Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
P&O sack/make redundant 800 staff on the spot
Comments
-
From the New Statesman.
“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, Brexiteers 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.
So much for Boris Johnson’s promise of a high-wage, high-skill economy.
23 -
My wife teaches in Dover. She said it was horrible teaching so many girls who'd be going home to such bad news. Its not exactly a town that's overflowing with good jobs either which makes the situation even worse.5
-
Date I utter the word Brexit? Be careful what you wish for.Lincsaddick said:
not just the family silver sold off, the china, saucepans and wooden spoons as well .. there is fuck all left in England for the City to flog off at a discountcarly burn said:Broke every employment law in the book by all accounts.
Foreign owned. Gave the government a good bunch to get on the books no doubt and don't give a shit.
Countries on its arse!11 -
Making the number of redundancies they have would mean they should have consulted (and notified the Secretary of State), I believe for 45 days. So in that respect, regardless of the moral aspect, they appear to have broken employment law.
However no doubt they have calculated this, I may be a little out of date/touch, but from memory not consulting would mean people could go for unfair dismissal, however as the maximum payout is a years salary it may well be for the vast majority the 'enhanced' payout offered exceeds that anyway, but I've not seen anywhere what those terms are.
Either way all very underhand, got to feel for the staff today.3 -
Anyone else think that the timing of this is deliberate given that all resources are currently being concentrated on the current disaster in Ukraine?0
-
Indeed I imagine P&O Cruises, a completely separate company, will be fuming as people will unfairly tarnish them with the same brushSporadicAddick said:Just so that everyone is clear, this is P&O Ferries, who run ferries out of Dover and Hull and other places, and is in no way connected to P&O Cruises, who run cruise ships out of Southampton and ports around the World....6 -
If they cannot employ their current staff and make a profit maybe P&O should shut up shop and not other exploit human beings for less.
As I’ve been drinking heavily tonight I would like to add, bastards absolute shitty wanks who I would like to believe that one day, whoever has made this decision, will ask me for my custom I will be able to remind then of the damage they have done to 800 families and the communities that they live in.
8 -
if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant?Notts_Addick said:
Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?cafcnick1992 said:
Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffsGammon said:Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.
The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.
Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done today.
1 -
I'm no lawyer, but I assumed that any business has to keep within the laws in the country where they operate. Whether they give a shit is another matter.1
- Sponsored links:
-
Someone trying to handcuff me who is not a police officer or my partner would be met with extreme resistance.Henry Irving said:19 -
The British based employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.Stu_of_Kunming said:
if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant?Notts_Addick said:
Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?cafcnick1992 said:
Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffsGammon said:Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.
The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.
Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done today.
Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.2 -
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.0 -
I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
I agree entirely with your sentiments though.0 -
We all share the sentiments I hope but if it is crude oil prices and leases will cutting labour costs make a difference.Huskaris said:
I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
I agree entirely with your sentiments though.0 -
Ten million claimed through furlough
We should definitely get that back.
Thieving cnuts.8 -
Probably a part of it, the only area they can "control" as it were.Henry Irving said:
We all share the sentiments I hope but if it is crude oil prices and leases will cutting labour costs make a difference.Huskaris said:
I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
I agree entirely with your sentiments though.
0 -
Then let’s hope authorities come down on them like a ton of bricks.Henry Irving said:
The British based employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.Stu_of_Kunming said:
if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant?Notts_Addick said:
Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?cafcnick1992 said:
Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffsGammon said:Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.
The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.
Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done today.
Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.0 -
I would have thought it would be hard to make a loss. Its pretty much a captive market bearing in mind we are an island with one rail tunnel as an alternative.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
Also a short while back (I think I'm correct), a Tory MP had a ferry company with no ships. I think he managed to make a small profit while it lasted.0 -
It might be a captive market, but reckom there's quite a bit of competition.
0 - Sponsored links:
-
It’s highly impractical, but I wonder if we could ever get an audit into where all the furlough money went.blackpool72 said:Ten million claimed through furlough
We should definitely get that back.
Thieving cnuts.I know Sunak wrote off £4.3 bn, but I would imagine it’s a horror story of shell companies linked to organised crime, and nasty little men & women up and down Britain who lists themselves as company directors of consultancies that do absolutely nothing who pocketed at the taxpayer’s expense.I dread to think how much money some people made during the big give away14 -
Correct, UK employment law will apply to their contracts.Henry Irving said:
The British based employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.Stu_of_Kunming said:
if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant?Notts_Addick said:
Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?cafcnick1992 said:
Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffsGammon said:Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.
The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.
Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done today.
Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.
These are not redundancies though as the test of ‘work of that nature has ceased or diminished at that location’ is not met. They are however black and white unfair dismissals.
The employees’ recourse is to an Employment Tribunal and they would win their cases, although it won’t get that far - as someone else said, settlement agreements will be offered.
3 -
I know a woman here in France, who is fully French registered, but still applied for and received £10k off the UK government for her UK registered Limited Company. She told us that she sunk it into premium bonds, so obviously wasn't in need of it. I reckon her UK business is in her married name and she's managed to get French registered in her new double barrelled name (she married the woman she left her husband for).cabbles said:
It’s highly impractical, but I wonder if we could ever get an audit into where all the furlough money went.blackpool72 said:Ten million claimed through furlough
We should definitely get that back.
Thieving cnuts.I know Sunak wrote off £4.3 bn, but I would imagine it’s a horror story of shell companies linked to organised crime, and nasty little men & women up and down Britain who lists themselves as company directors of consultancies that do absolutely nothing who pocketed at the taxpayer’s expense.I dread to think how much money some people made during the big give away
I know most of the above to be correct as I made initial phone calls for her re' French registration, before I found out she was a ponce. We don't don't talk to them now.1 -
In the circumstances, the company's corporate social responsibility section of its web site has a certain element of gallows humour about it. https://www.poferries.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility
I'll never use them again. Stena Line must be laughing all the way to the bank.2 -
The shocking 800 mass sacking of P+O staff by Zoom yesterday is Thatcherism coming to fruition; Market forces with no unions was her dream. Companies bypassing UK laws by having Guernsey and Dubai registration according to Travel trade expert Simon Calder. No such thing as Society just Spread sheets and a Dystopian future. Fire and rehire is alive.
I have no political alliance but have always used my soapbox to criticize the far right and the far left who hate consensus solutions.
The Government gave P+O 10 million furlough money.
P+O(DP world based in Dubai and owned by *Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Mactoum) paid their share holders 270 million pounds in 2020.
* The massive horse racing Sheikh has the hump with the UK after his divorce settlement and the adverse publicity in the British media of his behaviour to his wife and daughters.5 -
What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?
I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?
I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.3 -
See 8.27am.
0 -
You aren't.charltonkeston said:
I would have thought it would be hard to make a loss. Its pretty much a captive market bearing in mind we are an island with one rail tunnel as an alternative.Rob7Lee said:
Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.Henry Irving said:
The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
Also a short while back (I think I'm correct), a Tory MP had a ferry company with no ships. I think he managed to make a small profit while it lasted.
Also its very easy to make a loss - When you have fixed and variable costs that are greater than your income, you make a loss.
By the way, I'm in no way defending P&O Ferries...1 -
Me neither. Used them countless times (usually at least twice a year) but never again. I booked the ferry for our French summer holiday via DFDS this morning. Never used them so don't know what they're like.SE10Addick said:What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?
I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?
I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.1 -
I prefer the DFDS Newhaven / Dieppe route anyway. It might be a 4 hour crossing, but it takes quite a bit of the journey and, if you're wanting to avoid Paris, it's less of a detour.DaveMehmet said:
Me neither. Used them countless times (usually at least twice a year) but never again. I booked the ferry for our French summer holiday via DFDS this morning. Never used them so don't know what they're like.SE10Addick said:What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?
I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?
I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.
Assuming you're coming south that is0
