# P&O Ferries told to stay in port.



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

This is not an early April Fools. P&O have cancelled all services for the next few hours and have told the ferries to stay in port pending a major company announcement. Customers are being told they will be transferred to DFDS. Article onBBC news.....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

*Coming Soon - Different boats, different Crews*


----------



## caulkhead (Jul 25, 2007)

800 staff fired with immediate effect. No ferries "for the next few days".


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

caulkhead said:


> 800 staff fired with immediate effect. No ferries "for the next few days".


Where will P&O find 800 fully trained Crew in a few days ?

I wouldn't want to load my Motorhome on board by inexperienced boarding staff.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

That sort of thing is planned well in advance. Mind you it could be a chance to increase your Eurotunnel holding:wink2:


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Good. P&O have never been the same since their Arab takeover.

Ray.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Sit in staff being forcibly removed by men in balaclavas, well we did warn that Hannan and Rees-Mogg's Brexit recipe would lead to a bonfire of regulation, free-wheeling global Britain, exploiting whoever and whenever they please. New offshore owners don’t recognise redundancy protection and will ensure profits are based offshore.

They’ll come for us all eventually.

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Bully boy tactics by P & O as all 800 sacked without any discussion, told to tie up and leave, foreign crew in minibuses on shore waiting.

Then Agency staff going on board and handcuffing crew members, surely that is not legal ? To me, that would be “unlawful imprisonment”? One Captain in Hull (also sacked) has raised gangplank to stop boarders.

No written discussion, advance warning, discussions re redundancy or anything similar.

As I said, Bully Boy tactics and the Government should, and must intervene, such behaviour is surely in breach of U.K. and EU Labour Laws?


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

Seems a very dubious sacking and is ongoing -


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

How to win friends and influence people.

Ray.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

*Ooops indeed*

Turkeys and Christmas voting comes to mind. :surprise:



















Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

As long as the company stays in the current ownership I will never again board one of their vessels and I hope millions will join me.

I also hope the Tory minister who was angrily condemning the behaviour continues to do so. Sorry I didn't catch who it was but he said he had a history of working closely with unions and would do so now. He was a man speaking in anger and probably without having taken instructions from his master so he may well have to clarify tomorrow.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The BBC report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001

This was all planned in advance and NONE of the crews were given any advance warning or written details of redundancy (?) package but can it be redundancy if they immediately employ cheaper replacements ?

I expect the RMT Union will, correctly IMO, take a mass action of "unfair dismissal" and I expect and hope they will win the action.

I am sure that redundancy means the job no longer exists and patently that is false here in this pre-planned action. The "handcuff trained security staff" were given their contract 2 days ago. The Far Eastern workers have been brought over, and presumably given work visas by the U.K. Government.

This has been being planned for weeks or months and is NOT a sudden action by the owners.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Interesting, the parent company of P&O DP World that is based in Dubai and is obviously calling the tune here is run by a would be oligarch who according to the RMT is intent on cornering the World shipping market ships AND ports. 

It owns ports around the world already a couple here and reportedly has contracts to run some of our much vaunted Free Ports that are part of our strategy to become a world leading global power.

Bodes well for their success if they are to be run as ruthlessly.:smile2:


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Could the British and / or the French / Irish Governments refuse permission for the ferries to provide the service in the future ?

If P & O suddenly discovered they CANNOT operate and are still liable for port fees, which I am sure are not small for daily blocking the port, I wonder how the resolve of the company might be weakened ?


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

Well the government must have known about it but so should of the Union and workers. As far as I am aware although P&O is owned by a company in Dubai its still a British company.

"When an employer lays off more than 100 staff at once they must consult workers and unions in advance and they are required to notify the Secretary of State in writing in advance too. The Government must urgently explain what they knew and when."

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/nor...eful-sacking-of-p-and-o-workers-41458731.html


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

From the comments from the British Government today in the House, they were not told in advance or given any warning.

Apparently, it is legal to do so “in exceptional circumstances “ - I am sure that will be discussed at length. The company are saying “they are offering enhanced redundancy packages due to the short notice” but to me, this CANNOT be classed as redundancy it is simply replacing for the same role at a cheaper rate. That is NOT redundancy.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

This is the most laissez-faire government since the first quarter of the 20th C. Undoubtedly they would have grounds to interfere BUT do they have the will?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

HMG abstained from the Vote to make Fire and Hire illegal last year when British Gas did the very same thing. 

It’s the Tories we’re talking about here they don’t give a sh1t about the working man, note their proposed Freeports will also be devoid of any worker protection.

Now being said that only British P&O staff are being targeted, any French staff are protected as such action runs against French/EU workers employment laws.

Brexit Benefit for employers only, it’s what the Gammons voted for isn’t it?

Terry

Edit: you can’t say we weren’t warned, see pic attached.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The Nautilus International union rep was sure that the government had not been given notice. Nautilus represents officers throughout Europe. That European aspect may be crucial since whatever union action may be taken might not be limited to the UK.

https://www.nautilusint.org/


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Hope DFDS can find room for me late April. It's just another worry.

Ray.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Glandwr said:


> This is the most laissez-faire government since the first quarter of the 20th C. Undoubtedly they would have grounds to interfere BUT do they have the will?


Most certainly they will be seen to attempt to interfere whilst crying crocodile tears. It's what they do and here it's explained they could have outlawed such callous activities BUT they didn't. See lower link.

Also remember some of the cabinet have already clearly stated they hold British workers in very low esteem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19300051


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504721640042684428
Terry


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

And for those Gammons that suggest the P&O problems have nothing to do with Brexit, just this………

"Of course P & O's financial problems are due to Brexit, container lorries going to Ireland used to take a ferry across the English Channel drive across Britain and take another ferry across the Irish Sea... Now they just bypass Britain and don't trouble British ferries" #BBCQT

Terry


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

*RMT Shame*

Left with egg on their face for sure.

So that's Exporters, Importers, Fishermen, Farmers and Sailors all screwed, unfortunately it won't end there, who is next for "Sunlit Uplands" delivery.

Can anyone see the pattern here.

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

“Leave the EU to end attacks on workers rights”

That reads well now…..


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The implication in the following tweet seems to be that P&O felt that UK workers could be singled out while they could not treat EU workers in the same way:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504709402653306880
Maybe they felt able to try to face the UK down but didn't want to try it with the EU. It makes me wonder if someone from P&O might have had a chat with one of the Tory right wing libertarians and maybe had some kind of assurance. Seems a shocking risk to take without having sounded it out. Surely they must also have had legal opinions? But perhaps they don't care if they lose the UK part of their business. Though apparently Larne-Cairnryan was doing very well in 2020.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The New Statesman says that Brexit has failed on its own terms. Seems about right to me.

News emerged this afternoon (17 March) that P&O Ferries has sacked 800 workers. Crew members were told over a pre-recorded Zoom message that they would be losing their jobs, as the company has decided its ships will be “primarily crewed by a third-party crew provider”.

The details get more chilling: it was reported that private security guards have been sent on to one ship docked at Larne Harbour in Northern Ireland to remove staff. The Telegraph revealed that the firm deployed 16 handcuff-trained officers to the port of Dover in case of a “backlash” when redundancies were announced. The captain of the Pride of Hull ship in Hull is reportedly telling P&O that police will not be allowed on board. Coaches of replacement agency workers wait to board the ship, while staff who worked on the ship are refusing to leave.

“There are two busloads at King George Dock in Hull of cheap agency workers from eastern Europe who are hoping to be boarding the vessel to sail the ferry this evening,” Karl Turner, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull East, told LBC.

Leaving the European Union, Brexiters on both the right and left argued, would mean an end to importing low-cost European labour that “undercut” British workers. But the P&O mass lay-off exposes this argument as a red herring. The problem was not freedom of movement, but a loosely regulated labour market and poorly enforced labour laws, particularly relating to agency work and bogus self-employment.

Time and again, I have come across unscrupulous employers outsourcing work to agencies that pay lower wages and allow fewer rights to their workers than permanent employees receive. From hotel maids, office cleaners and carers working under shoddy agency conditions, to gig economy workers like Uber drivers and Deliveroo couriers fighting for labour rights, I have reported on the many cracks and grey areas of UK employment rights over the years.

They existed before Brexit, and now it looks like they will persist after it – despite Boris Johnson’s promise of a high-wage, high-skill economy. (Indeed, the owner of P&O Ferries, a Dubai-based multinational called DP World, is also a major investor in the first post-Brexit freeport.) If staff can be laid off by multinationals like this, while agency workers – whether from the UK, Europe or beyond – can be made to fill in on the cheap, then Brexit has failed on its own terms.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

erneboy said:


> The implication in the following tweet seems to be that P&O felt that UK workers could be singled out while they could not treat EU workers in the same way:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504709402653306880
> Maybe they felt able to try to face the UK down but didn't want to try it with the EU. It makes me wonder if someone from P&O might have had a chat with one of the Tory right wing libertarians and maybe had some kind of assurance. Seems a shocking risk to take without having sounded it out. Surely they must also have had legal opinions? But perhaps they don't care if they lose the UK part of their business. Though apparently Larne-Cairnryan was doing very well in 2020.


And as one of the comments on that Twitter thread said, Irish Ferries pulled the same stroke several years ago. The EU then passed legislation to safeguard EU workers. It appears to have worked as several French and Dutch staff aren't impacted by P&Os actions. And as we know Tories refused to pass U.K. similar safeguarding legislation last year.

Terry


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

erneboy said:


> The implication in the following tweet seems to be that P&O felt that UK workers could be singled out while they could not treat EU workers in the same way:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504709402653306880
> Maybe they felt able to try to face the UK down but didn't want to try it with the EU. *It makes me wonder if someone from P&O might have had a chat with one of the Tory right wing libertarians and maybe had some kind of assurance.* Seems a shocking risk to take without having sounded it out. Surely they must also have had legal opinions? But perhaps they don't care if they lose the UK part of their business. Though apparently Larne-Cairnryan was doing very well in 2020.


 No 10 admits knowing about the sackings the day before they were announced, but didn't say anything for fear of "compromising commercial confidentialiity" WTF

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...d-o-ferries-a-new-low-for-shipping-says-union


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The UK doesn't have a government. It has a bunch of clueless halfwits who can't be arsed to govern because it's too difficult. Better just to let whatever happens happen then see what the public mood is and pretend to share it while lamenting that it's too late to act, it's within the law, they knew this would happen but it will get better in 50 years, it's not really in the public interest to resist because we rely on whoever the [email protected] s are.

A functioning government which realised it was actually in government would have sought a court order instantly to have it stayed and have threatened to bring armageddon down on the perp's UK operations. What's the betting that DP World have connections to the Saudis or oil shipping or something of the sort, and mustn't be upset just now?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Ah looky here. The Clown was in the UAE begging for oil on Wednesday. Well, well.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...a-and-uae-seeking-more-oil-output-01647384238


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

C4 have just said that Sunak was guest of honour at DP World's annual dinner last year. He heaped them with praise during his speech.

The chancer Transport Minister was also a guest busy wooing them to run our Freeports. A contract was sealed.

Now as Alan says we see the Crocodile tears. What a fvcking incompetent shower! All experienced/thinking ministerial talent was forced out of the Party over brexit and we are left with this lot and the token labotomised remainer "fizzy lizzy"!


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Glandwr said:


> No 10 admits knowing about the sackings the day before they were announced, but didn't say anything for fear of "compromising commercial confidentialiity" WTF


...despite their official spokesman initially saying that they didn't know!

Another case of "mis-speaking"?

Inept or mendacious? Or both?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Karl Turner a former MP and shadow attorney general says he thinks it probably was legal. He says that it has been well known and often discussed that UK employment laws do not apply on international routes even if the UK is at one end of that route or even if staff live in the UK. He says that the remedy has lain with the UK parliament but that they left the loopholes even when they were pointed out.

That's interesting and entirely believable but not quite convincing.

It doesn't look as though DP World were relying on that loophole because if they were they probably would not have included staff working on the internal route between Larne and Cairnryan, unless of course they thought that since they are such good mates with so many UK ministers and so well connected in the UAE they could force it through.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

erneboy said:


> The UK doesn't have a government. It has a bunch of clueless halfwits who can't be arsed to govern because it's too difficult. Better just to let whatever happens happen then see what the public mood is and pretend to share it while lamenting that it's too late to act, it's within the law, they knew this would happen but it will get better in 50 years, it's not really in the public interest to resist because we rely on whoever the [email protected] s are.
> 
> A functioning government which realised it was actually in government would have sought a court order instantly to have it stayed and have threatened to bring armageddon down on the perp's UK operations. What's the betting that DP World have connections to the Saudis or oil shipping or something of the sort, and mustn't be upset just now?


Halfwits ? YES

They decided to send a strongly worded letter to the Chairman of P&O, so they addressed it to the chairman who retired in December 2021. :surprise::surprise:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504878693432320000
I post this as further proof of my much used statement that they're INCOMPETENT !

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Half wits is twice the level of praise they are due….


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

A prominent Labour MP is fully behind a boycott .......


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

The empolyees' contracts must state under which law they are governed, if they were not deemed to be under English law by reason of where the two parties to the contract are 'resident'

Nobody AFAIK has stated the law governing their contracts.

Does anybody have any firm information on this?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

nicholsong said:


> The empolyees' contracts must state under which law they are governed, if they were not deemed to be under English law by reason of where the two parties to the contract are 'resident'
> 
> Nobody AFAIK has stated the law governing their contracts.
> 
> Does anybody have any firm information on this?


Have seen it mentioned that they fall under the definition of seafarers, then they would be governed by the Maritime Labour Convention instead of UK employment law,

Terry

Edit: https://www.gov.uk/seafarer-working-and-living-rights/maritime-labour-convention

https://assets.publishing.service.g...016_Cm_9364_Martime_Labour_Convention_WEB.pdf


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

As Terry says and as some commentators on serious news outlets have said that is the case on international routes.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

In the first link (U.K. Gov), one of the points listed is the requirement for the individuals to have a signed copy of the contract, and the time to study it, in which is listed “Conditions for the termination of agreement”.

The company MUST be in breach of those conditions and the final paragraph says clearly that in breach of those conditions the MCA can revoke the ships licence to operate.

That should be done for the entire fleet.

Why has it NOT been done ? The company clearly has breached every version of Labour law that is applicable. They should be stopped from any further operations., if necessary by an Admiralty Writ nailed to the mast (good luck nailing into steel !). That revokes any permission to move to sea and yet maintains the application of port duties charges and taxes in the shipowners.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Labour are asking for the advice that was given to the government but its lawyers to be published. There's reluctance which seem inexplicable, but when it eventually is perhaps all will become a bit clearer.

But, given that HMG knew a day before the debacle they could have sought an injunction to prevent it and didn't. I wonder why?

I also wonder why we aren't seeing instant action now.

Oh look. Scotland can do it: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-60806623

£2.60 an hour is being reported as the pay rate for the replacements. Presumably that rises a bit for officers and the Captain. I hope so. Why isn't there widespread reporting of boycotts of these rotten sods?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The U.K. Government is reviewing all contracts too….

BUT, like the Review into the Downing Street Parties, or the CoVid pandemic or the workings of the Press or Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq or any other “Review” 

That means nothing, will take months or years and never be acted upon.

Disgraceful in every aspect of the non-response.

Boycott P & O in all future dealings. They deserve to be forced out of business RAPIDLY.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> The U.K. Government is reviewing all contracts too….
> 
> BUT, like the Review into the Downing Street Parties, or the CoVid pandemic or the workings of the Press or Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq or any other "Review"
> 
> ...


Like the recent debacle over second jobs for MPs, they feigned outrage and promised to put an end to it. Now they say it's too complicated to legislate against it, so it's as you were folks, fill you boots.

They're still attempting to con us all.

Terry

Edit:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1505936977132199940


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It's scandal fatigue. People have seen so much that it has become the norm, quite unremarkable.

I don't credit the Tories with having had the idea that they could do this, it's just the result of serial incompetence combined with The Clown's constant use of the dead cat strategy.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Alan, Scandal fatigue is a great phrase...it sums up where we are sadly. Nice one!

People are so used to the government breaking rules/making it up as they go along/lying/cheating etc so they almost accept it as a norm now.

We can only hope that the opposition get their act together enough to beat the living crap out of the Tories at the next GE.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

What with all the dead cats this can pass too. https://labourlist.org/2022/03/labour-motion-demanding-action-against-po-passed-as-tories-abstain/

The Tories abstained. It ought to be unbelievable but it nothing the UK Government does or allows surprises anyone any more.

Hold the front page. It gets worse: https://news.sky.com/story/fired-p-...g-order-in-return-for-redundancy-pay-12572351

so Shapps is now a senior official, that's lucky, he's not the one responsible then is he. That'll be a minister won't it?


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

It's a shame that it was only an opposition Day resolution so not binding on the government.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I had not realised that it is ONLY British employees that have been fired, French, Irish and other European employees have retained their jobs.

https://connexionfrance.com/article...nment-action-over-P-O-sacking-of-800-UK-staff

Yet another Brexit gain - the ease with which entire work forces in the U.K. can be replaced with cheapies.

I wonder if Peter will comment ?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

erneboy said:


> The implication in the following tweet seems to be that P&O felt that UK workers could be singled out while they could not treat EU workers in the same way:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504709402653306880
> Maybe they felt able to try to face the UK down but didn't want to try it with the EU. It makes me wonder if someone from P&O might have had a chat with one of the Tory right wing libertarians and maybe had some kind of assurance. Seems a shocking risk to take without having sounded it out. Surely they must also have had legal opinions? But perhaps they don't care if they lose the UK part of their business. Though apparently Larne-Cairnryan was doing very well in 2020.


Yes. UK only.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

And surprise surprise it's being reported the Chris Grayling's finger prints are all over P&Os move.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506387627271811074
If I was a Brexiter I'd be raging as to where all the 'Control' we were promised has gone.

Terry


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Information on the P&O pay-outs here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60840467

I suspect that many will be on the lower figure which, given the cost of living rises at the moment, won't last long.

Shameful


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

dghr272 said:


> And surprise surprise it's being reported the Chris Grayling's finger prints are all over P&Os move.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506387627271811074
> ...


Link to the Sky News report.

https://news.sky.com/story/p-o-ferr...ed-to-tell-govt-maritime-lawyer-says-12572920

It just conveniently reinforces the view that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

Terry


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

And every question today about P&O in the Commons was deflected and brushed aside into the long grass.

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Was it legal? https://ukandeu.ac.uk/po-ferries-and-employment-law/


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I think I heard that the boss of P & O has been summoned to speak to a select committee of MP’s tomorrow. Johnson spouted today about unlimited fines for illegal behaviour, I wonder if Graylings signature will be dismissed as “under duress”?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

So the P & O boss ADMITS they knew they were breaking the law;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933

He also admits the workers won't be paid in accordance with U.K. Law.

My feeling is to tell him to take his ships and go and play elsewhere, that the U.K. wants nothing further todo with his company and demand a refund of the £10 million they received towards furlough.

They face "unlimited fines" and admit to offering redundancy deals with gagging orders attached. Such actions are despicable.

Boycott P & O in all future dealings. Only by hitting their balance sheet are they likely to realise how unpopular their behaviour has been.

They should immediately be landed with;

Unlimited fine eg £150 million which was last year's operating surplus,

Return of all subsidies; furlough, London Freeport, Dockyard rebuilding to suit vessels,

Changing vessels names away from British linked names, keeping them would be an ongoing insult, causing offence to very many British citizens,

Compulsory reinstatement or job offer until full redundancy agreed by workers, Union and Government


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

They should feel the full force of the law and, if the other operators can take up the slack, have their licences withdrawn and be barred from operating in or from the UK I think.

No point withdrawing licences if that will punish people in the UK just as much as it does P&O.

"DP World: DP World is a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, via a holding company. This holding company is under the direct control of the Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who is also Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE."

These people almost certainly regard themselves as bigger than the UK and all their business assets, no matter where they are, as theirs to do with as they please. It won't have helped that the Government in Westminster is regarded as a comedy troupe lead by a clown. I doubt they give a flying whatsit what the UK do. I doubt they expect to be taken to task, and I doubt they'd pay any fines levied against them. Unless their ships are detained pending action I expect they will move them away from the UK to safety. I doubt that any European country would act on behalf of the UK to seek to make DP comply with any UK court finding.

All of these things are what you can expect if you leave a club and continually thumb your nose at it.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

But surely they could argue to the government that they only broke the law in a "limited way" which apparently is fine!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

That's more or less what the CEO said Baz.

"We assessed that given the fundamental nature of change, no union could accept it and therefore we chose not to consult because a consultation process would have been a sham.

"We didn't want to put anybody through that. We are compensating people in full and up-front for that decision."

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/po-ferries-boss-reveals-new-23492116


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

How did P&O qualify for furlough money if they are not a UK company and the workers were not on UK contracts?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Office in the UK? 

From the stories there weren't many checks.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

erneboy said:


> That's more or less what the CEO said Baz.
> 
> "We assessed that given the fundamental nature of change, no union could accept it and therefore we chose not to consult because a consultation process would have been a sham.
> 
> ...


Except they broke the law in order to do that.

"I only broke into the house and stole all the valuables because I KNEW they would not approve giving them to me"

I am sure that excuse would go down well with any Court.

The same must be applied to P & O irrespective of whom owns them via holding companies, Crown Princes or any other excuses.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

He says he broke the law.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

erneboy said:


> He says he broke the law.


As I said earlier, as he has admitted guilt, his sentence can be reduced, perhaps by a third, so settle for a £100 million fine, rather than the £150 operating surplus last year.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Do you think there will be a court case Dave?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Doubt it, unless public opinion forces their hand, they will be too worried they might not get invites to the World Cup, or holidays in Dubai…..

If the groundswell of public opinion continues, and it may well do so unless something else comes along such as Partygate, then they may feel they have no choice but to push for one, but Graylings input makes it iffy…..


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

If the government can break laws with impunity then what kind of modelling does this present?


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

OK lads I can see an out for us here. We'll get Shapps to condemn it in the strongest terms and call for resignation of the P&O chairman. He falls on his sword, they offer generous terms to the workers and we all go back to making money. No need to involve DP World and its owners who have all that lovely oil. Oh yes and we had better fine P&O, I'll give Dubai a ring and see what arrangement we can come to. Maybe somewhere close to a million? What do you think lads?


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

As I slurped my Brandy last night watching the TV an advert for P&O Cruises was shown.

Do they really think that the general public would be rushing to book a Cruise with them after the bad publicity of the last few days.

Have any of you used P&O Cruises in the past and, if so, would you book again ?


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Glandwr said:


> OK lads I can see an out for us here. We'll get Shapps to condemn it in the strongest terms and call for resignation of the P&O chairman. He falls on his sword, they offer generous terms to the workers and we all go back to making money. No need to involve DP World and its owners who have all that lovely oil. Oh yes and we had better fine P&O, I'll give Dubai a ring and see what arrangement we can come to. Maybe somewhere close to a million? What do you think lads?


Like it, almost prophetic, the advantages of hindsight…. >


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

KeithChesterfield said:


> As I slurped my Brandy last night watching the TV an advert for P&O Cruises was shown.
> 
> Do they really think that the general public would be rushing to book a Cruise with them after the bad publicity of the last few days.
> 
> Have any of you used P&O Cruises in the past and, if so, would you book again ?


Price point in the ferry market is key therefore if they're cheaper they'll get plenty that are happy to forget and/or swallow their initial anger and take advantage.
It's what we voted for, taking back control and binning EU workers rights, so let's enjoy our new freedoms, there's more to come too ?

Terry


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Penquin said:


> Like it, almost prophetic, the advantages of hindsight…. >


Yep, all so sudden. Still it's been on the cards since last NOVEMBER!!!!!!

https://www.aol.co.uk/shapps-told-p-o-challenges-150228249.html

New minutes show the Transport Secretary was told a new 'low-cost competitor' would cause issues.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

New crew fails safety test in Larne, ferry unfit to sail.

Terry


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

KeithChesterfield said:


> As I slurped my Brandy last night watching the TV an advert for P&O Cruises was shown.
> 
> Do they really think that the general public would be rushing to book a Cruise with them after the bad publicity of the last few days.
> 
> Have any of you used P&O Cruises in the past and, if so, would you book again ?


P&O cruises are nothing to do with the ferry company of the same name. They are owned by Carnival group, as are Cunard.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Was that an H&S breach I wonder or did the company request an inspection as arse covering rather than rely on their own monitoring systems to highlight failings? If the former surely intending to put to sea in an unsafe condition must attract a prosecution? 

A request by way of arse covering seems unlikely, I don't think H&S regulators are charged with acting as external monitoring bodies.

More likely it was an inspection triggered by safety concerns caused by recent events and it has turned up what they expected they might find. Imagine a ferry in difficulties having a who are unfamiliar with it and perhaps with safety proceeders. What is going on in the United Corner Cutting Kingdom?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Strangely though the operate several vessels on the North Channel only one seems to have been detained.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The inspection was supposedly at the request of Grant Schapps who wants ALL their vessels inspected on safety grounds. Others, not tied up, eg in Holland, may not be crewed by British crews but by other nationalities as the sackings ONLY applied to British staff, not Dutch, German, french, Finnish, Danish or any other EUROPEAN country.

But, the shore crew in Holland are refusing to load the ship over safety concerns….


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

Looks like Shapps is starting to play hard ball...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60895833


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Land-based employees on minimum wage have to pay for their own food and heating etc. 

I did not include accommodation in that remark, as I suppose seafarers have to maintain some land accommodation even when at sea.

My point being that they are getting some provision of these services when on duty. Maybe they would prefer to get minimum wage and be charged for those services, but they would pay NI/Tax on the wage. 

Actually do these seafarers pay UK N.I? Are they liable for full UK tax?

I think there is a lot we do not know about their contracts and conditions, other than what the media headlines want to portray.

Geoff


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

A second P&O ferry has now been detained at Dover.

I was at a loss to understand how just one was detained at Larne. Given a comprehensive list of inadequacies due to to installation of a new crew on that ship it seemed most unlikely that any other ships having undergone the same changes could not have shared at least a few of these faults making them unsafe too.

Perhaps having them all unsafe at the same time would have had too big an impact. Sort of a new twist on too big to fail, which really means too important to keeping things going to be allowed to fail. Perhaps it will turn out that they can do as they please and all the hand wringing from HMG is just for the newspapers.

Of course there's the threat of minimum wage but that ought to be a big saving anyway and they can probably charge back for the benefits Geoff mentioned which ought to reduce it nicely.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

It could well be that they are only stopping them when P & O announce that they are about to sail again.

They had announced that the Dover - Calais route would restart on 31 March, so stopping two days before would be logical.

Only time will tell……


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Penquin said:


> It could well be that they are only stopping them when P & O announce that they are about to sail again.
> 
> They had announced that the Dover - Calais route would restart on 31 March, so stopping two days before would be logical.
> 
> Only time will tell……


The inspection is carried out at the company's request to enable it to go to sea. Without the licence they cannot even begin sea trials. It has nothing to do with the Government or authorities as to when the inspection is requested, that is up to P&O.

https://www.freelanceinformer.com/n...y-staff-ever-trust-the-maritime-sector-again/

It is clear from P & O's statements that salary savings are only part of the restructuring. Their new model would allow them to switch crew members around their fleet as required thus cutting down on resources. The inspection authorities will therefore expect crew members to have generic knowledge of processes and procedures and not just on the vessel under inspection at the time.
From a BBC report today: 
"The P&O Ferries boss also defended the company's new crewing model, saying it was common in the industry.

He gave more detail about the model, explaining that it would use one crew instead of two. This meant staff would be paid for the actual time they worked plus holidays, instead of "granted full pay for working 24 weeks a year".


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The response from the CEO of P & O to the Secretary of State;


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508719375234306048
He is certainly sticking to his guns, it will be a trial of will power and strength as to what happens next.

Thanks Ray for that insight, I only know what I read and we all know that the BBC rarely tells the full story….. 🤔


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Penquin said:


> The response from the CEO of P & O to the Secretary of State;
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508719375234306048
> ...


It is clear that the old model of operation i.e. having two crews for each ship is to be replaced by a single crew. How that worked in practice with two crews, with 24 hour operation and sailing times I have no idea or how the replacement single crewing works. One thing for sure is that with minimum pay and half the previous crew numbers the savings must be huge. 
As to what happens next is the P & O will operate under their new regime. The Government is hardly in any position to tell a private company how to run their business if it complies with the law.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The key point is “if it complies with the law”

and that is where the Government CAN follow things through as the way in which the change was announced and carried out has generally been agreed as NOT complying with U.K. Law. The vast majority of opinion seems to be on that basis that the sackings were not legally carried out.

How far the U.K. Government will go remains to be seen, but if they back down and allow it to go through unchecked there will be a considerable loss of politician support for the Tory Government, which may well be reflected in the results of future elections, particularly “behind the red wall” where Labour has lost support.

The popular opinion, against the way this whole thing was carried out, WILL carry a great deal of political weight in former Labour strongholds where the professed support from the Tory Party may well be thought of as hollow when needed.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Lower wages are good for the companies profits, unfortunately HMG picks up the tab for those thrust into Universal Credit claims.

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Schapps has replied to the CEO calling him a “pirate of the high seas” and accused him of “disgracefully shredding the reputation of P & O”

So, it looks like the war of words will continue and the Government has said it will introduce new legislation “tomorrow or Thursday”.

The CEO says he will neither back down, or resign. Previously the Government has threatened to have him, and perhaps the whole Board of P. & 0 declared unfit to be Directors and banning them for life from such positions.

Watch this space ?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Precious that anyone from the government calls anyone else unfit.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

“Do as I say, not as I do.”


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

DFDS at it now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/po-scandal-sparks-race-bottom-26563742


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

That will compel Schapps to do what he said he would and stop P & O operating as it wishes.

IF they have the power and the will to take on P & O.

And that question must be answered tomorrow as Thursday is too late, the company deadline expires.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

barryd said:


> DFDS at it now.
> 
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/po-scandal-sparks-race-bottom-26563742


aah Bisto Brexit except Brexit was to push all wages up wasn't it?

What's gone wrong?

Were they lying AGAIN?

Terry


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

The ferry business is a murky world. Irish Ferries already use the same employment model that P&O wish to adopt. 

" P&O's owner - DP World - had warned Mr Shapps that Irish Ferries was a new "low-cost competitor" that would pose a challenge to the business, when minutes from a meeting in November were published."

Transport Minister Robert Courts said in a letter to the RMT union in 2021 "The Irish Ferries vessel is not flagged in the UK, it will be operating on an international route and it will spend as much time in the territorial waters of France as in those of the UK."
"He added that because the vessel was registered in Cyprus, he assumed that the seafarers on the ship were covered by collective bargaining between Cypriot shipowners and Cypriot unions."

I wonder how long it will be before other companies such as Brittany Ferries come under financial pressure to compete? It would be interesting to know the employment model used on the Ireland to EU routes that have multiplied since Brexit.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

barryd said:


> DFDS at it now.
> 
> https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/po-scandal-sparks-race-bottom-26563742


DFDS are issuing a warning of the effect of the new P & O employment model on their business in exactly the same way that P & O did in 2021 with regard to the Irish Ferries employment model on theirs. It is strange that there was no public fuss made when Irish Ferries started to use the model despite warnings from P&O and the RMT.

"Research by Facts4EU demonstrates that the all too familiar refrain of blaming Brexit for the latest calamity is wildly misplaced. Instead, it is the polar-opposite of the truth. As this report explains, British employment law is tighter than EU law and it was under EU rules that Irish Ferries sacked mariners in 2005 in a very similar manner"
https://facts4eu.org/news/2022_mar_eu_sackings_law

"Eamonn Rothwell, CEO of Irish Ferries' owners ICG told the Irish Times on 1st October 2005: "The ferry sector has responded by lowering its labour cost base, with 95 per cent of all ships using Irish ports now using outsourced crews, most of which are flying non-EU flags. Some use non-EU crews at even lower costs than EU staffing."


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The schedule for the House of Commons includes for today a Ministerial statement on “Measures responding to P & O” so it is possible that Grant Schapps may be going to force his measures through, if not DFDS have said that they will be doing the same “to maintain a level playing field”.

That statement comes 3rd after PMQ’s.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Penquin said:


> The schedule for the House of Commons includes for today a Ministerial statement on "Measures responding to P & O" so it is possible that Grant Schapps may be going to force his measures through, if not DFDS have said that they will be doing the same "to maintain a level playing field".
> 
> That statement comes 3rd after PMQ's.


The level playing field does not exist - it has already been blown out of the water as this Parliamentary Early Day Motion on the Safety and Employment on cross channel ferries from 2021 demonstrates. The motion notes: "that Irish Ferries does not recognise trade unions and employ seafarers via a Cypriot crewing agent on voyage-only contracts which pay some crew below the National Minimum Wage to work for twelve hours a day for six weeks with no pension provision; is further concerned that the likelihood of a serious maritime safety incident in the Channel is increased by Irish Ferries' business model;"

For any MP to claim they are surprised this employment model has not had a precedent is unbelievable.

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/58814/safety-and-employment-on-cross-channel-ferries


----------



## KeithChesterfield (Mar 12, 2010)

Looks like they'll soon be having a Whip round .....


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Penquin said:


> The schedule for the House of Commons includes for today a Ministerial statement on "Measures responding to P & O" so it is possible that Grant Schapps may be going to force his measures through, if not DFDS have said that they will be doing the same "to maintain a level playing field".
> 
> That statement comes 3rd after PMQ's.


Well that was a damp squib.
"The UK will give ports new powers to block ferries from docking if they do not pay their crew the UK minimum wage."

The Government have relinquished responsibility and expect the ports authorities to do their work for them. The minimum wage is a red herring in any case as it is the two crews into one and the associated working practices that save P & O the money.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60929670


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Agree, particularly when they have given DP, the P & O owners, the contract to run at least one freeport…..

That's a bit like giving the fox the task of security for the hen house….

Package of 9 measures, but in spite of Johnson's statement of intended prosecution last week, they cannot do it…. "Only the Unions and the workers can do that".

So the workers and Unions have now been given less than 24 hours to seek an injunction due to delay by the Government.

That to me is yet another example of duplicity, say you will do something and then take a long time before saying "we can't" probably at a time that makes it impossible for the Union. I suspect if the Union DID seek the injunction, they would be criticised for taking action without the mandatory vote over a several week period.

The Insolvency Service are being urged to investigate the CEO's behaviour and disqualify him, but the Government has no control over the Insolvency Service.

The Hansard report can be found at this link;

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...04-99eb-4491-8a66-bcbdff29e972/CommonsChamber

The Statement starts at 2.08 pm.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

One thing that has become clearer over the last few days is how widespread the P&O proposed model is already being used. There was a big fanfare of how new ferry services from Ireland to Cherbourg were being introduced to bypass Brexit border delays and now it has been confirmed they are running on ships registered outside the EU, with majority non EU crews, nearly 100% of the junior ranks and non of them employed under a contract issued in a EU country.

I can see now why Brittany Ferries are so expensive to use and hope that they will still employ local Cherbourg people on fair contracts and continue to register their ships in Cherbourg. It is interesting to note that in December 2005 Barfleur was chartered for a one off freight-only crossing to help clear a build up of freight caused by a strike at Irish Ferries [ the strike that took place as a result of the Irish Ferries mass sackings and remodelling of their mode of operation].

A murky world with who knows who making the money from the channel and irish Sea crossings


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

No surprise that the government threat to force all ferries docking in the UK to pay the minimum wage is totally unworkable.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...age-from-its-ports?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

It amazes me that a Secretary of State in HMG can make such nonsensical, impractical populist announcements as Shapps has made in recent days. Where are the public servants that should be minding such hot heads?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Don't you think that all of that was choreographed Dick?

Shapps may not have been in on it but I can easily believe that senior members of the government knew what was coming and agreed the script with the P&O owners telling them that some harsh words would be needed to please The Sheeple and then, alas HMG would discover there was nothing they could do. Shapps would propose minimum wage corridors but the UK could make faces at the EU and ensure that nothing ever came of that so that it could be forgotten in no time at all, and they can all live happily ever after. The End.


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

erneboy said:


> Don't you think that all of that was choreographed Dick?
> 
> Shapps may not have been in on it but I can easily believe that senior members of the government knew what was coming and agreed the script with the P&O owners telling them that some harsh words would be needed to please The Sheeple and then, alas HMG would discover there was nothing they could do. Shapps would propose minimum wage corridors but the UK could make faces at the EU and ensure that nothing ever came of that so that it could be forgotten in no time at all, and they can all live happily ever after. The End.


Alan you might be cynical enough to believe that a chap who's considerable wealth was built on selling software designed solely to deceive. That is to persuade potential advertisers that a website had more "hits" by a large factor that it actually had, has taken those skills into politics [and govt]

But I, and it would seem many are NOT :laugh:


----------



## Webby1 (Mar 11, 2012)

erneboy said:


> Don't you think that all of that was choreographed Dick?
> 
> Shapps may not have been in on it but I can easily believe that senior members of the government knew what was coming and agreed the script with the P&O owners telling them that some harsh words would be needed to please The Sheeple and then, alas HMG would discover there was nothing they could do. Shapps would propose minimum wage corridors but the UK could make faces at the EU and ensure that nothing ever came of that so that it could be forgotten in no time at all, and they can all live happily ever after. The End.


In too many of these threads I've wanted to reply................unbelievable...............absolutely unbelievable

Now it's got to a stage of ...........yes all totally believable


----------



## Glandwr (Jun 12, 2006)

Oh I should add that despite what he did he has never actually been convicted of fraud or any wrong doing that lead to a criminal prosecution. To my mind though the fact that he ran the business under a pseudonym would suggest he has some shame. You should give him a chance Alan


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

rayc said:


> Well that was a damp squib.
> "*The UK will give ports new powers to block ferries from docking* if they do not pay their crew the UK minimum wage."
> 
> The Government have relinquished responsibility and expect the ports authorities to do their work for them. The minimum wage is a red herring in any case as it is the two crews into one and the associated working practices that save P & O the money.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60929670


It'll be time to launch the jolly boats then....


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

No surprise from this response either;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60929670


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Penquin said:


> No surprise from this response either;
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60929670


Certainly not in the ports DP World operate.Southampton, London. They've also had the nod from the regime that they can have the new freeports. There's been talk of going back on that but "DP World is a company owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, via a holding company. This holding company is under the direct control of the Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who is also Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE."

Remember that just before the P&O fiasco The Clown was in the UAE asking for favours. The UK would hardly seem to be in a position to antagonise the Sheikh. So a few faux cross words and a handful of proposals that can't work are just the job.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Glandwr said:


> Oh I should add that despite what he did he has never actually been convicted of fraud or any wrong doing that lead to a criminal prosecution. To my mind though the fact that he ran the business under a pseudonym would suggest he has some shame. You should give him a chance Alan


I wonder if this is the same guy? :surprise::surprise::surprise:

Terry


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

One ex employee is fighting back...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60995784


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Very pleased to see the report of his claim, doubt that he will achieve a “£76 million” settlement though…..

I suspect he has a very strong case and any legal expenses may well be backed by the DiT as a way of hitting P & O for their disgraceful behaviour.

The Tribunal is very unlikely to give much credibility to statements from the employer who have already admitted it broke the law, deliberately, and the comments about security staff in balaclavas are backed up by video evidence.

Hope it proceeds rapidly and with a serious settlement. I believe that NDA’s can also be overturned if there is evidence of illegal activity so the agreements imposed on the other staff may be of questionable validity, if the Court decides….


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

This has gone quiet since we have had Rishi-gate and now party-gate has been revitalised!

Another ferry detained...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61086897


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

GMJ said:


> This has gone quiet since we have had Rishi-gate and now party-gate has been revitalised!
> 
> Another ferry detained...
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61086897


I wonder where that ferry has been since the debacle? Not working I hope.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

With P&O hemeraging money since the sackings I wonder how long it will take to break even from their pre sacking position.
They claim they were going bust before the sackings and since then must have lost a fortune and stand to have reduced income and compensation costs.
How come they haven't folded already? Or was their dire financial claim just a sham?


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

This is still rumbling on...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61209894


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Yes P&Os attempt to employ at a lower rate hasn't produced the staffing level they need so they are approaching the staff they laid off but at lower rates.
Grant Shapps, Michael and Green etc are pressing for the minimum wage (as if anyone coukd live on that)
But to hasn't the government created the environment that fire and re-hire is acceptable. It's happened plenty of times before. Why are they making a fuss now?


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Pat-H said:


> Yes P&Os attempt to employ at a lower rate hasn't produced the staffing level they need so they are approaching the staff they laid off but at lower rates.
> Grant Shapps, Michael and Green etc are pressing for the minimum wage (as if anyone coukd live on that)
> *But to hasn't the government created the environment that fire and re-hire is acceptable*. It's happened plenty of times before. Why are they making a fuss now?


It is nothing new: at British United Airways, soon after Alan Bristow was brought in by the Cayzer family in 1967 to slim the airline down for sale, he issued new contracts at lower rates with threat that if he did not get enough signatures by Sat Midnight he would close the airline.

He got the signatures, after a lot of dirty tactics of calling wives when their husbands were flying and asking how they would pay the mortgage and school fees.

He did not get my signature, nor many others, but the airline continued, but soon after many of us were made redundant, on a seniority basis not because we did not sign. We were taken on again about a year later, but after that experience I opted for BEA/BA, who then shat on me in different ways, 3 times.

That pushed me into Law, which I had already started studying part-time. I was then dealing with much better management and ethics.

So these tactics are nothing new and cannot be placed at governments' (of any ilk) feet.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Well they can be placed at the governments feet. It would just require legislation that made it illegal.
Sacking somebody through no fault of their own and employing a cheaper person especially the same person for less salary should carry hefty fines.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Pat-H said:


> Well they can be placed at the governments feet. It would just require legislation that made it illegal.
> Sacking somebody through no fault of their own and employing a cheaper person especially the same person for less salary should carry hefty fines.


Well without going into the details of the P&O employees' contracts, which may have been signed by them with a non-UK employer, let me just address the possibility of legislation as you suggest.

Ships and aircraft have a right of transit into UK ports and airports under international agreements.

For the UK to try to control employment contracts under UK legislation for the personnel on those vessels/aircraft would be impossible, if not in breach of international treaties. Imagine D of employment trying to ascertain which of Wizzair's cabin crew landing at Luton were on contracts in Hungary, Poland, Romania etc. and whether they met UK or local law.

Even if it were possible to legislate as you suggest, are you suggesting that the law should be retrospective, which is against principles of legislation in UK?

If your suggested legislation were not retrospective then the government cannot interfere. The law is as it is on the day.

If you think that legislation should have been introduced earlier then why were you not campaigning for that earlier and not using 20/20 hindsight?

I think that you do not grasp the realities of dealing with international employment contracts on international vessels/aircraft.

I have flown under contract in Turkey, but I would never have thought that, even as a UK Citizen, I could invoke UK employment law to protect myself.

If the employees had wanted UK contracts they could have requested them - and been refused. Maybe the ones they were offered were too good to refuse. Mine in Turkey was (in 1991 US$ 4,000 a month and hotel accommodation)


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat has previously told me that he need not consider why his suggestions may be unworkable because he is not Prime Minister. Make what you will of that.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

nicholsong said:


> Well without going into the details of the P&O employees' contracts, which may have been signed by them with a non-UK employer, let me just address the possibility of legislation as you suggest.
> 
> Ships and aircraft have a right of transit into UK ports and airports under international agreements.
> 
> ...


Its the government making the noises about P&O paying the UK minimum wage.
Its true by allowing UK companies to register their ships with flags of convenience the UK is allowing just this lack of control to exist. So the UK government should just be honest (I know daft to even think) that they facilitate shipping avoiding UK legislation on wages and workers rights.
And of course they could do something about that but chose not to.
Why couldn't UK companies be required to operate their fleets from the UK and be bound by UK laws? Because it suits the government not to impose that.

So yes if you go to another country and take a contract their you are bound by those terms. But its the UK government that allows UK companies to operate that way. They obviously considered that would only impact foreign workers from abroad taking those contracts and so had no care about their rights of conditions. Another colonial hang on from the past. I bet they never considered it could be applied to UK workers for a UK company. Being treated as foreign working staff.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

The UK can't impose its laws on ships registered in other countries and working on international routes. Consider for a moment that if they could then so could the French or the Spanish. Then we could have two countries both claiming the legal right to impose their laws on ships operating routes between the two.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I was under the impression P&O was British owned and a British company?
Can't the UK have laws that apply to British companies?
Their boats should be registered in the UK. That coukd be a requirement under British law.
Why should they be allowed to own boats and operate boats registered outside UK juristiction?
Only for exactly the reason they have demonstrated.


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

P&O Larne ferry had to call out the RNLI as it lost power on way to Larne.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1518957027233517569
Terry


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Pat-H said:


> I was under the impression P&O was British owned and a British company?
> Can't the UK have laws that apply to British companies?
> Their boats should be registered in the UK. That coukd be a requirement under British law.
> Why should they be allowed to own boats and operate boats registered outside UK juristiction?
> Only for exactly the reason they have demonstrated.


I am sure there are many ways in which international maritime regulation could be changed, but probably not by one country even if one had the will to try. If many did want changes they'd probably not all want the same things so agreement might be difficult to reach, but certainly you could start a petition and see if there's support for the changes you want. My guess is that there'd be very little interest because it's just too complicated for people to care to understand.

As individuals we don't have the power to order the world as we'd like it. Not everybody will want what the same as us.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> I am sure there are many ways in which international maritime regulation could be changed, but probably not by one country even if one had the will to try. If many did want changes they'd probably not all want the same things so agreement might be difficult to reach, but certainly you could start a petition and see if there's support for the changes you want. My guess is that there'd be very little interest because it's just too complicated for people to care to understand.
> 
> As individuals we don't have the power to order the world as we'd like it. Not everybody will want what the same as us.


We don't have to change maritime law. Just British law. UK registered companies could be required to have the ships they own or operate registered in the UK.
Now that would likely make them unviable. Much as having tax laws and allowing rich UK people to use off shore bank accounts. But thats not the same as not being possible.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

They could be required to do anything you care to mention but then they'd have the option of moving away from the UK if they didn't like it wouldn't they?


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> They could be required to do anything you care to mention but then they'd have the option of moving away from the UK if they didn't like it wouldn't they?


Yes they could. But I suspect their shareholders would be none to happy at their investment not being a British company.
If the justification of poor ineffective laws and eroded workers rights is the cost of having businesses in the UK what's the point for society?
Maybe we've already passed the point where society and community are valueless and profit is all that matters. Not even enough profit but the maximum profit above all else.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Do you really think that any investor who held P&O shares before the recent fiasco and still does gives a toss about anything other than money.

Not sure in any case that P&O can be called British, belonging as you know to a Dubai based company, DP World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DP_World


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

Then what "value" is there in having British companies if they have no "value" to the British people?
Why prop up profits to dubai at the expense of British workers?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Why change the topic?


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Why change the topic?


Isn't my post related to P&O and isn't that the topic?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Ahh. I must have missed that. What was the connection with P&O?


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Ahh. I must have missed that. What was the connection with P&O?


I suspect Peri has hijacked your account...


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes Prime Minister.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

The French may be a tad optimistic after listening to the Queen's Speech…….

https://www.connexionfrance.com/art...K-decision-to-force-ferry-firms-to-pay-fairly

They obviously believe everything mentioned will happen by next week…..


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Penquin said:


> The French may be a tad optimistic after listening to the Queen's Speech…….
> 
> https://www.connexionfrance.com/art...K-decision-to-force-ferry-firms-to-pay-fairly
> 
> They obviously believe everything mentioned will happen by next week…..


It'll be on the same list as the Clowns garden bridge and the NI to Jockland bridge, or in plain English, just the Bullsh1t.

Terry


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Or yesterday’s promise for support for hard pressed citizens over the cost of living due to energy and food prices “within the next few days”

Backtracked by the Treasury yesterday evening and Gove this morning on the BBC.

He opens his mouth and others rush around trying to close it and then issue make believe tales how we have all misunderstood what was said.


----------



## Pat-H (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm pretty sure Johnson doesn't really understand the Tory culture of poverty for some and opulence for the very few. So he easily falls into the trap of seeing things as unfair and that they need to be resolved. Only to be reminded that the Tory plan is to create that not fix it.


----------



## GMJ (Jun 24, 2014)

This is still rumbling on. The Govt has now cancelled their contact with P&O.









P&O: Government scraps contract over mass sackings


The Home Office said that the P&O agreement with UK Border Force would end "with immediate effect".



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tweeted: "We're reforming maritime law to stop firms exploiting legal loopholes and protect workers' rights". 

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? (black, thats a colour).

Ray.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes, but it doesn't matter. He said it so he'd be heard saying it. He doesn't have to bother doing it. Nor in all probability is any action to prevent big business doing as it pleases actually wanted. Allowing bad behaviour of all sorts brings in a lot of money. London depends on it and with a few ollies having been chased the arabs are needed more than ever.


----------

