the car park. Thats certainly one way to trash your brand name! " They don't care about brand. They supply a service in some areas where there's little competition and at times there isn't enough ferries for all the passengers, they will still get customers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Timing is interesting. Johnson visits UAE asking for an increase in oil production. Dubai based/sovereign wealth owned company sacks 800 British staff to replace them with cheaper agency workers. Deals being struck? Not impossible, is it? Frankly, the Tory hypocrisy on these job losses is entirely predictable. They didn't give a shit when they were making miners, steelworkers and shipbuilders redundant, did they? This is capitalism in the raw - the very thing they espouse as part of their DNA. If they're complaining about it, you can be sure they don't mean it." are you sure it was tories making them redundant? or the companies that owned the businesses | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Timing is interesting. Johnson visits UAE asking for an increase in oil production. Dubai based/sovereign wealth owned company sacks 800 British staff to replace them with cheaper agency workers. Deals being struck? Not impossible, is it? Frankly, the Tory hypocrisy on these job losses is entirely predictable. They didn't give a shit when they were making miners, steelworkers and shipbuilders redundant, did they? This is capitalism in the raw - the very thing they espouse as part of their DNA. If they're complaining about it, you can be sure they don't mean it. are you sure it was tories making them redundant? or the companies that owned the businesses" in note that of the 1500 p&o staff on these services it is only the 800 british staff that have been sacked now i wonder why that is ? no french belgian or dutch mass redundancies couldnt be anything to do with those countrys still being in the EU ? we all know full well the french ports would of been blockaded within minuets of the word getting out nothing would be coming or going untill it was sorted out . meanwhile accross the channel in brexit Britain the usual platitudes and mealy mouthed words from those in charge as we see yet more jobs de skilled dumbed down and degraded under this government who dont and never will care about "working familys " unless it involves them getting cushy directorships and seats on the board they aint interested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that munity? " Not when it is the captain of the ship locking the 3rd party workers and external security off the ship. I note that the 8 directors are not included in the redundancies when they are clearly the ones who have failed to steer the company from running into the cliffs rather than a safe harbour. But clearly they are well worth their generous total reward packages and not replacable with equally (in)competant cheaper labour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The shareholders payed themselves a 270 million pound dividend in 2020. And the company claimed 15 million in furlough payments. " The parent company in Dubai made $4bn profit last year too! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard on the news this morning the employees were contracted from a company in the Channel Islands. So no UK laws are applicable." Heard something similar though initially they were saying their contracts were directly with company in Dubai and hence Dubai law applied. Wonder where the (still employed) EU crew have their contracts based out of? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So parent company DP World are major investors in the new Freeport’s that are allegedly going to change the fortunes of the UK so don’t expect anything more than the wringing of hands and shaking of heads by our government. Either they knew in advance or it is yet another example of incompetence and inaction by this shower. As for the blaming it all on Brexit ( ignoring the cut and paste hay ho hum ) I would say that the environment for workers in the uk had become less safe since leaving and that we are going to see lots more people from low wage economies in the Far East and Africa working in the UK rather than Eastern Europeans which I have no objection to apart from that we are asset stripping the countries they come from. Maybe the company directors need dragging through the streets and chucking in the dock" Don’t forget BJ’s trip to UAE earlier in the week to drum up more oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So parent company DP World are major investors in the new Freeport’s that are allegedly going to change the fortunes of the UK so don’t expect anything more than the wringing of hands and shaking of heads by our government. Either they knew in advance or it is yet another example of incompetence and inaction by this shower. As for the blaming it all on Brexit ( ignoring the cut and paste hay ho hum ) I would say that the environment for workers in the uk had become less safe since leaving and that we are going to see lots more people from low wage economies in the Far East and Africa working in the UK rather than Eastern Europeans which I have no objection to apart from that we are asset stripping the countries they come from. Maybe the company directors need dragging through the streets and chucking in the dock Don’t forget BJ’s trip to UAE earlier in the week to drum up more oil." i doubt even the uae can move that quick this prob been planned since start of the year, they had all the replacements ready to go u cant rustle up that many people with a cpl of days notice | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So parent company DP World are major investors in the new Freeport’s that are allegedly going to change the fortunes of the UK so don’t expect anything more than the wringing of hands and shaking of heads by our government. Either they knew in advance or it is yet another example of incompetence and inaction by this shower. As for the blaming it all on Brexit ( ignoring the cut and paste hay ho hum ) I would say that the environment for workers in the uk had become less safe since leaving and that we are going to see lots more people from low wage economies in the Far East and Africa working in the UK rather than Eastern Europeans which I have no objection to apart from that we are asset stripping the countries they come from. Maybe the company directors need dragging through the streets and chucking in the dock Don’t forget BJ’s trip to UAE earlier in the week to drum up more oil.i doubt even the uae can move that quick this prob been planned since start of the year, they had all the replacements ready to go u cant rustle up that many people with a cpl of days notice" Three weeks notice at least. As soon as Ukraine kicked off they knew the west would come begging (and of course the freeports thingey) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit The rules allowing this are nothing to do with Brexit. The financial losses at P&O have been increased by Brexit. So yes it is partially to blame whether you like it or not. Covid has also added losses. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard on the news this morning the employees were contracted from a company in the Channel Islands. So no UK laws are applicable." Seems they go to great lengths to get around legislation. According to some on here this sort of thing has been going on for years so happened when the UK was still in the EU. I noticed a HR lady on the news this morning pointing out that these people have been made redundant. She said if you are made redundant then that job is redundant so instantly replacing them is against those rules. I can see lots of legal implications for P&O over this not to mention the brand damage | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard on the news this morning the employees were contracted from a company in the Channel Islands. So no UK laws are applicable. Seems they go to great lengths to get around legislation. According to some on here this sort of thing has been going on for years so happened when the UK was still in the EU. I noticed a HR lady on the news this morning pointing out that these people have been made redundant. She said if you are made redundant then that job is redundant so instantly replacing them is against those rules. I can see lots of legal implications for P&O over this not to mention the brand damage" This has been going on for years, especially in the maritime industry. The job is redundant, the new crews will have different job titles or be agency staff contracted for another company. The jobs these people had are technically gone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard on the news this morning the employees were contracted from a company in the Channel Islands. So no UK laws are applicable. Seems they go to great lengths to get around legislation. According to some on here this sort of thing has been going on for years so happened when the UK was still in the EU. I noticed a HR lady on the news this morning pointing out that these people have been made redundant. She said if you are made redundant then that job is redundant so instantly replacing them is against those rules. I can see lots of legal implications for P&O over this not to mention the brand damage" It’s true, jobs/roles are made redundant not people. People get sacked for various reasons. Sacked and Redundant are two different things. British Govt are either unwilling, uninterested or simply impotent due the energy crisis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are you saying our glorious leader is being bent over and shafted by all our allies? Just like at prep school eh! You get shafted until your big enough to do the shafting! We were bigger as art of the EU weren’t we? I guess the next thing will be cozying up to Nigeria to see if w can have some oil. Oh wait a minute they have the fastest growing economy in Africa and sell most of their production to China who are buddies with Putin. Or am I just making it all up? "If you want to believe all that then feel free. This will all have been decided months ago, not in the last couple of days when he met with them or since Russia started playing war games. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles?" Makes sense. Which all begs the question...why the British crew and not the French and Belgian crew? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles? Makes sense. Which all begs the question...why the British crew and not the French and Belgian crew?" That would be very interesting to know. I’d hate to blame it on Brexit if it weren’t the case | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles?" Thanks for this information, it all sounds weighted towards the ship owners who are allowed to duck and dive to avoid all sorts of laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"P&O Ferries sacks 800 workers but crew refuse to leave ships https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001 Surely these workers have rights?. Of course they have rights. That is why they will be getting redundancy money as compensation. Without knowing the size of the redundancy payments none of us are in a position to pass judgement on P&O. There operate in a competitive environment where everyone wants goods as cheap as possible. Up to the first £30,0°0 of any redundancy payment will be tax free . " In Cyprus (which is where most of P&O's ferries are registered) there is no notice provision for fixed-term contracts, redundancy payments are calculated according to years of employment. 2 weeks wages for each year of service up to four years, 2 and a half weeks wages for each year of service from five to ten years 3 weeks wages for each year of service from 11 to 15 years. As those made redundant are public facing as stewards/bar staff/ sales even with 15 years years continuous service they won't pick up a years salary let alone being anywhere near 30k. On balance I think they'd much prefer still having a job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the government should pull all of the freight contracts and ask DFDS to tender "Chris Grayling is sorting it out with Seaborne ferries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... Volumes actually increased ( see quote ) In the twelve months to September 2021 in NI, the estimated total tonnage of inward traffic increased by 5.0% to 16.9 million tonnes, and outward traffic increased by 10.1% to 11.4 million tonnes. For the UK as a whole, the volume of inward traffic in the twelve months to September 2021 increased by 2.8% to 284.8 million tonnes and outward traffic decreased by 2.6% to 152.4 million tonnes." Makes you wonder why Pando couldn't turn a profit then doesn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles? Thanks for this information, it all sounds weighted towards the ship owners who are allowed to duck and dive to avoid all sorts of laws. " It is exactly that, it's all done to open up loopholes whether it be for employment purposes or financial purposes to dodge tax etc. I work for a UK company on a UK ship but I'm actually employed by one of their sub companies registered in Guernsey as a Crewing agency, so technically I'm employed by a Guernsey company under Guernsey jurisdiction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles?" Very shocking and seems more to do with foreign law than uk law. It appears this has been the case as EU and non EU members | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
On a more positive note - a large UK company has offered all affected a guaranteed interview. So with some sort of payoff and willingness to be flexible anyone affected should land on their feet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course the government knew in advance. The workers would need visas to enter the country. High wage country eh? " What's to say they didn't already have a visa? Or that they came in with a maritime passport? They are not "working" in the UK, technically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't say they were working. I said Enter the country. They were on buses, so that suggests they were staying somewhere in the country, or are you saying they just got off the plane and straight onto the ferries without vetting? British jobs for British workers. How's that working out. " It was said that they were not told they were replacing worker only that they were there to start work on the ferries. Can’t blame the workers can blame the directors who will be sat back in plush homes not really giving a toss about any of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Didn't say they were working. I said Enter the country. They were on buses, so that suggests they were staying somewhere in the country, or are you saying they just got off the plane and straight onto the ferries without vetting? British jobs for British workers. How's that working out. " So why would they necessarily need a visa to access the UK? Lots of countries have visa free travel, especially for non working reasons. Considering these weren't even British jobs in the first place and most of the maritime industry works in the exact same way, your point isn't remotely valid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They weren't British jobs? Really? Tell that to the 800 British people living here that, I double dare you." They signed contracts in the channel Islands. That's not uncommon in the maritime industry. They are not British jobs. " The jobs aren't going, just the British workers. The Tories have rammed holes big enough for corporate interests to push there wallets through our laws. " This isn't new and isn't the Tories. This has been common place for the last two decades that I've been in the industry and probably longer. " These workers would not have made the points on our shiny new post Brexit immigration system, so the Home Office has to have known about it, so special expections for them must have been made. The government and RMT who told their members to vote Brexit to secure ferry jobs against foreign competition " They don't need to make points on any system. They are working on ships, with a marine passport. How many standby/supply boats in the north sea will have a full British crew? How many ships in international waters will meet the employment criteria of the country that they next dock at? It's awful these people have lost their jobs but this isn't new, it isn't Brexit, it's isn't the Tories. This is the industry and has been for a long time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles? Makes sense. Which all begs the question...why the British crew and not the French and Belgian crew?" It now seems it is to do with French employment law being far stricter especially in regards to redundancy than British law. Coupled with what the other (experienced sailor) poster says about how this has happened for years means it's not an EU / brexit thing. What the French have is in excess to EU regulations and the UK still have the same as what we had when members of the EU so leave or stay, this could have happened either way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's been happening for years? This? "Fire and rehire" has been happening for years. This is "Fire and replaced" on an industrial scale. Please tell me when this amount of jobs have been replaced by cheap foreign labour in years gone by. " In one job lot, probably not but one position at time or one ship at time it happens regularly. The only reason this is in the news is because of the amount of people at one time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles? Makes sense. Which all begs the question...why the British crew and not the French and Belgian crew? It now seems it is to do with French employment law being far stricter especially in regards to redundancy than British law. Coupled with what the other (experienced sailor) poster says about how this has happened for years means it's not an EU / brexit thing. What the French have is in excess to EU regulations and the UK still have the same as what we had when members of the EU so leave or stay, this could have happened either way" Not quite. I say this as a Remain voter. Not everything is the fault of Brexit. It appears that many sailors/seafarers have their employment contracts with companies that are based in other countries (not the UK) and so UK Employment Rights/Laws do not cover them as despite being British they are technically foreign workers. Perhaps France forbids this practice? Perhaps in France you MUST have a contract with a France based company/subsidiary? I don’t actually know but this is more complex than the MSM headlines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the government should pull all of the freight contracts and ask DFDS to tender "DFDS employ cheap foreign labour already . They did it quietly. They also pay no tax on profits in the U.K. as any time they look likely to make a profit an invoice arrives from Denmark to cover it. ( all allegedly ).
There is a very special low tax rate for shipping companies registered in Denmark. It’s why a lot of the majors are registered there for tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the government should pull all of the freight contracts and ask DFDS to tender
DFDS employ cheap foreign labour already . They did it quietly. They also pay no tax on profits in the U.K. as any time they look likely to make a profit an invoice arrives from Denmark to cover it. ( all allegedly ).
There is a very special low tax rate for shipping companies registered in Denmark. It’s why a lot of the majors are registered there for tax. "Something I did not know. Thanx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The French courts have shown a dislike of foreign manning agency contracts incorporating foreign law into an employment contract. Where the seafarer has been able to show residency in France or employment based out of a French port, then French courts have simply stepped in and overridden the applicable law and applied French law instead. Our government rejected to get rid of the "Fire and rehire" bill. Every single one who voted to keep it are now "shocked" that this has happened " The French have a French first policy but as soon as anyone in the uk tries the same thing that are called nationalists  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The French courts have shown a dislike of foreign manning agency contracts incorporating foreign law into an employment contract. Where the seafarer has been able to show residency in France or employment based out of a French port, then French courts have simply stepped in and overridden the applicable law and applied French law instead. Our government rejected to get rid of the "Fire and rehire" bill. Every single one who voted to keep it are now "shocked" that this has happened The French have a French first policy but as soon as anyone in the uk tries the same thing that are called nationalists "It’s almost as if being in the EU doesn’t stop you from having sovereignty! Who’d av thunk it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I work at sea, that's actually where I currently am. The below passage from a marine lawyer explains why there's little protection. Basically most seafarers, myself included are usually employed by Crewing agencies in foreign countries so the crews employed are working under the laws and conditions of the agency their contract is with. Its a loophole used by most if not all shipping companies. "The elephant on the car deck." "Having been glued to the reports of the P&O Ferries situation, one point appears to be evident in its omission from the reports; the contractual jurisdiction of the employment of these seafarers. The general public and media have jumped, understandably, to the conclusion that the action of P&O Ferries is in breach of UK employment law. Those of us who worked at sea or been involved in marine manning or recruitment will know that this is possibly not the case. All of the vessels involved in this action (and the vast majority of vessels that British seafarers sail upon) are foreign flagged. Where a vessel is foreign flagged the seafarer is usually recruited and provided with a contract of employment from an overseas manning agency or shipmanagment company which is subject to the jurisdiction of that entity. This is likely the situation of the affected P&O Ferries seafarers. Further, under the Maritime Labour Convention, on joining every vessel, the seafarer is required to have an MLC agreement/articles that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state. This leaves the situation where their employment rights and protections arise not from their place of residence, but from the law and jurisdiction of their contract of employment and/or MLC agreement/articles. This situation is not novel in those terms. Seafarers the world over are, or should be aware of the potential unfairness or lack or employment rights or protections - these can be much less in the governing jurisdiction than they would have in their place of residence. P&O Ferries provides a service from and within UK ports. Arguably, this is an essential public service, and those performing such service should be afforded appropriate employment rights and protections. Such a change, if ever implemented, may be too late for the P&O Ferries seafarers, but is it not about time that seafarers engaged on home trades such as these are provided with the same employment rights and protections as their neighbours who work in comparable shore based roles? Makes sense. Which all begs the question...why the British crew and not the French and Belgian crew? It now seems it is to do with French employment law being far stricter especially in regards to redundancy than British law. Coupled with what the other (experienced sailor) poster says about how this has happened for years means it's not an EU / brexit thing. What the French have is in excess to EU regulations and the UK still have the same as what we had when members of the EU so leave or stay, this could have happened either way Not quite. I say this as a Remain voter. Not everything is the fault of Brexit. It appears that many sailors/seafarers have their employment contracts with companies that are based in other countries (not the UK) and so UK Employment Rights/Laws do not cover them as despite being British they are technically foreign workers. Perhaps France forbids this practice? Perhaps in France you MUST have a contract with a France based company/subsidiary? I don’t actually know but this is more complex than the MSM headlines." I am not blaming this on brexit and pleased some see that not everything is brexit related. I was wondering about the question of why they were all British and on a french web site it says about French employment law is stricter. Both UK and French law are within the EU limits and as far as I know uk law has not changed since brexit meaning it could have happened regardless. You make a good point about the seafarers being employed via other countries which is backed up by other posts here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The French courts have shown a dislike of foreign manning agency contracts incorporating foreign law into an employment contract. Where the seafarer has been able to show residency in France or employment based out of a French port, then French courts have simply stepped in and overridden the applicable law and applied French law instead. Our government rejected to get rid of the "Fire and rehire" bill. Every single one who voted to keep it are now "shocked" that this has happened The French have a French first policy but as soon as anyone in the uk tries the same thing that are called nationalists
It’s almost as if being in the EU doesn’t stop you from having sovereignty! Who’d av thunk it?"It would have been the same if the uk had still been in the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is a very special low tax rate for shipping companies registered in Denmark. It’s why a lot of the majors are registered there for tax. " Not excusing any employment practices but DFDS are a Danish company and have been for 150 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The French courts have shown a dislike of foreign manning agency contracts incorporating foreign law into an employment contract. Where the seafarer has been able to show residency in France or employment based out of a French port, then French courts have simply stepped in and overridden the applicable law and applied French law instead. Our government rejected to get rid of the "Fire and rehire" bill. Every single one who voted to keep it are now "shocked" that this has happened The French have a French first policy but as soon as anyone in the uk tries the same thing that are called nationalists
It’s almost as if being in the EU doesn’t stop you from having sovereignty! Who’d av thunk it?
It would have been the same if the uk had still been in the EU"Yep because the Sovereignty argument was a crock of shit but Brexiters lapped it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit" So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? " If it's only effecting boat crew and these boats where only crewed with UK people it won't effect those in Ireland or France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unless people vote with thier feet and not use the service it will go on. Burt thyey won't because they will go for the heavily discounted tickets and keep P&O in business. " Apparently most of their profits are from freight not passengers. So unless the government or large businesses start using alternative sources chances are a few hundred people not using their ferry service effecting their business is highly unlikely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Unless people vote with thier feet and not use the service it will go on. Burt thyey won't because they will go for the heavily discounted tickets and keep P&O in business. Apparently most of their profits are from freight not passengers. So unless the government or large businesses start using alternative sources chances are a few hundred people not using their ferry service effecting their business is highly unlikely." The freight buyers will also be rubbing their hands for a discount so it’s not quite so simple. There’s a lot of extra capacity due to Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? " Cannot speak for Ireland but turns out French employment law supersedes EU employment law and provides additional protections. UK law was not above/beyond EU law and now we have left UK law can be watered down as the EU baseline threshold no longer applies. However, this is actually not directly attributable to Brexit as it is common practice (see further up thread) for mariners to have contracts with firms based in other countries rather than the UK. In this case the parent company is registered in Dubai and apparently the employment contracts were via a subsidiary based in Channel Islands. So UK employment law does not apply as technically these Brits were classed as foreign workers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? Cannot speak for Ireland but turns out French employment law supersedes EU employment law and provides additional protections. UK law was not above/beyond EU law and now we have left UK law can be watered down as the EU baseline threshold no longer applies. However, this is actually not directly attributable to Brexit as it is common practice (see further up thread) for mariners to have contracts with firms based in other countries rather than the UK. In this case the parent company is registered in Dubai and apparently the employment contracts were via a subsidiary based in Channel Islands. So UK employment law does not apply as technically these Brits were classed as foreign workers. " This is correct and the employment technique was common especially with ferry operators before Brexit. What is quite disturbing is the employees who lived in the U.K. most likely paid U.K. tax but are not protected by the U.K. law or U.K. government. I | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? Cannot speak for Ireland but turns out French employment law supersedes EU employment law and provides additional protections. UK law was not above/beyond EU law and now we have left UK law can be watered down as the EU baseline threshold no longer applies. However, this is actually not directly attributable to Brexit as it is common practice (see further up thread) for mariners to have contracts with firms based in other countries rather than the UK. In this case the parent company is registered in Dubai and apparently the employment contracts were via a subsidiary based in Channel Islands. So UK employment law does not apply as technically these Brits were classed as foreign workers. " I think I also put that the French employment law is stricter than uk employment law though not sure if any UK would have helped given what others say about it not being relevant in this case. I have not yet heard of UK law changing since brexit so unless it has changed then it must still be at least equal to the EU minimum as it used to have to comply to the EU rules. Further evidence that these crews do not operate under uk rules is the reports today that they are being paid less than £2 per hour now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It appears that EU Employment protections protected French staff (not redundant) and not UK (800 redundant). Brexit contributed to biz difficulties £38m loss 2019 £100m 2020 due to higher costs & lower freight volume (68% export decline to EU). Brexit affected NI route. The gift that keeps on giving.. ...tell that to those who were told today that they are out of a job. Bloody Ridiculous Those in goverment that let this happen should hang their heads in shame. Surely people knew this would happen, when they voted for brexit..... FFS when will people stop blaming Brexit for everything. I lost a few quid on the horses at Cheltenham today... obviously the fault of brexit So why is it NOT effecting their staff in France and Ireland? Cannot speak for Ireland but turns out French employment law supersedes EU employment law and provides additional protections. UK law was not above/beyond EU law and now we have left UK law can be watered down as the EU baseline threshold no longer applies. However, this is actually not directly attributable to Brexit as it is common practice (see further up thread) for mariners to have contracts with firms based in other countries rather than the UK. In this case the parent company is registered in Dubai and apparently the employment contracts were via a subsidiary based in Channel Islands. So UK employment law does not apply as technically these Brits were classed as foreign workers. I think I also put that the French employment law is stricter than uk employment law though not sure if any UK would have helped given what others say about it not being relevant in this case. I have not yet heard of UK law changing since brexit so unless it has changed then it must still be at least equal to the EU minimum as it used to have to comply to the EU rules. Further evidence that these crews do not operate under uk rules is the reports today that they are being paid less than £2 per hour now" The ships are registered under flags of convenience which by passes uk and eu law so basically they can pay what they want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Heard on the news that the new worker's being brought in will be on as little as £2:00 an hour. So it all boils down to pure greed by the people who own P&O." If that is the case wow… the redundancy packages being offered is basically 7 months full pay IF they sign an NDA Be interesting to see how many people fight it…. Compared to how many take the money for their silence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how many will use those ferries after this debacle." None i hope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right "If the Conservative didn't turn up who voted against it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right
If the Conservative didn't turn up who voted against it?"I thought the vote was about getting the government to take action against p&o rather than fire and rehire in general. And it passed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right "How would this law effect non UK workers, on a non UK vessel, that visits international waters? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right "I'm not sure how it works in parliment but are you saying that because the Tories did not show up the vote was cancelled / did not take place. Can they try again or is that it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right
Hey EU Supporters
I don't recall any of you crying so loudly when your beloved freedom of movement brought a flood of millions of cheap workers from Eastern Europe* willing to work for lower wages / minimum wage ( which are a comparative fortune for them) thereby undercutting British workers, particularly in the building trade, and having a particularly negative impact on wages at the lower end of the pay scale (y'know, the money earned by those poor people that lefties are always claiming to stand up for.)
But hey, as long as you can get a cheaper plumber or builder, what does it matter to Remoaners?
*Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Roma gypsies from all over Eastern Europe who have flooded to the UK to take full advantage of the benefits system, while still begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands. (But I guess they're not too much of an issue in the other Eden, demi-paradise that is Brighton and Hove. Come to East London and see what you're missing.) "How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember? The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to. Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004? Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers? Did only "remoaners" benefit from reduced prices of almost everything? Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available? It's all a bit inconsistent as an argument. Just sounds like finding people to blame. Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it? In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs. Curious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right
Hey EU Supporters
I don't recall any of you crying so loudly when your beloved freedom of movement brought a flood of millions of cheap workers from Eastern Europe* willing to work for lower wages / minimum wage ( which are a comparative fortune for them) thereby undercutting British workers, particularly in the building trade, and having a particularly negative impact on wages at the lower end of the pay scale (y'know, the money earned by those poor people that lefties are always claiming to stand up for.)
But hey, as long as you can get a cheaper plumber or builder, what does it matter to Remoaners?
*Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Roma gypsies from all over Eastern Europe who have flooded to the UK to take full advantage of the benefits system, while still begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands. (But I guess they're not too much of an issue in the other Eden, demi-paradise that is Brighton and Hove. Come to East London and see what you're missing.)
How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember?
The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to.
Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004?
Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers?
Did only "remoaners" benefit from reduced prices of almost everything?
Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available?
It's all a bit inconsistent as an argument. Just sounds like finding people to blame.
Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it?
In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs.
Curious."I have to admit your reply was better than mine. Doffs cap. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right
Hey EU Supporters
I don't recall any of you crying so loudly when your beloved freedom of movement brought a flood of millions of cheap workers from Eastern Europe* willing to work for lower wages / minimum wage ( which are a comparative fortune for them) thereby undercutting British workers, particularly in the building trade, and having a particularly negative impact on wages at the lower end of the pay scale (y'know, the money earned by those poor people that lefties are always claiming to stand up for.)
But hey, as long as you can get a cheaper plumber or builder, what does it matter to Remoaners?
*Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Roma gypsies from all over Eastern Europe who have flooded to the UK to take full advantage of the benefits system, while still begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands. (But I guess they're not too much of an issue in the other Eden, demi-paradise that is Brighton and Hove. Come to East London and see what you're missing.) "Triggered much! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hey Tory supporters... Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. Labour forced a vote yesterday in Parliament to outlaw fire and rehire - the Tories didn’t bother turning up so it fell! But hey the Tories care about workers right
Hey EU Supporters
I don't recall any of you crying so loudly when your beloved freedom of movement brought a flood of millions of cheap workers from Eastern Europe* willing to work for lower wages / minimum wage ( which are a comparative fortune for them) thereby undercutting British workers, particularly in the building trade, and having a particularly negative impact on wages at the lower end of the pay scale (y'know, the money earned by those poor people that lefties are always claiming to stand up for.)
But hey, as long as you can get a cheaper plumber or builder, what does it matter to Remoaners?
*Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Roma gypsies from all over Eastern Europe who have flooded to the UK to take full advantage of the benefits system, while still begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands. (But I guess they're not too much of an issue in the other Eden, demi-paradise that is Brighton and Hove. Come to East London and see what you're missing.)
How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember?
The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to.
Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004?
Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers?
Did only "remoaners" benefit from reduced prices of almost everything?
Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available?
It's all a bit inconsistent as an argument. Just sounds like finding people to blame.
Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it?
In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs.
Curious."Nice one Easy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"40% of the company is under Russian ownership so based on current logic the UK should be sanctioning P and O anyway..." It's not it's owned by a Dubai based company. This was a statement made by an MP today but isn't actually true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Last week, P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers without warning and replaced them with Agency Staff paid just £1.80 an hour. "" An ex-boss of mine would be frothing at the mouth about that. He's a pounds, shillings and pence man, so £1.80 an hour is like £18 in his brain. He actually said, "One day in the future, I could replace all these workers with robots, who work 24x7x365, don't need holiday or go pregnant, don't get sick (apart from minor repairs now and then) and then I wouldn't need you lot. I can sit on my yacht whilst my robots make me money and life would be so much simpler." I said, "But intelligent AI could end up having rights, especially if they can think and feel" and he said, "No no no. They mustn't have rights. They are machines.". This is the guy who said, "Can't the engineering team just get rid of all the complicated buttons in the cockpit and have a single button that does everything ? Wouldn't need a pilot then would we ?" I've never looked at Managers or owners of companies the same way ever since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember?" Oh how wonderfully witty, how very Stephen Fry. I was of course referring to EU fanatics in general, not just the ones on this site. "The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to." Yes, you're right, the Labour government's decision to open the doors to Eastern European immigration was a disaster. I believe Germany placed a 7 year delay on potential migration, correctly believing that it would have had a negative effect on German workers. Tony Blair, on the hand, desperately wanted to be a future President of the European Union, and thought that allowing free movement in full from the new EU states would earn him the gratitude of the politicians of those states and, more importantly, their support for his ambition. Unfortunately for him, they viewed him as an even bigger cunt than the British public eventually did. "Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004?" I think everyone who was against the EU and free movement pointed out that it was a bad idea at the time. We were shouted down as "racists" and "Little Englanders", if you remember. Besides, we were told by the Labour government that only 13,000 people a year would come from Eastern Europe. [If Labour's figure had been correct, then in 2021 they'd have been a total of 221,000 Eastern Europeans in the UK. As it is there have been more than a million applicants from both Poland and from Romania alone for visas to remain in the UK after Brexit. In 2018, the European Union's own Agency for Fundamental Rights put the number of Eastern European Roma gypsies in the UK as between 500,000 and 1,000,000. ] "Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers?" All research has indicated that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. This decline varies, depending on the source of the research, between 0.2% [Bank of England] and 0.6% [University of London] per every 1% share of immigrant workers. So yes, non-EU immigration has kept wages down, but only for the low paid. I'm sure you're not bothered about that. "Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available?" No, because the pay is appalling. See, it's all comparative. The wage levels in many such industries, while being near impossible for British people to live any kind of life on, are actually a comparative fortune for migrant workers. When Poland joined the EU in 2004, the UK national minimum wage for over-22s was £4.85 - £194 for a 40 hour week, before tax and NI. Even back then it was a pittance. By contrast, the NMW in Poland in 2004 was the Zloty equivalent of 175 Euros A MONTH - the equivalent of £119 a month using 2004 exchange rates. So even the lowest paid, most menial jobs in the UK could give a monthly income six and a half times that of the same jobs in Poland. No wonder they flooded here. Come to Britain, work for two to three years in a minimum wage job and they could go home and buy a house outright with no mortgage. The British worker doing the same job for the same wage would of course never be able to afford their own home. Think about that when you compare "hard-working" Poles with "lazy Brits". The euphoric Poles were working for an absolute fortune, the Brits barely getting enough to live on. If it had been the other way round, and menial jobs in Eastern Europe had paid six and a half times our minimum wage - back then the equivalent of a £5,000 a month income - then I'm sure you'd have seen Brits flooding to Poland to snap them up. [Do you even know anyone who works minimum wage? My guess would be probably not.] "Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it?" Ah, the race card finally comes into play. Rather later in the argument than expected, but expected nevertheless. Wonderful. Not generalisations, but based on the evidence of my own experience, and experiences of people who have been pickpocketed or work in the shops that they steal from. You name it, I've seen Roma caught stealing from it - Primark, Lidls, Tesco, even charity shops. In fact charity shops appear to be a favourite target. I buy my books from charity shops, so use them a lot, and believe me Roma are a plague on them. No security and staffed mostly by older women - perfect target for shoplifting. Most shops in our borough assign a staff member to follow them around to try to stop them from stealing, but obviously you can't do this all the time. It's even worse in neighbouring boroughs. The Cancer Research shop in the next borough is targeted daily, and reckon they lose several hundred pounds worth of income every week, mostly through clothing theft [which, again, I have witnessed with my own eyes] What would YOU call people who steal from a cancer charity? Scummy cunts would be my choice. [Again, living in West London, I expect this isn't something that you encounter too often. Have you ever seen a Roma gypsy. Do you even know what I'm talking about?] It's funny that you should mention "racism" though. Our borough had a high profile Roma rights activist, Lavinia Olmazu, who decried the "racism" and "negative stereotyping" of Roma as criminals in the UK. Good Heavens, did the Left love her. She was employed simultaneously by both Waltham Forest and Haringey Labour councils as a "community outreach co-ordinator", no doubt on a very healthy salary, and was lauded as a role model and a Roma success story. What became of her? She was found to be the mastermind behind a benefit fraud operation that stole £2.9 million from the taxpayer, and was jailed for two years in 2010. Negative stereotyping indeed. "In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs. Curious." Now you're just being silly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good Lord, I seem to have rattled a few middle-class liberal cages. How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember? Oh how wonderfully witty, how very Stephen Fry. I was of course referring to EU fanatics in general, not just the ones on this site. The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to. Yes, you're right, the Labour government's decision to open the doors to Eastern European immigration was a disaster. I believe Germany placed a 7 year delay on potential migration, correctly believing that it would have had a negative effect on German workers. Tony Blair, on the hand, desperately wanted to be a future President of the European Union, and thought that allowing free movement in full from the new EU states would earn him the gratitude of the politicians of those states and, more importantly, their support for his ambition. Unfortunately for him, they viewed him as an even bigger cunt than the British public eventually did. Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004? I think everyone who was against the EU and free movement pointed out that it was a bad idea at the time. We were shouted down as "racists" and "Little Englanders", if you remember. Besides, we were told by the Labour government that only 13,000 people a year would come from Eastern Europe. [If Labour's figure had been correct, then in 2021 they'd have been a total of 221,000 Eastern Europeans in the UK. As it is there have been more than a million applicants from both Poland and from Romania alone for visas to remain in the UK after Brexit. In 2018, the European Union's own Agency for Fundamental Rights put the number of Eastern European Roma gypsies in the UK as between 500,000 and 1,000,000. ] Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers? All research has indicated that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. This decline varies, depending on the source of the research, between 0.2% [Bank of England] and 0.6% [University of London] per every 1% share of immigrant workers. So yes, non-EU immigration has kept wages down, but only for the low paid. I'm sure you're not bothered about that. Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available? No, because the pay is appalling. See, it's all comparative. The wage levels in many such industries, while being near impossible for British people to live any kind of life on, are actually a comparative fortune for migrant workers. When Poland joined the EU in 2004, the UK national minimum wage for over-22s was £4.85 - £194 for a 40 hour week, before tax and NI. Even back then it was a pittance. By contrast, the NMW in Poland in 2004 was the Zloty equivalent of 175 Euros A MONTH - the equivalent of £119 a month using 2004 exchange rates. So even the lowest paid, most menial jobs in the UK could give a monthly income six and a half times that of the same jobs in Poland. No wonder they flooded here. Come to Britain, work for two to three years in a minimum wage job and they could go home and buy a house outright with no mortgage. The British worker doing the same job for the same wage would of course never be able to afford their own home. Think about that when you compare "hard-working" Poles with "lazy Brits". The euphoric Poles were working for an absolute fortune, the Brits barely getting enough to live on. If it had been the other way round, and menial jobs in Eastern Europe had paid six and a half times our minimum wage - back then the equivalent of a £5,000 a month income - then I'm sure you'd have seen Brits flooding to Poland to snap them up. [Do you even know anyone who works minimum wage? My guess would be probably not.] Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it? Ah, the race card finally comes into play. Rather later in the argument than expected, but expected nevertheless. Wonderful. Not generalisations, but based on the evidence of my own experience, and experiences of people who have been pickpocketed or work in the shops that they steal from. You name it, I've seen Roma caught stealing from it - Primark, Lidls, Tesco, even charity shops. In fact charity shops appear to be a favourite target. I buy my books from charity shops, so use them a lot, and believe me Roma are a plague on them. No security and staffed mostly by older women - perfect target for shoplifting. Most shops in our borough assign a staff member to follow them around to try to stop them from stealing, but obviously you can't do this all the time. It's even worse in neighbouring boroughs. The Cancer Research shop in the next borough is targeted daily, and reckon they lose several hundred pounds worth of income every week, mostly through clothing theft [which, again, I have witnessed with my own eyes] What would YOU call people who steal from a cancer charity? Scummy cunts would be my choice. [Again, living in West London, I expect this isn't something that you encounter too often. Have you ever seen a Roma gypsy. Do you even know what I'm talking about?] It's funny that you should mention "racism" though. Our borough had a high profile Roma rights activist, Lavinia Olmazu, who decried the "racism" and "negative stereotyping" of Roma as criminals in the UK. Good Heavens, did the Left love her. She was employed simultaneously by both Waltham Forest and Haringey Labour councils as a "community outreach co-ordinator", no doubt on a very healthy salary, and was lauded as a role model and a Roma success story. What became of her? She was found to be the mastermind behind a benefit fraud operation that stole £2.9 million from the taxpayer, and was jailed for two years in 2010. Negative stereotyping indeed. In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs. Curious. Now you're just being silly. " Nice one a very concise reply its a refreshing change from whataboutery and pointless comments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Disturbing is the fact that the government were aware that this was to occur, but didn’t really do much about it, and then went into faux rage mode when they were made redundant. Typical tories, one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing. Cannot wait till the next few elections, these numbskulls are going to get trashed." Why would they be surprised that something that's been happening for decades is continuing to happen? No government has made an attempt to stop it bit it's ok, you blame the Tories | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The erosion of worker & union rights pre dates Brexit. Thatcher & Blair are to blame its going to be very difficult to change the status que now " Indeed but Brexit provides an opportunity to accelerate and go further as the EU baseline can now be ignored. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Disturbing is the fact that the government were aware that this was to occur, but didn’t really do much about it, and then went into faux rage mode when they were made redundant. Typical tories, one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing. Cannot wait till the next few elections, these numbskulls are going to get trashed. Why would they be surprised that something that's been happening for decades is continuing to happen? No government has made an attempt to stop it bit it's ok, you blame the Tories " It’s all about the attitude, yes it happens, but don’t deny you knew when you actually did. Reeks of incompetence, which we’ve had droves of, more so recently. You’d think they just have given up ruling properly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good Lord, I seem to have rattled a few middle-class liberal cages. How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember? Oh how wonderfully witty, how very Stephen Fry. I was of course referring to EU fanatics in general, not just the ones on this site. The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to. Yes, you're right, the Labour government's decision to open the doors to Eastern European immigration was a disaster. I believe Germany placed a 7 year delay on potential migration, correctly believing that it would have had a negative effect on German workers. Tony Blair, on the hand, desperately wanted to be a future President of the European Union, and thought that allowing free movement in full from the new EU states would earn him the gratitude of the politicians of those states and, more importantly, their support for his ambition. Unfortunately for him, they viewed him as an even bigger cunt than the British public eventually did. Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004? I think everyone who was against the EU and free movement pointed out that it was a bad idea at the time. We were shouted down as "racists" and "Little Englanders", if you remember. Besides, we were told by the Labour government that only 13,000 people a year would come from Eastern Europe. [If Labour's figure had been correct, then in 2021 they'd have been a total of 221,000 Eastern Europeans in the UK. As it is there have been more than a million applicants from both Poland and from Romania alone for visas to remain in the UK after Brexit. In 2018, the European Union's own Agency for Fundamental Rights put the number of Eastern European Roma gypsies in the UK as between 500,000 and 1,000,000. ] Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers? All research has indicated that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. This decline varies, depending on the source of the research, between 0.2% [Bank of England] and 0.6% [University of London] per every 1% share of immigrant workers. So yes, non-EU immigration has kept wages down, but only for the low paid. I'm sure you're not bothered about that. Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available? No, because the pay is appalling. See, it's all comparative. The wage levels in many such industries, while being near impossible for British people to live any kind of life on, are actually a comparative fortune for migrant workers. When Poland joined the EU in 2004, the UK national minimum wage for over-22s was £4.85 - £194 for a 40 hour week, before tax and NI. Even back then it was a pittance. By contrast, the NMW in Poland in 2004 was the Zloty equivalent of 175 Euros A MONTH - the equivalent of £119 a month using 2004 exchange rates. So even the lowest paid, most menial jobs in the UK could give a monthly income six and a half times that of the same jobs in Poland. No wonder they flooded here. Come to Britain, work for two to three years in a minimum wage job and they could go home and buy a house outright with no mortgage. The British worker doing the same job for the same wage would of course never be able to afford their own home. Think about that when you compare "hard-working" Poles with "lazy Brits". The euphoric Poles were working for an absolute fortune, the Brits barely getting enough to live on. If it had been the other way round, and menial jobs in Eastern Europe had paid six and a half times our minimum wage - back then the equivalent of a £5,000 a month income - then I'm sure you'd have seen Brits flooding to Poland to snap them up. [Do you even know anyone who works minimum wage? My guess would be probably not.] Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it? Ah, the race card finally comes into play. Rather later in the argument than expected, but expected nevertheless. Wonderful. Not generalisations, but based on the evidence of my own experience, and experiences of people who have been pickpocketed or work in the shops that they steal from. You name it, I've seen Roma caught stealing from it - Primark, Lidls, Tesco, even charity shops. In fact charity shops appear to be a favourite target. I buy my books from charity shops, so use them a lot, and believe me Roma are a plague on them. No security and staffed mostly by older women - perfect target for shoplifting. Most shops in our borough assign a staff member to follow them around to try to stop them from stealing, but obviously you can't do this all the time. It's even worse in neighbouring boroughs. The Cancer Research shop in the next borough is targeted daily, and reckon they lose several hundred pounds worth of income every week, mostly through clothing theft [which, again, I have witnessed with my own eyes] What would YOU call people who steal from a cancer charity? Scummy cunts would be my choice. [Again, living in West London, I expect this isn't something that you encounter too often. Have you ever seen a Roma gypsy. Do you even know what I'm talking about?] It's funny that you should mention "racism" though. Our borough had a high profile Roma rights activist, Lavinia Olmazu, who decried the "racism" and "negative stereotyping" of Roma as criminals in the UK. Good Heavens, did the Left love her. She was employed simultaneously by both Waltham Forest and Haringey Labour councils as a "community outreach co-ordinator", no doubt on a very healthy salary, and was lauded as a role model and a Roma success story. What became of her? She was found to be the mastermind behind a benefit fraud operation that stole £2.9 million from the taxpayer, and was jailed for two years in 2010. Negative stereotyping indeed. In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs. Curious. Now you're just being silly. " Trolling just to get a response from "middle class" people then?
Who are EU "fanatics"? How do you d fine them? Are those who think that Brexit is damaging to the UK "fanatics"?
So large scale immigration to the UK the responsibility of the UK, not the EU? Germany and many other countries delayed and we didn't.
You don't like Tony Blair. Well done.
Who was "everyone"? I barely knew or cared at the time. Did that make me or most of the rest of the population an "EU fanatic"?
There was an underestimate of immigration numbers from the EU? Yes. Yet we still maintained double the rates from the rest of the World over which we have had full discretion. Is that the fault of the EU and immigrants?
Should there be any immigration or should people be treated as a commodity? Imported and used when needed and returned when unwanted?
British people don't want to work at the rates that British farmers are able to pay? Is that British farmers just being greedy? Did they not raise wages when they couldn't find workers? Why wouldn't they? Is that the fault of the EU and immigrants?
British builders did flood to Germany at one point. There was even a TV series about it...
What you have actually written is that wages have risen at a lower rate than they would have done for the lower paid. That is a bad thing. The UK has been free to set the minimum wage at any level. Why was it not raised? Is that the fault of the EU and immigrants?
A living wage would be even better, so that people do not need any government subsidy. Why has the UK not done that? Is that the fault of the EU and immigrants?
The "race card" was not "played". You were actually been racist and then confirmed your racism by saying that you have generalised specific experiences to an entire ethnicity.
You have literally been racist.
Lots of white, British people commit crimes too. Lots. Many people have experienced it. Many have committed millions of pounds worth of fraud. What does that mean? Anything or nothing?
So should the P&O crews have been sacked and what has that to do with EU immigration? Did that ever drive their wages up or down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good Lord, I seem to have rattled a few middle-class liberal cages. How many were on this site in 2004? Perhaps that's why you don't remember? Oh how wonderfully witty, how very Stephen Fry. I was of course referring to EU fanatics in general, not just the ones on this site. The UK was free to control immigration of new EU member states and chose not to. Yes, you're right, the Labour government's decision to open the doors to Eastern European immigration was a disaster. I believe Germany placed a 7 year delay on potential migration, correctly believing that it would have had a negative effect on German workers. Tony Blair, on the hand, desperately wanted to be a future President of the European Union, and thought that allowing free movement in full from the new EU states would earn him the gratitude of the politicians of those states and, more importantly, their support for his ambition. Unfortunately for him, they viewed him as an even bigger cunt than the British public eventually did. Perhaps you protested that at the time? Did you in 2004? I think everyone who was against the EU and free movement pointed out that it was a bad idea at the time. We were shouted down as "racists" and "Little Englanders", if you remember. Besides, we were told by the Labour government that only 13,000 people a year would come from Eastern Europe. [If Labour's figure had been correct, then in 2021 they'd have been a total of 221,000 Eastern Europeans in the UK. As it is there have been more than a million applicants from both Poland and from Romania alone for visas to remain in the UK after Brexit. In 2018, the European Union's own Agency for Fundamental Rights put the number of Eastern European Roma gypsies in the UK as between 500,000 and 1,000,000. ] Hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers have also come to the UK as care workers and cleaners and doctors and engineers and scientists. Also undercutting British workers? All research has indicated that an inflow of immigrants the size of 1% of the UK-born population leads to a decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. This decline varies, depending on the source of the research, between 0.2% [Bank of England] and 0.6% [University of London] per every 1% share of immigrant workers. So yes, non-EU immigration has kept wages down, but only for the low paid. I'm sure you're not bothered about that. Are British workers now picking vegetables and building and cleaning hotels now that the jobs are available? No, because the pay is appalling. See, it's all comparative. The wage levels in many such industries, while being near impossible for British people to live any kind of life on, are actually a comparative fortune for migrant workers. When Poland joined the EU in 2004, the UK national minimum wage for over-22s was £4.85 - £194 for a 40 hour week, before tax and NI. Even back then it was a pittance. By contrast, the NMW in Poland in 2004 was the Zloty equivalent of 175 Euros A MONTH - the equivalent of £119 a month using 2004 exchange rates. So even the lowest paid, most menial jobs in the UK could give a monthly income six and a half times that of the same jobs in Poland. No wonder they flooded here. Come to Britain, work for two to three years in a minimum wage job and they could go home and buy a house outright with no mortgage. The British worker doing the same job for the same wage would of course never be able to afford their own home. Think about that when you compare "hard-working" Poles with "lazy Brits". The euphoric Poles were working for an absolute fortune, the Brits barely getting enough to live on. If it had been the other way round, and menial jobs in Eastern Europe had paid six and a half times our minimum wage - back then the equivalent of a £5,000 a month income - then I'm sure you'd have seen Brits flooding to Poland to snap them up. [Do you even know anyone who works minimum wage? My guess would be probably not.] Roma gypsies "begging, pickpocketing, and shoplifting with as much relish as they did in their former homelands." Is that a negative generalisation based on ethnicity? That is the definition of racism, isn't it? Ah, the race card finally comes into play. Rather later in the argument than expected, but expected nevertheless. Wonderful. Not generalisations, but based on the evidence of my own experience, and experiences of people who have been pickpocketed or work in the shops that they steal from. You name it, I've seen Roma caught stealing from it - Primark, Lidls, Tesco, even charity shops. In fact charity shops appear to be a favourite target. I buy my books from charity shops, so use them a lot, and believe me Roma are a plague on them. No security and staffed mostly by older women - perfect target for shoplifting. Most shops in our borough assign a staff member to follow them around to try to stop them from stealing, but obviously you can't do this all the time. It's even worse in neighbouring boroughs. The Cancer Research shop in the next borough is targeted daily, and reckon they lose several hundred pounds worth of income every week, mostly through clothing theft [which, again, I have witnessed with my own eyes] What would YOU call people who steal from a cancer charity? Scummy cunts would be my choice. [Again, living in West London, I expect this isn't something that you encounter too often. Have you ever seen a Roma gypsy. Do you even know what I'm talking about?] It's funny that you should mention "racism" though. Our borough had a high profile Roma rights activist, Lavinia Olmazu, who decried the "racism" and "negative stereotyping" of Roma as criminals in the UK. Good Heavens, did the Left love her. She was employed simultaneously by both Waltham Forest and Haringey Labour councils as a "community outreach co-ordinator", no doubt on a very healthy salary, and was lauded as a role model and a Roma success story. What became of her? She was found to be the mastermind behind a benefit fraud operation that stole £2.9 million from the taxpayer, and was jailed for two years in 2010. Negative stereotyping indeed. In conclusion, it seems that you are saying that it's fine that these P&O staff lost there jobs. Curious. Now you're just being silly. Nice one a very concise reply its a refreshing change from whataboutery and pointless comments."The reply was anything but "concise" and was largely whataboutery and pointless. It also did not address if only "middle class" people benefitted from reduced cost of everything from plumbers and food? How did they cope with the guilt? Did they make donations to charities? Make voluntary tax payments? The post was also racist. Again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now. "If he takes a fall for this, he would expect not to walk away without a huge pay off. If our government were to apply pressure to the board to ensure that any pay off was removed, that would be a great result. The way this company has shown a total disregard for the people and laws of this land, is nothing short of contempt. I hope there is a change here in the UK to prevent this happening in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He has been put forward to take the heat and will be told to resign, on a big fuckoff golden handshake "I would be happy to contribute towards his golden shower  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now. "I think he was saying not that they broke the law as such, more the fact that the law didn’t apply to them! It was a crass answer… and then the admission that they were never going to talk to the Union about it because it would have been useless was the cherry on the cake! If the crew that have been sacked were earning on average £36k a year… and they have been replaced by agency staff earning on average £5.15 an hour (remember minimum wage I think is £9.50 an hour) then I wonder how many other companies would pull this stunt if they could get away with it!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now.
If he takes a fall for this, he would expect not to walk away without a huge pay off. If our government were to apply pressure to the board to ensure that any pay off was removed, that would be a great result.
The way this company has shown a total disregard for the people and laws of this land, is nothing short of contempt. I hope there is a change here in the UK to prevent this happening in the future.
"Well if the Tories would support Labours proposed legislation against Fire & Rehire it would be a start. Also the fact that France has stronger employment law shows the EU was no barrier to this and the UK could have done the same but chose not to. That word sovereignty springs to mind! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"…… I hope there is a change here in the UK to prevent this happening in the future. " What change his needed? Not sure you can legislate against breaking the law. The legislation already in place makes the act illegal. And if he’s acted in breach of director’s duties and obligations he may well be struck off. I’d argue that director’s fiduciary duties have been breached. (Assuming he is a company director addition to being ceo, CBA looking it up!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now.
I think he was saying not that they broke the law as such, more the fact that the law didn’t apply to them! It was a crass answer… and then the admission that they were never going to talk to the Union about it because it would have been useless was the cherry on the cake!
If the crew that have been sacked were earning on average £36k a year… and they have been replaced by agency staff earning on average £5.15 an hour (remember minimum wage I think is £9.50 an hour) then I wonder how many other companies would pull this stunt if they could get away with it!!"You’d be shocked how much is going on. There are IT companies flying developers and testers by the planeload. Putting them up in flats and paying low wages rather than UK rates which are 5x to 10x higher. India, Philippines, Vietnam are all benefiting. This has been going on for years! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now.
I think he was saying not that they broke the law as such, more the fact that the law didn’t apply to them! It was a crass answer… and then the admission that they were never going to talk to the Union about it because it would have been useless was the cherry on the cake!
If the crew that have been sacked were earning on average £36k a year… and they have been replaced by agency staff earning on average £5.15 an hour (remember minimum wage I think is £9.50 an hour) then I wonder how many other companies would pull this stunt if they could get away with it!!"The bit I read on the BBC I understood slightly differently. It seems they admit to breaking the law and now openly admit this. They also confirmed that the were fully aware that they were breaking the law. There defence being that consulting the union's was pointless as they knew they would never agree. It seems not consulting the union's was the only breach of the law as all the rest does not come under UK rules | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers?" Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see the chief executive under the cosh in the inquiry. Seems he admits to deliberately breaking the law that could be his job down the drain now.
I think he was saying not that they broke the law as such, more the fact that the law didn’t apply to them! It was a crass answer… and then the admission that they were never going to talk to the Union about it because it would have been useless was the cherry on the cake!
If the crew that have been sacked were earning on average £36k a year… and they have been replaced by agency staff earning on average £5.15 an hour (remember minimum wage I think is £9.50 an hour) then I wonder how many other companies would pull this stunt if they could get away with it!!
The bit I read on the BBC I understood slightly differently. It seems they admit to breaking the law and now openly admit this. They also confirmed that the were fully aware that they were breaking the law. There defence being that consulting the union's was pointless as they knew they would never agree. It seems not consulting the union's was the only breach of the law as all the rest does not come under UK rules"Thats how I understood it too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"…… I hope there is a change here in the UK to prevent this happening in the future. What change his needed? Not sure you can legislate against breaking the law. The legislation already in place makes the act illegal. And if he’s acted in breach of director’s duties and obligations he may well be struck off. I’d argue that director’s fiduciary duties have been breached. (Assuming he is a company director addition to being ceo, CBA looking it up!)" What needs to change? In my opinion companies operating under flags for the benefit of tax avoidance, employment law violations. Add to that companies like P&O who are literally choosing what laws they will or wont comply with and shrugging their shoulders saying, we will pay them off so it's okay. Well in my mind, it is not okay and this company and others like it need to know it is not acceptable. I knew nothing about this practice until P&O pulled this stunt. As you have mentioned in another post, the public will have a moan and then jump on the cheapest ferry over the channel. It is up to our government to do something about this farce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. " It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. " Indeed. But how many would willingly pay e.g £50 more to make the right choice? Or drive to another port or take the Chunnel, or fly and hire a car or simply not travel…. See there’s quite a few options. There are choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. Indeed. But how many would willingly pay e.g £50 more to make the right choice? Or drive to another port or take the Chunnel, or fly and hire a car or simply not travel…. See there’s quite a few options. There are choices. " I think the scenario here of things costing more or being a little more inconvenient, is going to become more and more the norm. The want it all and now, seems to be diving this. Companies want to offer what the customer wants, but what the customer wants costs money. Get in a cheaper workforce and that should fix it..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. Indeed. But how many would willingly pay e.g £50 more to make the right choice? Or drive to another port or take the Chunnel, or fly and hire a car or simply not travel…. See there’s quite a few options. There are choices. I think the scenario here of things costing more or being a little more inconvenient, is going to become more and more the norm. The want it all and now, seems to be diving this. Companies want to offer what the customer wants, but what the customer wants costs money. Get in a cheaper workforce and that should fix it..... " Make a note. The “poverty line” wills start with a 3 by the time this decade is out. Inflation is just getting started. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. Indeed. But how many would willingly pay e.g £50 more to make the right choice? Or drive to another port or take the Chunnel, or fly and hire a car or simply not travel…. See there’s quite a few options. There are choices. " I'm not sure what you mean by the right choice. Not everybody is privileged to have lots of choices or an extra 50 quid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. " Yup just like Ryan air people still keep using them as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope the general public vote with their feet and dont book with them.How long will they survive without customers? Most won’t give a fk, they’ll virtue signal then book the most convenient or cheapest crossing. Tis the British way. It's not about being the British way. There are only 3 companies but do this crossing and only 2 from Dover. Companies like this know There aren't that many options so know they can get away with things like this and it's not on. Indeed. But how many would willingly pay e.g £50 more to make the right choice? Or drive to another port or take the Chunnel, or fly and hire a car or simply not travel…. See there’s quite a few options. There are choices. I'm not sure what you mean by the right choice. Not everybody is privileged to have lots of choices or an extra 50 quid. " Right choice = boycott a shit company. It does not require privilege. There are other travel options and taking a car overseas is a privilege in itself in most cases. Mostly optional i expect. If I was that hard up I’d personally consider investing the cost of the trip in something more likely to lift me from poverty than a holiday! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing." Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing. Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. " Indeed. 12 years of Tory Govt. Had plenty of time to address these kind of issues including legislating against fire and rehire but guess what, they didn’t want to. They will make all the noises now to convince people they are “doing something” then when dust settles and people are distracted by something else, quietly forget it. Just like the much trumpeted position against MP second jobs etc which has now quietly gone away with all proposed legislation abandoned. Bread & Circuses - the Romans knew exactly what they were doing! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing. Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. Indeed. 12 years of Tory Govt. Had plenty of time to address these kind of issues including legislating against fire and rehire but guess what, they didn’t want to. They will make all the noises now to convince people they are “doing something” then when dust settles and people are distracted by something else, quietly forget it. Just like the much trumpeted position against MP second jobs etc which has now quietly gone away with all proposed legislation abandoned. Bread & Circuses - the Romans knew exactly what they were doing!" Agreed BUT where has the opposition been? It's all very well starmer saying this was raised x number of years ago but not a word since from those who are holding the govt to account? Seems to me as though parliament as a whole has a lot to answer for | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing. Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. Indeed. 12 years of Tory Govt. Had plenty of time to address these kind of issues including legislating against fire and rehire but guess what, they didn’t want to. They will make all the noises now to convince people they are “doing something” then when dust settles and people are distracted by something else, quietly forget it. Just like the much trumpeted position against MP second jobs etc which has now quietly gone away with all proposed legislation abandoned. Bread & Circuses - the Romans knew exactly what they were doing! Agreed BUT where has the opposition been? It's all very well starmer saying this was raised x number of years ago but not a word since from those who are holding the govt to account? Seems to me as though parliament as a whole has a lot to answer for " Not quite true. Labour have tabled anti fire & rehire legislation previously but it was voted down by the Tories (including ironically the Tory MP for Dover who has this week been joining the protests against P&O but been called out by the public standing there). Earlier this week they tabled it again but none of the Tories turned up to vote so it couldn’t progress! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing. Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. Indeed. 12 years of Tory Govt. Had plenty of time to address these kind of issues including legislating against fire and rehire but guess what, they didn’t want to. They will make all the noises now to convince people they are “doing something” then when dust settles and people are distracted by something else, quietly forget it. Just like the much trumpeted position against MP second jobs etc which has now quietly gone away with all proposed legislation abandoned. Bread & Circuses - the Romans knew exactly what they were doing! Agreed BUT where has the opposition been? It's all very well starmer saying this was raised x number of years ago but not a word since from those who are holding the govt to account? Seems to me as though parliament as a whole has a lot to answer for Not quite true. Labour have tabled anti fire & rehire legislation previously but it was voted down by the Tories (including ironically the Tory MP for Dover who has this week been joining the protests against P&O but been called out by the public standing there). Earlier this week they tabled it again but none of the Tories turned up to vote so it couldn’t progress! " But when previously? I understood it was 4 years ago and nothing since but I may be wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Am I correct in thinking that Tory politicians, including Cabinet ministers, are outraged at a company breaking the rules? Intriguing. Feigning outrage and acting on it are not the same thing. If the take practical steps to enable some changes then you’ll know the outrage was genuine. Indeed. 12 years of Tory Govt. Had plenty of time to address these kind of issues including legislating against fire and rehire but guess what, they didn’t want to. They will make all the noises now to convince people they are “doing something” then when dust settles and people are distracted by something else, quietly forget it. Just like the much trumpeted position against MP second jobs etc which has now quietly gone away with all proposed legislation abandoned. Bread & Circuses - the Romans knew exactly what they were doing! Agreed BUT where has the opposition been? It's all very well starmer saying this was raised x number of years ago but not a word since from those who are holding the govt to account? Seems to me as though parliament as a whole has a lot to answer for Not quite true. Labour have tabled anti fire & rehire legislation previously but it was voted down by the Tories (including ironically the Tory MP for Dover who has this week been joining the protests against P&O but been called out by the public standing there). Earlier this week they tabled it again but none of the Tories turned up to vote so it couldn’t progress! But when previously? I understood it was 4 years ago and nothing since but I may be wrong" Not sure but there is a legislative timetable in parliament and you have to “bid for time” for debates and votes. The Govt. controls the timetable so the opposition have only limited opportunities to force a vote. Plus the last two years have been focused on the pandemic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/03/22 08:51:20]" I understand the workings of parliament but it strikes me as a case of jumping on the bandwagon. Put it this way, do you think that, if the p&o situation hadn't sailed into port, the opposition would've raised the issue at this point? Granted it's an unacceptable failing but more of parliament as a whole, in my opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/03/22 08:51:20] I understand the workings of parliament but it strikes me as a case of jumping on the bandwagon. Put it this way, do you think that, if the p&o situation hadn't sailed into port, the opposition would've raised the issue at this point? Granted it's an unacceptable failing but more of parliament as a whole, in my opinion " would they have raised it now? Probably not. Bit now is a good time to reraise it as it will have more public foucd and those who voted against it last time may struggle to vote against it again. Had there been no P&O, why would anyone expect a different outcome especially given the greater Tory majority. When it comes down to it, the Tory's didn't support this four years ago. The people then viyed in another Tory government, so are giving a degree of approval to their previous position. We have an odd position where those who voted to leave because of their perceived damage to low income families, then vote in a party who don't have any track record in supporting low income families. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/03/22 08:51:20] I understand the workings of parliament but it strikes me as a case of jumping on the bandwagon. Put it this way, do you think that, if the p&o situation hadn't sailed into port, the opposition would've raised the issue at this point? Granted it's an unacceptable failing but more of parliament as a whole, in my opinion " You could apply that to any piece of legislation though right? Topics come and go and generally a lot of activity will end up being somewhat reactive and you could easily point the finger of opportunism all the time about most things. This wasn’t top of the agenda recently because of war, pestilence, corruption, brexit, etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/03/22 08:51:20] I understand the workings of parliament but it strikes me as a case of jumping on the bandwagon. Put it this way, do you think that, if the p&o situation hadn't sailed into port, the opposition would've raised the issue at this point? Granted it's an unacceptable failing but more of parliament as a whole, in my opinion You could apply that to any piece of legislation though right? Topics come and go and generally a lot of activity will end up being somewhat reactive and you could easily point the finger of opportunism all the time about most things. This wasn’t top of the agenda recently because of war, pestilence, corruption, brexit, etc " True but if it's as important an issue as it clearly is, local MPs at the very minimum should've been on the case continually | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 25/03/22 08:51:20] I understand the workings of parliament but it strikes me as a case of jumping on the bandwagon. Put it this way, do you think that, if the p&o situation hadn't sailed into port, the opposition would've raised the issue at this point? Granted it's an unacceptable failing but more of parliament as a whole, in my opinion You could apply that to any piece of legislation though right? Topics come and go and generally a lot of activity will end up being somewhat reactive and you could easily point the finger of opportunism all the time about most things. This wasn’t top of the agenda recently because of war, pestilence, corruption, brexit, etc True but if it's as important an issue as it clearly is, local MPs at the very minimum should've been on the case continually " Well yes quite! Certainly worth raising with the Tory MP for Dover who tried to join in with the protests only to be called out by the crowd for previously voting against legislation banning fire & rehire. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe going in a different direction here. But I wonder if the country would have been up in arms had it been a construction company? Would people be baying for blood had it been 800 builders sent packing? It doesn't change what happened to the P&O staff and I do feel very sorry for them." I’m stumped to think what is so special about ferry workers as to garner any more sympathy and support than that exhibited for any other field of worker. Conversely, why would builders attract less sympathy? They provide an equally important service to society, arguably more important. I can see NHS workers getting MORE support. But such practices don’t seem to impact that sector luckily. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well p&o have broken the law so the government should step in. No consultation period for a start and will pay the new staff way below the minimum wage. Any person in the UK cannot be made redundant only to offer another person the role as the positions should now be obsolite. If p&o want to try and be cleaver I surges that the British public vote with there feet and boycott the company and seek alternative methods of travel or other company's to bolster the compotishion of p&o. Somthing are just not on and I'm sure the UK public all side with the members of staff that have been kicked in the teeth. So much for loyal service and just goes to show we are all just a number to big company's. " Have they broken the law though? It was established way up this thread that mariners/seafarers often have their contracts with companies not based in the UK. That could be the country where the ship is registered or where the company or subsidiaries are registered. In this case P&O Ferries are owned by a company registered in Dubai and the staff are employed by a company registered in the Channel islands. So technically that means they are not British workers. Not defending at all but clearly if British employment law allows this then it is wrong (and it looks like French law does not allow it as none of them got sacked). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well p&o have broken the law so the government should step in. No consultation period for a start and will pay the new staff way below the minimum wage. Any person in the UK cannot be made redundant only to offer another person the role as the positions should now be obsolite. If p&o want to try and be cleaver I surges that the British public vote with there feet and boycott the company and seek alternative methods of travel or other company's to bolster the compotishion of p&o. Somthing are just not on and I'm sure the UK public all side with the members of staff that have been kicked in the teeth. So much for loyal service and just goes to show we are all just a number to big company's. Have they broken the law though? It was established way up this thread that mariners/seafarers often have their contracts with companies not based in the UK. That could be the country where the ship is registered or where the company or subsidiaries are registered. In this case P&O Ferries are owned by a company registered in Dubai and the staff are employed by a company registered in the Channel islands. So technically that means they are not British workers. Not defending at all but clearly if British employment law allows this then it is wrong (and it looks like French law does not allow it as none of them got sacked)." Did not consult unions. Admitted that to parliament. So yes, law broken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If they brake the law then compensation is paid at a tribunal which is specific set and restricted amounts. They are paying the compensation as part of the sacking so believe the are covering any legal claim. Personally I think they should be forced to pay the offers over and then be prosecuted for their actions by the government to force additional compensation. The only issue is if the staff sign and agree to a full an final offer then the government is powerless. " Breakage and repair are two separate topics in the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
