You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
One of the speakers yesterday mentioned that when even the DUP are onboard it shows just how widespread support for P&O employees is.
P&O operate from Larne. Sammy Wilson is the MP. DUP had to support it.
"The one thing that all the speakers emphasised was the fact that P&O is very far from being skint. Greed is the motivation, not struggling in a difficult economic situation, whatever downturn might have occurred."
I'm sure the speakers did emphasise this but it doesn't make it true. Company Directors are legally required to operate trading companies as a going concern - if they have any doubts about their ability to do that they are required to register for insolvency.
"Greed" is not really provable in this situation because the facts suggest the opposite:
- P&O continued to operate the trading subsidiary and fund significant losses (now close to or exceeding £200m).
- The scope for running the business profitably is significantly impacted by an EU based competitor running with 25-35% lower operating costs - which are only possible because that competitor fired their own staff, rehired international crews and pays them through Cyprus in order to avoid tax
- P&O will pay substantially more in redundancy (tens of £000's to each crew member) than they are legally required to
"If you can’t run ferries without paying properly, and with workers rights in place, don’t run ferries"
Is a nice soundbite but how exactly can they run their business "paying properly" when international maritime employment contracts don't require their competitors to do so and when there are no legal restrictions available to bar those ferries from the same routes that P&O serve?
If you can’t run ferries without paying properly, and with workers rights in place, don’t run ferries. Anything the government applies to P&O they should apply to anyone else wanting to run RoRo ferries to/from the UK…. and by “anything”, I include measures such as partnering with the companies to run ports etc being tied to an agreement on pay, conditions and firing/rehiring/replacing policies. This is one of the (many) times when it is the government (perhaps with agreement/cooperation with other governments) that has to act to prevent the race to the bottom.
Laudable but if Irish Ferries can just undercut them and run straight to the continent where does that leave us?
Does that legislation just apply to RoRo ferries, all cargo vessels or all vessels full stop?
Does it apply to vessels landing in the UK, registered in the UK or anything flying a British flag?
Without wanting to come across as condescending it's, yet again, a simplistic solution to a very complex problem that raises far, far more questions than it answers.
As I said before, if we could influence the EU to strengthen maritime labour laws that would be great but we can't so here we are.
Without wanting to come across as condescending it’s, yet again, a simplistic solution to a very complex problem that raises far, far more questions than it answers.
Squirrelking - I agree - politicians offering "simple" (and unworkable) solutions to complex problems.
When they knowingly do this they are just taking voters for fools - putting more emphasis on promising platitudes and winning votes than providing an honest appraisal of the situation even if that means admitting that there's very little the law can do to restrict international employment norms. Leadership means being honest and not giving false hope - in this case to the hundreds of poor workers who've lost their jobs without any warning.
Yeah my heart bleeds for the poor Middle Eastern dictator who only 2 or 3 years bought the company and now needs to sort the consequences of buying a non thriving business.
Luckily weak, ineffective, or non existent, UK employment protection laws have come to his rescue. He can sack 800 individuals with little to worry about.
Imagine if they had all been protected by French employment legislation?
https://www.thelocal.fr/20220318/why-did-po-ferries-axe-uk-jobs-but-keep-its-french-workers/
"But as a cross-Channel company, P&O also has a significant contingent of French staff.
On Thursday French media reported staff representatives in France as saying they were not affected by the announcement."
UK employment protection laws......there to protect greedy billionaire dictators the world over.
And anyone who says that it shouldn't be so is giving false hopes and taking voters for fools.
Presumably as French politicians obviously have.
If the new owners of P&O can’t run it while paying and treating their staff right… then they can sell it, or close it and let others take the routes. Happy to see it privatised if need be, short term or longer term.
As for some of the other questions… no it’s not “simple” to fix, but the government has many tools it can use to stop this way of doing business. UK law could insist that access to ports requires ships to pay the minimum wage of at least one of the countries on route… or ships don’t get to dock. In effect that would mostly affect to and fro RoRo ferries… but if it also hits some cargo, so be it. I can see many of the countries we share RoRo ferry routes with cooperating with such a scheme to raise standards for staff on those routes.
Anyway, twist it around… how do Brittany Ferries now compete with P&O on UK routes? Allowing P&O’s owners to go for the race to the bottom negatively effects competitors, as well as staff.
No excuses are acceptable from the government. “It’s just how it is”, or “it’s complicated” shouldn’t be swallowed in place of action. They are just excuses to try and hide their acceptance of (if not Britannia Unchained excitement for) low wages, high hours, zero protection work for large “companies” owned by highly dubious wealth holders… sovereign individuals and organisations avoiding any of the social responsibility that should come with having people working for you.
I thought the last sentence of your first paragraph contained an error Kelvin, but then I remembered that P&O Ferries is actually state owned, ie it is owned by the government of Dubai, so perhaps not?
Although as a vital component of the UK's transport infrastructure I would much rather it came under the control of the UK government.
I have no problem with it being state owned as long as it is a state which is accountable to British voters, and not a dictatorship with zero concerns about the consequences of their actions.
how do Brittany Ferries now compete with P&O on UK routes?
Did you ever travel on the routes P&O attempted to directly compete against Brittany on? Portsmouth-le Harve or Santander? Brittany had beautiful, modern ships with great food, cinemas and swimming pools while P&O operated a floating little chef with a wonky video recorder and a closed soft play. Competition was still born. They’ve not directly competed for years.
I thought the last sentence of your first paragraph contained an error Kelvin, but then I remembered that P&O Ferries is actually state owned, ie it is owned by the government of Dubai, so perhaps not?
It was a slip up! I meant nationalised. But your point is a good one anyway.
I don’t hugely care who owns it, but if they can’t run those routes and pay a fair wage to workers that are treated well… then I’d rather someone else took over the company and/or the routes and made it work. Happy for that to be the UK government (again), whether as a temporary bridging arrangement, or long term state control and ownership.
Competition was still born.
Sounds like we might have a candidate company to take over on some of the routes, if P&O aren’t able to run them without resorting to the tactics of this week.
Brittany running a North Sea or North Channel route would be wonderful. It would be crewed entirely by French crew though, so hardly fixes the problem.
People are putting about that Irish ferries compete with a 25% lower operating cost. That’s not really correct. 25% lower staffing cost for junior staff perhaps. Bulk of the cost will be fuel, port fees and the mahoosive mortgage on the ships. Also Pembroke-Rosslare is hardly the same as Cairnryan-Larne.
One thing I've been wondering here given the mention of Indian crews - how do they get here and embark / disembark? Do they need visas that the UK Govt could deny and scupper P&O plans?
I believe crews en-route to their vessel are largely exempt from the visa system. So fly in, bussed to ship.
Plus, Irish ferries have only been operating 1 boat Dover-Calais for less than a year (recently added another).
I'll ask again, as I still don't understand, and no one seems to be able to either. How were P&O able to move RMT members' contracts offshore? Where the union when this was going on?
I believe crews en-route to their vessel are largely exempt from the visa system. So fly in, bussed to ship.
Sorry - should have been more specific with the Q. I believe that's the case for vessels which go between UK and non UK destinations. It is the Irish Sea ones I don't understand as I thought you needed a work permit to operate on vessels running entirely in UK waters.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was amended by statutory instrument in February 2018.
The change signed off by Mr Grayling states: "[If] the employees concerned are members of the crew of a seagoing vessel which is registered at a port outside Great Britain...the employer shall give the notification required...to the competent authority of the state where the vessel is registered (instead of to the Secretary of State)."
The amendment is the only change to the 1992 Act relating specifically to foreign-registered ships.
The memorandum states no formal consultation was carried out before the change was made, and no impact assessment was carried out.
Remind me what prompted this increased used of statutory instruments by ministers to update regulations without bothering parliament or publishing impact assessments...
I’m sure the speakers did emphasise this but it doesn’t make it true. Company Directors are legally required to operate trading companies as a going concern – if they have any doubts about their ability to do that they are required to register for insolvency.
If P&O was a UK company, then yes this would be correct.
Yeah my heart bleeds for the poor Middle Eastern dictator who only 2 or 3 years bought the company and now needs to sort the consequences of buying a non thriving business.
The business isn't viable regardless of who owns it.
If the new owners of P&O can’t run it while paying and treating their staff right… then they can sell it, or close it and let others take the routes.
Like Irish Ferries who operate in exactly the way you are hitting back at?
UK law could insist that access to ports requires ships to pay the minimum wage of at least one of the countries on route… or ships don’t get to dock.
I'm sure the Filipino crewed fishing boats would welcome this or, more likely, just land more catches in the EU.
In effect that would mostly affect to and fro RoRo ferries… but if it also hits some cargo, so be it.
You seem to be vastly underestimating how much the shipping industry relies on maritime contracts. Your idea would effectively be placing a trade embargo on ourselves!
No excuses are acceptable from the government. “It’s just how it is”, or “it’s complicated” shouldn’t be swallowed in place of action.
Which is how we ended up with Brexit. A simple answer to a complex problem, the unintended consequences of which have only just begun and are already hitting us hard.
I don’t hugely care who owns it, but if they can’t run those routes and pay a fair wage to workers that are treated well… then I’d rather someone else took over the company and/or the routes and made it work.
How? If the route is losing all that money explain how to make it work whilst still being competitive. If you pass the costs on to customers they just take their custom elsewhere.
If they're failing, let them fail, and let someone else run the routes. Breaking P&O into a series of smaller operators wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. If some routes have to be state run (whether that's the UK state of those of other countries on the routes) so be it. I don't care one jot about P&O's current owners... staff, passengers and business customers all matter more to me than DP World.
"If they’re failing, let them fail, and let someone else run the routes."
Like Irish Ferries? Who fired their own staff 17 years ago? They would love that I'm sure.
"If some routes have to be state run (whether that’s the UK state of those of other countries on the routes) so be it"
Because the state has a great record on running complex operations?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/dvla-hits-back-claims-staff-23436649
A myriad of other examples are also available...
"Breaking P&O into a series of smaller operators wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world."
Apart from the fact that it's a (very) capital intensive business and doing so would massively ramp up capital finance costs - which then ramps up operating costs - and and as we know, the business is already loss making....
Let them fail. Unlike you I think others could make those RoRo ferry routes work, and still treat staff better, once P&O are out of the way. DP World didn't grow that ferry business, it is the scale it is thanks to the UK state and subsequent owners.
Because the state has a great record on running complex operations?
Ah, now we are getting to the nitty gritty of Cheddar's argument......this is about supporting thatcherite right-wing free market neo-liberalism.
Yeah less state involvement in complex operations such as transport, healthcare, education, etc.
I agree that the whole issue is really ultimately about that.
Johnson has just stood up at PMQ's and said that the government thinks that P&O has broken the law and they fully intend to prosecute them to 'defend the rights of British Workers'
He also said that the government would still work with DP World on freeports.
Somehow Johnson has managed to make his answers on P&O about repeating the claims that Labour would have kept us in permanent lockdown (ignoring that his own Covid measures as PM were only possible with the support of Labour MPs). Also... something about if we'd still been in the EU, they would have stopped the government changing the law in ways that they haven't changed the law... [ couldn't quite follow that one, but I suppose that's deliberate ]
Johnson has just stood up at PMQ’s and said that the government thinks that P&O has broken the law and they fully intend to prosecute them to ‘defend the rights of British Workers’
UK employment protection laws aren't just weak or nonexistent, the consequences of defying them are relatively insignificant.
I am sure the legal advice to DP World will have factored that in.
So I don't particularly doubt that the government intends to prosecute. All the parties concerned know that it will be a fairly pointless exercise.
[ couldn’t quite follow that one, but I suppose that’s deliberate ]
Indeed
As with most things he said, its difficult to argue with as its completely contradictory and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Difficult to form a coherent argument against something that is essentially gibberish.
Didn't he just answer that he knew well in advance about P&O's intentions and just let them get on with it, to rebut the suggestion by Starmer that he'd not bothered reading his notes? That apparently being clearly better?
I mean... where do you even begin forming an argument against that? I did like his reference to it as 'half-arsed bluster'
Didn’t he just answer that he knew well in advance about P&O’s intentions and just let them get on with it, to rebut the suggestion by Starmer that he’d not bothered reading his notes?
No, I don't thing so... he glossed over the fact that the government (including his own team) knew in advance, by claiming that he didn't personally know anything about it (part time PM excuse).
All the parties concerned know that it will be a fairly pointless exercise.
Absolutely this. The PM gets to signal that they're "doing something", without actually doing anything to improve employment law (including undoing their own changes that may have enabled P&O to claim a legal basis for avoiding the 45 day rule), or affect D P World's business model, or stop the UK freeport opportunities for D P World.
I knew it made no sense. I couldn't possibly have known about it in advance as that would have involved me actually doing my job! So there!
As defences go, its not really the best, is it?
Cheered to the rafters by the morons sat behind him though
Let them fail. Unlike you I think others could make those RoRo ferry routes work, and still treat staff better
This isn't even a case of 'profits are down' (but still making profit), the routes are running at a loss. If this is the case today then I have no idea how you think it wouldn't be the case tomorrow.
Like I said, your ideals are laudable but you are trying to hold out a race to the bottom that their competitors started years ago. That ship has sailed long, long ago. It's utterly crap but I really have no idea how we can legislate against it or compete with foreign operators on such an uneven playing field.
I don’t care one jot about P&O’s current owners
I should probably make myself clear here, I couldn't care less either. I've done my time working for their like and as far as I'm concerned the whole shipping industry is a shady pile of shit.
their competitors started years ago
They hardly have any competitors for RoRo, as they are operating an established ex-public sector monopoly on many of their short UK routes. Where others are running short RoRo routes including the UK, they should also have to follow any new employment obligations placed on P&O, I'm not suggesting a special case is made of P&O. As should anyone taking on routes P&O say they can't run long term without trashing employment rates and conditions (I don't believe D P World on this, as it happens).
If this is the case today then I have no idea how you think it wouldn’t be the case tomorrow.
Because 2020/21 figures do not represent future trading conditions. For obvious reasons covered well in this thread.
This isn’t even a case of ‘profits are down’ (but still making profit), the routes are running at a loss.
I would like a more forensic investigation into the P&O accounts, and whether they just offshore the profits to the parent company for tax reasons, rather than just accepting their word that that is the case.
After all do we have any evidence of honesty and integrity from their actions?
Because the state has a great record on running complex operations?
Yes, it does. Often it has to intervene to sort out the mess made by the private sector.
Because 2020/21 figures do not represent future trading conditions. For obvious reasons covered well in this thread.
I was under the impression this was over several years as discussed earlier in the thread. That said...
I would like a more forensic investigation into the P&O accounts, and whether they just offshore the profits to the parent company for tax reasons, rather than just accepting their word that that is the case.
After all do we have any evidence of honesty and integrity from their actions?
...this is a fair point.
Yes, it does. Often it has to intervene to sort out the mess made by the private sector.
👍 How many times have we done the ECML hokey cokey?
I would like a more forensic investigation into the P&O accounts, and whether they just offshore the profits to the parent company for tax reasons, rather than just accepting their word that that is the case.
"P&O Ferries has delivered a robust performance in recent years and we aim to drive further value through increasing efficiencies and offering value-added solutions to our customers.
Overall the transaction offers compelling value strategically and financially, and we look forward to P&O Ferries contributing to driving shareholder value in the coming years."
Said Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem at the time he bought the company barely 3 years ago.
So he bought a thriving company which was "compelling value" and had "delivered a robust performance in recent years", but 3 years later under his ownership it's skint.
Suspicious or what?
Or do you think he's kicking himself at his apparent bad luck?
Edit :And apparently it's not because of the global travel restricting covid 19 pandemic but because crews were receiving generous and unsustainable wages of over £1.80 an hour.
👍 How many times have we done the ECML hokey cokey?
Well, quite. And for all its faults, do we really want the NHS to be privatised? Organisations don't get much more complex than that...
but 3 years later under his ownership it’s skint.
Covid and Brexit, Ernie. We've been politely trying to get the message across for 11 pages now.
Yeah like the Covid pandemic brexit was unexpected, despite the fact that Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem bought P&O Ferries 3 years after the referendum. Or perhaps his business advisors hadn't foreseen the consequences of brexit? They should have looked at STW and they would have been better informed.
But you keep making excuses for P&O's callous treatment of its employees, after all they are embracing the principles behind free movement...... moving in cheap Labour from elsewhere is such a good idea. As long as it provides you with cheap services and produce and doesn't affect the income of the affluent middle-classes.
But you keep making excuses for P&O’s callous treatment of its employees, after all they are embracing the principles behind free movement…… moving in cheap Labour from elsewhere is such a good idea. As long as it provides you with cheap services and produce and doesn’t affect the income of the affluent middle-classes.
I don't think anyone is excusing it, I'm certainly not, but you can't look at these things in isolation.
Blaming Covid and brexit certainly suggests making excuses. Whilst the devastating effect on global travel caused by the Covid pandemic might not have been predictable 3 years ago the idea that the pandemic is permanent issue is ridiculous. Do you expect UK airlines to also sack staff and replace them with extraordinarily cheap labour from the other side of the world because of how much they have suffered financially from the pandemic?
Brexit was a well established fact when Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem bought P&O Ferries, are you seriously suggesting that it caught him by surprise? Or are you suggesting that he paid millions for a company whose future was far from certain because of some philanthropic
desire to help people cross seas?
When he bought the company the Sultan said: "overall the transaction offers compelling value strategically and financially". Who told him that and why hadn't they heard about brexit?
Blaming Covid and brexit certainly suggests making excuses.
Are they not the main reasons for recent poor trade in the ferry business?
I’d have thought the lifting of Covid restrictions means pent up demand should make future trading years profitable again.
Brexit has a long term effect, but nothing that mandates shifting to low pay. That’s a choice. One the government should remove from P&O and other short trip ferry operators.
D P World would have found an excuse to change how they employ people anyway. It’s how they work. And this government would happily help, while crying crocodile tears and tub thumping about legal action. And carry on working with them on tax avoiding freeports.
Brexit was a well established fact when Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem bought P&O Ferries
The hard nature of it wasn't. The deal was signed a few days before Christmas and came into force on 31/01/2020. In 2018/19 the UK government was being very coy about just how hard the Brexit would be. Did you get what you voted for or something a whole lot harder and more damaging?
Blaming Covid and brexit certainly suggests making excuses
A 17% reduction in trucks and a decimation of the car traffic as I've already posted with a link to Dover Port stats isn't an excuse it's a drop in traffic enough to turn profit into loss.
The hard nature of it wasn’t.
I thought it was all bleeding obvious and only a moron wouldn't understand the consequences of brexit? It turns out that it wasn't that obvious to Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem's business and financial advisors.
What about increased competition from air travel in the last few years, hasn't the new kid on the block Wizz Air, which incidentally has offered employment to sacked P&O employees, not had any effect?
And what would have happened to P&O Ferries if unlike other countries such as France the UK didn't have pisspoor employment protection laws? Should we be thanking the Tories and New Labour for saving P&O Ferries?
Btw DP World are so skint that they can't pay the £146m they owe the seafarers pension fund and British taxpayers might have to pay it for them. But strangely enough they have enough money to spunk £100m sponsoring golf.
The Hull-Rotterdam route is back up and running. Pride of Hull left Hull @20:00 tonight presumably with her new crew.
“Are you in this mess because you don’t know what you are doing, or are you just a shameless criminal?”
Both? He knows his (parent) company can afford to break the law, and has the ear of government to help reduce the impact on them of breaking the law.
There is still plenty of trade with the EU taking place, regardless of Brexit:
From 2019-2020 the truck volumes through Dover didn't drop that much (we've already covered this). 2020 - the passenger numbers bombed in Dover and Hull, but I think they will recover this summer, assuming no CV19 disasters.
What has changed is Irish trucks to the EU now going direct, rather than through the UK.
Why P&O are making such a mess of this, I really don't know. It seems like they're applying an operating model from commercial shipping to Ferries. They're alienating everyone, just to save a few quid in the short term. Why not come up with a better strategy to recover the passenger volumes after Covid? Surely that would give enough revenue to cover their wage bill 'as-is'.
Well, would you believe it… the original changes to regulations to allow the fire and rehire ferry workers on cheaper contracts came from the nasty Tories Labour:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jun/14/uk.tradeunions
“ 'The issue has even touched Cherie Blair, who 18 months ago launched the £90m luxury cruise ferry, the Pride of Hull, for P & O North Sea Ferries Hull-Rotterdam run.
The boat replaced an all-British crew ferry, the Norsea, with one employing Filipino labour in the engine room at little more than £2 an hour for a 192 hour month.'”
Here's one quote that you've missed out cheddar:
"More than 110 Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs - backed by the TUC and the RMT and TGWU unions - have protested at the move....."
So where were the Tory protests? Since you obviously want to use this thread to defend the Tories.
And perhaps you missed this comment I made a few posts up there ^^
And what would have happened to P&O Ferries if unlike other countries such as France the UK didn’t have pisspoor employment protection laws? Should we be thanking the Tories and New Labour for saving P&O Ferries?
I think it is a well established fact that not much distinguished New Labour from the Tories. You highlighting that fact is no great revelation.
Peter Hebblethwaite has knackered the gagging of the workforce with his commons performance. Any withholding of redundancy payments due to talking with the press (as was alleged by a seafarer) will just lead to a no contest tribunal or court case for compensation and the possibility of unlimited payments. Not very astute at all.
Was I the only one wondering how many multiples of his new workers annual salary his ostentatious watch cost?
Will P&O ferries still be in business by the summer?
We booked tickets for the summer of 2020 using the Tesco club offer and the credit was rolled from 2020 to 2021 when we didn't use it. We then couldn't travel in 2021 so the credit was rolled again.
I booked tickets in February for this summer. I rang yesterday after that outrageous display by the CEO to see if I could cancel. I could cancel but obviously can't 'launder' clubcard credit for cash so I'd only ever get a credit note to use in the future.
So it looks like we have to hold our noses and travel with them as we haven't got the money to book with DFDS and just lose the P&O credit.
I wonder what would happen if they did go pop, would my insurance cover the credit I wonder?
The woman in the call centre was really nice and helpful so at least she's still got a job!
And yes, I know, I'm very lucky to be thinking about a summer holiday rather then having my job whisked away from under me!
Was I the only one wondering how many multiples of his new workers annual salary his ostentatious watch cost?
I suspect it would have been multiples of most of his old workers as well.
Isnt it odd how they never think of offshoring the most expensive staff.
Isnt it odd how they never think of offshoring the most expensive staff.
Ummm I think you'll find they're that expensive because you need to pay that much to ensure you attract and retain the kind of talent and decision making skills you need to increase revenue and provide maximum shareholder return on a quarterly basis.
In other words, it takes a lot of money to make decisions this stupid.
I wonder what would happen if they did go pop, would my insurance cover the credit I wonder?
Pretty sure it would. We've got a Rotterdam to Hull booked for 10th April and not sure if it'll be running or not. It is running at the moment but unsure if the Sunday crossing will change to a Saturday.
If I hadn't bought the cheap crossing I'd cancel now and get my money back, but if it's running we'll have to use it, as I'm not giving them £300 for nothing!
I'f it gets changed or cancelled I'll just claim on my insurance and get the Amsterdam - Newcastle DFDS instead.
We had a semi flexible ticket for Hull to Rotterdam, so managed to cancel and get most of it refunded. Booked with Stena from Harwich instead. Travelling with the dog and already have an 8 hour drive the other side so alternatives are limited. We were in two minds whether to wait and see but would have lost more if cancelling later and seeing as they seem to only be confirming cancellations on the day I'm really glad we took the hit now.
Given DP worlds contracts with the govt could be under review, maybe he’s been offered a nice package to be the fall guy? DP world can blame a rogue CEO and carry on as normal.
The P&O boss that was being questioned by that select committee yesterday explicitly admitted breaking the law. I'm sure parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to non-MP's or outside the main chambers, so presumably someone will be prosecuting him??
I’m sure parliamentary privilege doesn’t apply to non-MP’s or outside the main chambers, so presumably someone will be prosecuting him??
Was he admitting to breaking UK law though? My understanding was that the law had been amended recently to comply with a EU directive and DP World now had a legal obligation to inform countries where their ships are registered, such as Cyprus.
so presumably someone will be prosecuting him??
Do you know how weak UK employment law is? There's just a financial implication for the company if the law can be shown to be broken (which has been pre-empted by the proposed payouts)... there is no legal come back on any individual, the cost of breaking this kind of law (in this case not consulting with unions) is easily shrugged off by a company like D P World (who, let us not forget, the government's low regulation low tax freeport plan depends on).
Pretty sure it would. We’ve got a Rotterdam to Hull booked for 10th April and not sure if it’ll be running or not. It is running at the moment but unsure if the Sunday crossing will change to a Saturday.
Rotterdam-Hull on 10 April is pride of Rotterdam so should be running (we are booked on the pride of hull on the 9th which is more iffy and wondering whether we'll end up on a different route or moved to the sundy).
It looks like our outbound leg on Wednesday will be fine as it is pride of Rotterdam, the timing of this all happening was crap for us because on our ticket we didn't get any refund if we cancelled less than 14 days in advance, so have had to hold tight and wait to see what happens. We could have changed it to other dates (we were planning another trip later in the year anyway) but didn't want to risk them going pop/pulling the route further down the line.
It’s apparently what he said.
Yes I knew that he had admitted to breaking the law but I wasn't sure if he was admitting to breaking UK law. Can DP World be prosecuted in the UK or would it have to be in the country the ship is registered?
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60849957
However, Tim Tyndall, employment partner at Keystone Law, told the BBC the law had changed in 2018 due to the implementation of an EU directive. Chris Grayling was the Secretary of State for Transport from 2016 to 2019 when the change was made.
Firms no longer need to inform the UK government about mass dismissals but instead must tell the governments of the countries where boats are registered, he said.
In the meantime, given that the contracted labour may not possess the skills to run a ferry, it may be simpler for the existing (pre-redundancy) staff to lease the ships from their (Dubai?) owners and run the existing routes while they find a way to restructure.
Apologies for just dumping a tweet here…
https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1507320611965648905?s=21
Double apologies for everyone too young to get that.
TBF, the watch looks like an Omega or Tag Heuer, so under £10k!
Not the most inspiring performance, though.
Oops...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60881550
Getting part of the fleet 'detained' isn't great look 😀
Sky News: P&O Ferries boss denies breaking criminal law to remaining staff in leaked email.
https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-boss-denies-breaking-law-to-remaining-staff-in-email-12574756
Mr Shapps said he would bring legislation before Parliament next week to close these "loopholes", including amending the National Minimum Wage Act to cover seafarers routinely operating in UK territorial waters.
"What I'm going to do … is come to parliament this coming week with a package of measures which will both close every possible loophole that exists and force them to U-turn on this," he said.
"We are not having people working from British ports... plying regular routes between here and France or here and Holland, or (anywhere) else, and failing to pay the minimum wage.
"It's simply unacceptable and we will force that to change."
"My message to P&O is simple, their wheeze is not going to work.
"We are going to legally require them to go back on it they might as well start on that now.
When this story first broke I was intrigued by what Johnson's reaction might be. As a Tory PM you would naturally expect to put the interests of a foreign billionaire before those ordinary working people.
But Johnson has no real genuine commitment to the Tory cause, the only commitment he has is to himself.
As a populist and a showman he yearns for approval. And he desperately needs to boost that approval after months of negative headlines.
P&O Ferries have given him a golden opportunity to achieve precisely that. Their behaviour has been universally condemned. As someone who isn't bogged down by idealogical commitment I wasn't totally convinced that he wouldn't seize the opportunity and give them grief.
I thought the question might come down to how much Johnson was prepared to piss off the dictator of an oil rich country. But I'm sure the possible consequences don't bother him that much.
We will see next week if all those threats made by Shapps materialise. If they do I will be less surprised than I would be if Johnson had missed an opportunity offered to him on a plate.
We've had years of this now, promise to act in order to move the news agenda on, and then once the can kicking has worked, quietly do nothing... or worse, move things even more in favour of unscrupulous employers (see any other issue as well). The Conservatives have this whole "loud impassioned verbal response, then quietly do nothing" trick down to a tee. It helps when most of the media are onside, of course.
“We are going to legally require them to go back on it they might as well start on that now.
Presumably this legislation will apply to Irish Ferries and all others as well. What is the definition of "routinely"? Can they rotate staff once a month, say to another route? I can understand within UK, but to other countries?
Will be going to Ireland presently. Won't be P&O.
Yes it is claimed that the minimum wage will apply to ferries using UK ports. Obviously the sacked officers and ratings were being paid in excess of the minimum wage but it remains to be seen how viable it will be for P&O to contract out the labour to agencies.
I believe there will be more to the proposed legislation than just that though. It is expected to be before parliament Thursday or Friday so should know pretty soon.
Currently P&O Ferries are losing a fortune everyday as they are unable to operate and with Easter coming up it is in the interest of everyone concerned to resolve the matter as soon as possible.
It is reasonable to assume that if the issues are resolved satisfactorily that the consequences will include higher prices for customers.
With these detentions of P&O ships, is it safe to assume that since being sacked the workers are whistleblowing issues that they knew about when they were working for P&O?
I can't think why else these issues would be found at this time.
Possibly, but the training of the crew I think requires a certain standard of knowledge incuding familiarity with certain types of ship they work on.
So you can't just outsource the whole staff with wanton abandonment like you can with a call center or whatever.
P&O Ferries said in a statement that inspections of its ships had reached "an unprecedent level of rigour" after interventions by ministers.
Blaming politicians for the MCA taking an enhanced interest after you get rid of your entire experienced crew on a vessel which crosses one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world a few times a day is a bit rich. Even more so when they start finding various malfunctioning emergency equipment as well as untrained crew.
At least they 'welcome the scrutiny', apparently. How much money do they have to haemorrhage sitting at the dock before the reduced wage bill starts to look less of a bargain?
"How much money do they have to haemorrhage sitting at the dock before the reduced wage bill starts to look less of a bargain?"
Probably quite a lot.
In his appearance at the Commons Select Committee the CEO stated that the new operating model (maritime crew / intl contracts) will reduce the OpModel cost by 50%. Without a reduction of more than 25% on current costs P&O is not viable as a going concern - that's break even, not profit.
The simple reality is that even if all ferry operators can be compelled to operate the minimum wage (which seems very much in doubt due to the way maritime employment contracts / flagging of vessels works), this would still leave P&O trying to attract and retain UK based crew at minimum wage (low to UK relative wage) whilst Irish Ferries pays minimum wage to an experienced international crew (incredibly high compared to their local wages) with people queuing up to join them.
So what we are now seeing as a game of high stakes brinksmanship.
If the government insists on minimum wage and can't apply it to other operators then P&O will go bust and the vessels will be sold on - with no guarantee that the capacity on UK / EU routes won't be permanently reduced with all the supply chain issues that go with that.
OR
The government accepts it can't enforce anything (vessels flagged in the EU / Bermuda, crew are international, maritime law isn't being broken).
I can’t think why else these issues would be found at this time.
Might just be the inspections are being rather more thorough than normal.
They list:
crew training: kind of obvious
documentation: Might have accidentally got lost/jumbled up on the way out the door or just been the sort of thing which would have been tidied up before an scheduled inspection.
Emergency equipment. who knows?
Unlikely as it would be if one of those boats sank and the port authorities has a even a wiff that some of the new staff where less than qualified to do a task on board there would be hell to pay I can see why they are getting impounded. Although a bit of extra checking is probably being done. I do hope the CEO is enjoying his 40 pieces of silver.
Oddly if he had refused to action the plan of sacking people like that and left the company blowing the whistle he would be much more employable than he is now.