It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
I said much earlier on in the thread, I am not sympathising with what they have done, but I can see why they did it.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
I said much earlier on in the thread, I am not sympathising with what they have done, but I can see why they did it.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
Do you think it is reasonable for a company that is in financial difficulties to undergo a consultation process that would have cost more than£300 million.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
Do you think it is reasonable for a company that is in financial difficulties to undergo a consultation process that would have cost more than£300 million.
Of course not.
But, the simple matter is that "report" is rubbish.
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
P&O boss refuses to reinstate 800 sacked staff as row with Government escalates
Re-employing the sacked workers on their previous wages would "deliberately cause the company's collapse, resulting in the irretrievable loss of an additional 2,200 jobs", the letter said. "I cannot imagine that you would wish to compel an employer to bring about its own downfall, affecting not hundreds but thousands of families."
Mr Hebblethwaite also rejected Mr Shapps' request that Thursday's deadline for sacked workers to accept redundancy offers is delayed, as more than 765 of the 786 affected people have "taken steps to accept the settlement offer".
He wrote: "These are legally binding agreements, and crew members who have entered them will rightly expect us to comply with their terms."
It is an open secret that the Government has been meeting with the other ferry companies. And the proposal is to seek agreement for the Law to be changed so that ferry companies must pay UK Minimum Wage. They may well get that agreement-as those Companies are currently at something of a Commercial disadvantage due to P&O's actions.
There is an old legal adage that good cases result in bad laws.
This would potentially be market manipulation. Price-fixing. Fun stuff-like abuse of a dominant market position. At one level, fun for Lawyers. But also fun for everyone else.
Plus fun stuff in relation to the EU. There are no rules in the EU concerning Minimum Wage. The ferry ports in France/NL etc (and their Governments) are going to be in a tricky position, particularly France. France's natural inclination would be to oppose the UK-but French ferry workers would be massively in favour.
This should be fun.
When the P&O guy was giving evidence to the Select Committee the other day, he suggested that their new pay structure was in line with their competitors, and the old one wasnt. He also said that they would pay the UK min wage where it was applicable, and £5.50 per hour where it wasnt. It seems that their opinion was that the min wage wasnt a legal obligation on all their routes. Assuming he was telling the truth and their new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old structure clearly wasnt.
They were paying the sacked workers an average of £36k per year. Paying this sort of money would have given their competitors a clear advantage. If the min wage became an industry minimum, I dont see that they could moan, as it would create a level playing field. As far as the sacked workers were concerned, there was obviously an issue, with additional payments concerning what they received when not working, as he made the point about the new staff only getting paid for the time they worked. I dont understand enough of the details to have a proper argument, but I wonder how the sacked workers averaged such a high wage. The minimum wage is £7.61 per hour. The sacked workers averaged £36k. As you know an average wage will be made up of some that earn more, and others that earn less. So if half the sacked workforce earned say £20k, the other half would have to earn £52k. This was bound to cause difficulties if your competitors were paying £7.61 per hour or less.
With respect, it is more complicated than that.
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
P&O now have workers on different contracts, something that the government is looking to change. The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working. If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
You talk about what you consider to be fair. and how you believe the market should operate.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
I dont think what I think is fair comes into it. P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made. If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt. Paying people when they arent working should be avoided. The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses. This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair. This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
Haysie.
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
Going off at a tangent. According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages. I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
It's not a tangent-it is an integral part.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
YOU WERE MAUREEN LIPMANS BARRISTER !!!
No-but I've got an -ology
Anger as parent firm of P&O Ferries handed £550m of UK aid cash despite mass sackings
Comments
The rival Companies have different workers on different contracts. So there are many on UK contracts, and newer staff on inferior contracts. They did not just sack all the UK contracted workers. They just changed some new workers contracts. And are still maintaining their contractual obligations to longer serving staff.
This is very common in all UK companies. To give 1 simple example, I once worked for a Company with about 1,000 employees. For a parent Company with about 50,000 employees. I was 1 of about 40 of those 1,000 who had a Final Salary Pension Scheme.
The sacked workers earned an average of £36k, and were very obviously being paid when not actually working.
If a company is paying such high wages to so many workers, and paying them when they are not working, it is not difficult to point to why they would find it difficult to compete with other companies that are paying £7.61 per hour or less.
I talk about what I consider to be the legal considerations. With about 30 years experience of advising Companies exactly like P&O what they can, and cannot, do.
They won't be going to the "what Haysie considers to be fair" Court.
P&O has made substantial losses, and had no future unless changes were made.
If the new pay structure is in line with their competitors, the old one clearly wasnt.
Paying people when they arent working should be avoided.
The new pay structure will create more of a level playing field with their competitors, and dramatically reduce their losses.
This is nothing to do with what Haysie thinks is fair.
This is a plan that was put in place by much cleverer people than me.
I find it difficult to understand how they got from a minimum wage of £7.61 per hour, to end up paying 800 workers an average of £36 per year.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-03-27/p-and-o-predicted-309m-cost-to-consult-with-staff-ahead-of-surprise-sackings
You are a lovely guy. With lots of opinions.Many of which (no, most of which) I share.
But on this occasion you are wrong.
P&O's owners had already had 100 million reasons to engage with their staff. To take various legal manoeuvres which would have gradually changed their business.
They chose not to. To lie to their workers. To spend months planning behind their backs. And treat them like worthless slaves, in a manner that would have been seen as barbaric in the 19th Century.
This was a plan put in place by people who are either much, much more stupid than me. Or ones with breathtaking arrogance, coupled with a total disregard for the norms of not only the Rule of Law, but also the sort of decision-making that has no place in a civilised society. And I'm going for the latter.
Why? Because I have given legal advice to lots of companies in this exact same position. And their legal advisers are much, much cleverer than me. And I am pretty sure I know exactly what their advice was. Confirmed by their subsequent deafening silence.
I just can't believe they actually did it.
According to the article I just posted, 90% of the sacked workers are proceeding with their severance packages.
I wonder how many still want their jobs back.
That report would not have been seen by their UK Lawyers-or, if it was, they are in trouble.
6 months ago they should have been talking to the Unions/Staff. Being upfront. Saying stuff like-who wants a big redundancy package way in excess of legal minimums, and who wants to stay. And achieved all their goals consensually, legally, quicker, and less expensively.
Not going to mention any I have been involved in. But most of us know someone who got a big pay-off from BT some years ago...
But, the simple matter is that "report" is rubbish.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/travel/p-o-ferries-new-legislation-could-lead-to-company-shut-down-with-loss-of-2-000-jobs/ar-AAVzokf?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=ecadaceff9114b038596c7c04c2a165b
Re-employing the sacked workers on their previous wages would "deliberately cause the company's collapse, resulting in the irretrievable loss of an additional 2,200 jobs", the letter said.
"I cannot imagine that you would wish to compel an employer to bring about its own downfall, affecting not hundreds but thousands of families."
Mr Hebblethwaite also rejected Mr Shapps' request that Thursday's deadline for sacked workers to accept redundancy offers is delayed, as more than 765 of the 786 affected people have "taken steps to accept the settlement offer".
He wrote: "These are legally binding agreements, and crew members who have entered them will rightly expect us to comply with their terms."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/p-o-boss-refuses-to-reinstate-800-sacked-staff-as-row-with-government-escalates/ar-AAVCfHc?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=85dc0b6ff89248b0a951a33a5fe4411d
Anger as parent firm of P&O Ferries handed £550m of UK aid cash despite mass sackings
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anger-as-parent-firm-of-p-o-ferries-handed-550m-of-uk-aid-cash-despite-mass-sackings/ar-AAVKugE?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=7820a0103e6c427cb2f06a2060f439a0
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/sacked-p-o-staff-could-face-double-whammy-of-being-forced-to-pay-tax-on-termination-deals/ar-AAVMauU?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a62b3800014b490c866db4745ed32290
Absolutely nothing to see in that article-it's just an advert pretending to be new ground.