I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
You are entitled to up to £30,000 tax-free for qualifying redundancy payments.
The dividing line has always been whether it is a Payment In Lieu Of Notice ("PILON"-taxable) or Compensation for other breaches of contract (potentially tax-exempt).
Obviously, whenever you are structuring these sorts of deals, you try and put as much as possible in the latter category-benefit to employee at zero cost to employer.
It will be important to ascertain what category the X weeks per year's service falls into. Particularly when there will be a clause in the severance package saying any dispute on taxation of payment is the employee's problem.
The other interesting bit is likely to be Employer's NICs for the period representing the lack of consultation/notice. Normally, HMRC ignores this bit.
But I would bet that any agreed "fine" for P&O is going to include those payments. Which will be a lot of money.
I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
You are entitled to up to £30,000 tax-free for qualifying redundancy payments.
The dividing line has always been whether it is a Payment In Lieu Of Notice ("PILON"-taxable) or Compensation for other breaches of contract (potentially tax-exempt).
Obviously, whenever you are structuring these sorts of deals, you try and put as much as possible in the latter category-benefit to employee at zero cost to employer.
It will be important to ascertain what category the X weeks per year's service falls into. Particularly when there will be a clause in the severance package saying any dispute on taxation of payment is the employee's problem.
The other interesting bit is likely to be Employer's NICs for the period representing the lack of consultation/notice. Normally, HMRC ignores this bit.
But I would bet that any agreed "fine" for P&O is going to include those payments. Which will be a lot of money.
Wow, I never knew that. Guess I've been lucky having gone through life without ever being made redundant. (Yet...).
I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
You are entitled to up to £30,000 tax-free for qualifying redundancy payments.
The dividing line has always been whether it is a Payment In Lieu Of Notice ("PILON"-taxable) or Compensation for other breaches of contract (potentially tax-exempt).
Obviously, whenever you are structuring these sorts of deals, you try and put as much as possible in the latter category-benefit to employee at zero cost to employer.
It will be important to ascertain what category the X weeks per year's service falls into. Particularly when there will be a clause in the severance package saying any dispute on taxation of payment is the employee's problem.
The other interesting bit is likely to be Employer's NICs for the period representing the lack of consultation/notice. Normally, HMRC ignores this bit.
But I would bet that any agreed "fine" for P&O is going to include those payments. Which will be a lot of money.
Wow, I never knew that. Guess I've been lucky having gone through life without ever being made redundant. (Yet...).
I've been on both sides.
Been made Redundant myself. It's really unpleasant. The majority experience temporary mental health problems.
And think I have made about 20,000 people Redundant. Where I have tried really hard both to help those people retain their dignity (as well as provide practical help), while seeking to avoid "survivor syndrome" for those who remain.
Which is precisely why I despise the people within P&O who chose to act in the way they did.
I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
You are entitled to up to £30,000 tax-free for qualifying redundancy payments.
The dividing line has always been whether it is a Payment In Lieu Of Notice ("PILON"-taxable) or Compensation for other breaches of contract (potentially tax-exempt).
Obviously, whenever you are structuring these sorts of deals, you try and put as much as possible in the latter category-benefit to employee at zero cost to employer.
It will be important to ascertain what category the X weeks per year's service falls into. Particularly when there will be a clause in the severance package saying any dispute on taxation of payment is the employee's problem.
The other interesting bit is likely to be Employer's NICs for the period representing the lack of consultation/notice. Normally, HMRC ignores this bit.
But I would bet that any agreed "fine" for P&O is going to include those payments. Which will be a lot of money.
Wow, I never knew that. Guess I've been lucky having gone through life without ever being made redundant. (Yet...).
I've been on both sides.
Been made Redundant myself. It's really unpleasant. The majority experience temporary mental health problems.
And think I have made about 20,000 people Redundant. Where I have tried really hard both to help those people retain their dignity (as well as provide practical help), while seeking to avoid "survivor syndrome" for those who remain.
Which is precisely why I despise the people within P&O who chose to act in the way they did.
Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions.
I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise.
The £300million cost would surely have been prohibitive. The consultation period would have lasted more than 3 months. The reaction to the sackings by union officials was to advise staff to mutiny, and refuse to leave vessels. How could the company continue to trade during a lengthy consultation period with such disruption. So was their choice to either do what they did, or damage the business further by conducting a chaotic operation for more than 3 months? Is it even feasible for any company in financial difficulties to spend £300million on a consultation period?
It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
P&O is to blame for this.
Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?
Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company.
Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate?
I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time.
Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid. In my experience staff that have been given notice do not usually prioritise the reputation of the company that has sacked them, and lets just say that I wouldnt bank on them working conscientiously.
Fundamentally disagree with your last post. I have been in this position about 100 times. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not.
1. "Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions."
What actions would they be? Because they chose to spend months dealing behind their staff's back. It takes months to organise replacement staff, tell key management what is going on, quiet words with rivals, arranging to suspend services, etc. This was not a sudden decision. It was planned for far longer than any consultation period.
2. "I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise."
No. I don't. You provide an honest exchange of views. You provide statistical evidence to back up Redundancy in the totality, and for each individual. You offer enhanced Redundancy terms that employees have a genuine choice to accept or decline. You don't make everyone redundant-there will be many people within that 800 who you need more than their salary. There are 100 other reasons why the Law is exactly as it is.
3. "The £300 million cost"
The biggest lie. It is just lumping on 1 scale everything you can think of, as a worst case scenario, and totally ignoring the other side of the scales.
DP made £6 billion last year. They did that because they know how to make a profit. And mitigate a loss. But not this time. They should have been consulting a year ago. And incentivising change. Unions are there to advise their Members. Which would include helping people to decide between risking redundancy or taking the money. How much is their ill-advised actions costing the Company?
3. "Staff were grossly overpaid"
Well done. Nearly as offensive as DP World.
DP World bought P & O. Due diligence would have revealed their contractual obligations. Then they sold it. Then they bought it again. When you buy a Company you look at exactly this sort of thing. You look at the Goodwill within the Company. You look at the potential problems. And you proceed according to accepted business legal practices.
4. "Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?"
Not in a million years. Only a Barbarian would do this. I've been in lots of situations where people have said this. But not one where they were telling the truth.
5. "Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company."
Yes. Unless you want British industry to return to the Middle Ages. The £550 million looks like a strange business decision. But we can't go breaking 1 contract just because someone has broken a different one. Accountability should centre on these sackings, and the Ferry division.
6. "Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate? I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time."
This is a tricky one. Without an easy answer. On the one hand, the Company cannot be allowed to get away with acting as they have done. On the other hand, these employees should not be prevented from getting their money. A deal should be done there. Almost certainly, one we shall never see.
7. "Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid."
Fundamentally disagree. The only people I have seen advocating this approach are fervent Brexiteers, and devotees of Nigel Farage. You know-people considerably to the Right of the Conservative Party.
Fundamentally disagree with your last post. I have been in this position about 100 times. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not.
1. "Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions."
What actions would they be? Because they chose to spend months dealing behind their staff's back. It takes months to organise replacement staff, tell key management what is going on, quiet words with rivals, arranging to suspend services, etc. This was not a sudden decision. It was planned for far longer than any consultation period.
2. "I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise."
No. I don't. You provide an honest exchange of views. You provide statistical evidence to back up Redundancy in the totality, and for each individual. You offer enhanced Redundancy terms that employees have a genuine choice to accept or decline. You don't make everyone redundant-there will be many people within that 800 who you need more than their salary. There are 100 other reasons why the Law is exactly as it is.
3. "The £300 million cost"
The biggest lie. It is just lumping on 1 scale everything you can think of, as a worst case scenario, and totally ignoring the other side of the scales.
DP made £6 billion last year. They did that because they know how to make a profit. And mitigate a loss. But not this time. They should have been consulting a year ago. And incentivising change. Unions are there to advise their Members. Which would include helping people to decide between risking redundancy or taking the money. How much is their ill-advised actions costing the Company?
3. "Staff were grossly overpaid"
Well done. Nearly as offensive as DP World.
DP World bought P & O. Due diligence would have revealed their contractual obligations. Then they sold it. Then they bought it again. When you buy a Company you look at exactly this sort of thing. You look at the Goodwill within the Company. You look at the potential problems. And you proceed according to accepted business legal practices.
4. "Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?"
Not in a million years. Only a Barbarian would do this. I've been in lots of situations where people have said this. But not one where they were telling the truth.
5. "Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company."
Yes. Unless you want British industry to return to the Middle Ages. The £550 million looks like a strange business decision. But we can't go breaking 1 contract just because someone has broken a different one. Accountability should centre on these sackings, and the Ferry division.
6. "Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate? I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time."
This is a tricky one. Without an easy answer. On the one hand, the Company cannot be allowed to get away with acting as they have done. On the other hand, these employees should not be prevented from getting their money. A deal should be done there. Almost certainly, one we shall never see.
7. "Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid."
Fundamentally disagree. The only people I have seen advocating this approach are fervent Brexiteers, and devotees of Nigel Farage. You know-people considerably to the Right of the Conservative Party.
I am not going to argue further as we will be just going around in circles.
However I will say this,
You seem to think that you are the person that knows the truth. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not. Therefore how much do you think the consultation would have cost?
You purposely misquoted me, I didnt say the staff were grossly overpaid. What I said was, It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
I dont think that there can be any doubt that there would have total disruption to their services once the staff and unions had been informed.
I think the consultation would have started with a P&O statement saying they intended to sack 800 workers, and the union replying that they could not under any circumstances. I have worked with resentful staff working their notice, and it is not pleasant or productive.
Fundamentally disagree with your last post. I have been in this position about 100 times. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not.
1. "Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions."
What actions would they be? Because they chose to spend months dealing behind their staff's back. It takes months to organise replacement staff, tell key management what is going on, quiet words with rivals, arranging to suspend services, etc. This was not a sudden decision. It was planned for far longer than any consultation period.
2. "I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise."
No. I don't. You provide an honest exchange of views. You provide statistical evidence to back up Redundancy in the totality, and for each individual. You offer enhanced Redundancy terms that employees have a genuine choice to accept or decline. You don't make everyone redundant-there will be many people within that 800 who you need more than their salary. There are 100 other reasons why the Law is exactly as it is.
3. "The £300 million cost"
The biggest lie. It is just lumping on 1 scale everything you can think of, as a worst case scenario, and totally ignoring the other side of the scales.
DP made £6 billion last year. They did that because they know how to make a profit. And mitigate a loss. But not this time. They should have been consulting a year ago. And incentivising change. Unions are there to advise their Members. Which would include helping people to decide between risking redundancy or taking the money. How much is their ill-advised actions costing the Company?
3. "Staff were grossly overpaid"
Well done. Nearly as offensive as DP World.
DP World bought P & O. Due diligence would have revealed their contractual obligations. Then they sold it. Then they bought it again. When you buy a Company you look at exactly this sort of thing. You look at the Goodwill within the Company. You look at the potential problems. And you proceed according to accepted business legal practices.
4. "Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?"
Not in a million years. Only a Barbarian would do this. I've been in lots of situations where people have said this. But not one where they were telling the truth.
5. "Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company."
Yes. Unless you want British industry to return to the Middle Ages. The £550 million looks like a strange business decision. But we can't go breaking 1 contract just because someone has broken a different one. Accountability should centre on these sackings, and the Ferry division.
6. "Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate? I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time."
This is a tricky one. Without an easy answer. On the one hand, the Company cannot be allowed to get away with acting as they have done. On the other hand, these employees should not be prevented from getting their money. A deal should be done there. Almost certainly, one we shall never see.
7. "Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid."
Fundamentally disagree. The only people I have seen advocating this approach are fervent Brexiteers, and devotees of Nigel Farage. You know-people considerably to the Right of the Conservative Party.
I am not going to argue further as we will be just going around in circles.
However I will say this,
You seem to think that you are the person that knows the truth. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not. Therefore how much do you think the consultation would have cost?
You purposely misquoted me, I didnt say the staff were grossly overpaid. What I said was, It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
I dont think that there can be any doubt that there would have total disruption to their services once the staff and unions had been informed.
I think the consultation would have started with a P&O statement saying they intended to sack 800 workers, and the union replying that they could not under any circumstances. I have worked with resentful staff working their notice, and it is not pleasant or productive.
Net cost? Less than £0.
Ships that can still carry paying passengers. Staff that would have chosen to go willingly. At about the same cost per employee that they are paying now.
I did not misquote you. Grossly overpaid is exactly the same as Grossly overpaid in the particular marketplace.
Would there have been a level of disruption? Of course. But how exactly could it be bigger disruption that is actually happening now?
I have worked with Management who are unwilling or incapable of managing staff during a period of change. But not for long. That will be the next wave.
Fundamentally disagree with your last post. I have been in this position about 100 times. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not.
1. "Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions."
What actions would they be? Because they chose to spend months dealing behind their staff's back. It takes months to organise replacement staff, tell key management what is going on, quiet words with rivals, arranging to suspend services, etc. This was not a sudden decision. It was planned for far longer than any consultation period.
2. "I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise."
No. I don't. You provide an honest exchange of views. You provide statistical evidence to back up Redundancy in the totality, and for each individual. You offer enhanced Redundancy terms that employees have a genuine choice to accept or decline. You don't make everyone redundant-there will be many people within that 800 who you need more than their salary. There are 100 other reasons why the Law is exactly as it is.
3. "The £300 million cost"
The biggest lie. It is just lumping on 1 scale everything you can think of, as a worst case scenario, and totally ignoring the other side of the scales.
DP made £6 billion last year. They did that because they know how to make a profit. And mitigate a loss. But not this time. They should have been consulting a year ago. And incentivising change. Unions are there to advise their Members. Which would include helping people to decide between risking redundancy or taking the money. How much is their ill-advised actions costing the Company?
3. "Staff were grossly overpaid"
Well done. Nearly as offensive as DP World.
DP World bought P & O. Due diligence would have revealed their contractual obligations. Then they sold it. Then they bought it again. When you buy a Company you look at exactly this sort of thing. You look at the Goodwill within the Company. You look at the potential problems. And you proceed according to accepted business legal practices.
4. "Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?"
Not in a million years. Only a Barbarian would do this. I've been in lots of situations where people have said this. But not one where they were telling the truth.
5. "Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company."
Yes. Unless you want British industry to return to the Middle Ages. The £550 million looks like a strange business decision. But we can't go breaking 1 contract just because someone has broken a different one. Accountability should centre on these sackings, and the Ferry division.
6. "Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate? I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time."
This is a tricky one. Without an easy answer. On the one hand, the Company cannot be allowed to get away with acting as they have done. On the other hand, these employees should not be prevented from getting their money. A deal should be done there. Almost certainly, one we shall never see.
7. "Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid."
Fundamentally disagree. The only people I have seen advocating this approach are fervent Brexiteers, and devotees of Nigel Farage. You know-people considerably to the Right of the Conservative Party.
I am not going to argue further as we will be just going around in circles.
However I will say this,
You seem to think that you are the person that knows the truth. Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not. Therefore how much do you think the consultation would have cost?
You purposely misquoted me, I didnt say the staff were grossly overpaid. What I said was, It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
I dont think that there can be any doubt that there would have total disruption to their services once the staff and unions had been informed.
I think the consultation would have started with a P&O statement saying they intended to sack 800 workers, and the union replying that they could not under any circumstances. I have worked with resentful staff working their notice, and it is not pleasant or productive.
Net cost? Less than £0.
Ships that can still carry paying passengers. Staff that would have chosen to go willingly. At about the same cost per employee that they are paying now.
I did not misquote you. Grossly overpaid is exactly the same as Grossly overpaid in the particular marketplace.
Would there have been a level of disruption? Of course. But how exactly could it be bigger disruption that is actually happening now?
I have worked with Management who are unwilling or incapable of managing staff during a period of change. But not for long. That will be the next wave.
I am very clear that the fault for this situation lies at the door of P&O. They got themselves into this mess.
However, I think that the way out was always going to prove difficult. Any long period of consultation would be unlikely to be ideal.
The mess was created by them having a pay structure that involved them paying their staff far higher rates than their competitors. In addition to this they employed far too many staff, in comparison to their competitors. They were employing 4 crews per vessel, in comparison to their competitors 2. They were also paying staff during times they werent actually working, unlike their competitors. Employing double the number of staff, at substantially higher rates, and paying them for not working, is not a formula for success. This didnt occur overnight, and probably reflects poor management decisions in the past. They claim that their current pay structure and numbers of staff mirrors their competitors. They claim that the UK min wage was not applicable to all routes. It seems that their competitors were already paying lower rates on some routes, and P&O werent. Although it seems that this was accepted by unions and government. The government now seem intent on changing this. Although this will not affect P&O going forward, assuming it is remedied across the board.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Having thought about it, this may well relate to where P&O were operating with 4 crews, and their competitors with just 2. Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey. Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Having thought about it, this may well relate to where P&O were operating with 4 crews, and their competitors with just 2. Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey. Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
I think I understand it now. The P&O system with have involved an increased level of staffing being paid while resting.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Having thought about it, this may well relate to where P&O were operating with 4 crews, and their competitors with just 2. Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey. Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
I think I understand it now. The P&O system with have involved an increased level of staffing being paid while resting.
There are some extra bits.
1. The UK has more stringent safety rules than some countries where a ferry company might choose to operate. Hence the need for more staff. Which we cannot insist upon in relation to foreign-owned & crewed vessels
2. This comes back to the EU and Minimum Wage. Both the UK and the EU are quite clear that, where crew are required to sail back to port, then that counts as Working Time for various things. 1 of which is Minimum Wage. Which in, say, the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany (all the major ports for UK ferries) is a large wage bill. Whereas if you pretend your Crew come from, say Portugal, it is about £4 per hour. Bulgaria? £2 per hour. Cyprus (and various others)-£0 per hour.
How difficult would it be for the UK and the EU to have a rule saying that crew working between, say, the UK and the NL must be paid the Minimum Wage of 1 of those 2 countries? Unless you believe the crew are commuting to and from Cyprus every day or week for work?
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Having thought about it, this may well relate to where P&O were operating with 4 crews, and their competitors with just 2. Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey. Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
I think I understand it now. The P&O system with have involved an increased level of staffing being paid while resting.
There are some extra bits.
1. The UK has more stringent safety rules than some countries where a ferry company might choose to operate. Hence the need for more staff. Which we cannot insist upon in relation to foreign-owned & crewed vessels
2. This comes back to the EU and Minimum Wage. Both the UK and the EU are quite clear that, where crew are required to sail back to port, then that counts as Working Time for various things. 1 of which is Minimum Wage. Which in, say, the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany (all the major ports for UK ferries) is a large wage bill. Whereas if you pretend your Crew come from, say Portugal, it is about £4 per hour. Bulgaria? £2 per hour. Cyprus (and various others)-£0 per hour.
How difficult would it be for the UK and the EU to have a rule saying that crew working between, say, the UK and the NL must be paid the Minimum Wage of 1 of those 2 countries? Unless you believe the crew are commuting to and from Cyprus every day or week for work?
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
This is 1 example of misinformation out there.
Number of ferry operators in Hull prior to P&O suspending services? 1. Where did Hull lorry drivers have to travel to, in order to get a ferry to Holland? Harwich.
Quite close to Hull in the alphabet. But a long way by road...
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
There are difficulties in the pay structure as follows, One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont. So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing. Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey. The original crew presumably rest on the return journey. How much do they pay the original crew for resting? They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working. What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull. Do they go back on shift, having not been home. What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift? How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
Unless of course some of the crew members are able to rest on the journey until they reach Rotterdam, in which case they would only need one crew. With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Having thought about it, this may well relate to where P&O were operating with 4 crews, and their competitors with just 2. Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey. Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
I think I understand it now. The P&O system with have involved an increased level of staffing being paid while resting.
There are some extra bits.
1. The UK has more stringent safety rules than some countries where a ferry company might choose to operate. Hence the need for more staff. Which we cannot insist upon in relation to foreign-owned & crewed vessels
2. This comes back to the EU and Minimum Wage. Both the UK and the EU are quite clear that, where crew are required to sail back to port, then that counts as Working Time for various things. 1 of which is Minimum Wage. Which in, say, the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany (all the major ports for UK ferries) is a large wage bill. Whereas if you pretend your Crew come from, say Portugal, it is about £4 per hour. Bulgaria? £2 per hour. Cyprus (and various others)-£0 per hour.
How difficult would it be for the UK and the EU to have a rule saying that crew working between, say, the UK and the NL must be paid the Minimum Wage of 1 of those 2 countries? Unless you believe the crew are commuting to and from Cyprus every day or week for work?
I think the P&O system involved a lot of waste. They obviously employ staff to supervise the boarding of passengers and vehicles. It may be that these stuff have nothing to do until reaching the other end, when they supervise the passengers and vehicles getting off, and the new ones getting on. It would seem that their competitors will have allowed these staff to rest until the journey was completed, before resuming their duties. However P&O employed a separate crew to rest on the outward journey, while getting paid, while also paying the original crew while resting on the return journey. So on each journey P&O will have paid 2 crews for 2 shifts each. Hence the 4 crews per vessel. Where their competitors will have paid one crew for one shift, and only 2 crews. A massive difference. No wonder the P&O worker averaged £36k per year.
Comments
I can't see any reason why they would not pay tax on their termination deal. Of course we have sympathy for their plight, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks they should be paid tax free on what is essentially their wages.
The dividing line has always been whether it is a Payment In Lieu Of Notice ("PILON"-taxable) or Compensation for other breaches of contract (potentially tax-exempt).
Obviously, whenever you are structuring these sorts of deals, you try and put as much as possible in the latter category-benefit to employee at zero cost to employer.
It will be important to ascertain what category the X weeks per year's service falls into. Particularly when there will be a clause in the severance package saying any dispute on taxation of payment is the employee's problem.
The other interesting bit is likely to be Employer's NICs for the period representing the lack of consultation/notice. Normally, HMRC ignores this bit.
But I would bet that any agreed "fine" for P&O is going to include those payments. Which will be a lot of money.
Been made Redundant myself. It's really unpleasant. The majority experience temporary mental health problems.
And think I have made about 20,000 people Redundant. Where I have tried really hard both to help those people retain their dignity (as well as provide practical help), while seeking to avoid "survivor syndrome" for those who remain.
Which is precisely why I despise the people within P&O who chose to act in the way they did.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/98/international-development-committee/news/165187/mps-confirm-substantial-development-aid-funding-given-to-po-owners/
I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise.
The £300million cost would surely have been prohibitive.
The consultation period would have lasted more than 3 months.
The reaction to the sackings by union officials was to advise staff to mutiny, and refuse to leave vessels.
How could the company continue to trade during a lengthy consultation period with such disruption.
So was their choice to either do what they did, or damage the business further by conducting a chaotic operation for more than 3 months?
Is it even feasible for any company in financial difficulties to spend £300million on a consultation period?
It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
P&O is to blame for this.
Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?
Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company.
Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate?
I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time.
Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid.
In my experience staff that have been given notice do not usually prioritise the reputation of the company that has sacked them, and lets just say that I wouldnt bank on them working conscientiously.
1. "Whilst I appreciate the reasons why you despise the people in P&O responsible for this action, I dont think you can ignore the reasons behind their actions."
What actions would they be? Because they chose to spend months dealing behind their staff's back. It takes months to organise replacement staff, tell key management what is going on, quiet words with rivals, arranging to suspend services, etc. This was not a sudden decision. It was planned for far longer than any consultation period.
2. "I dont condone law breaking under any circumstances, but you surely must consider that any consultation with unions would have been a completely pointless exercise."
No. I don't. You provide an honest exchange of views. You provide statistical evidence to back up Redundancy in the totality, and for each individual. You offer enhanced Redundancy terms that employees have a genuine choice to accept or decline. You don't make everyone redundant-there will be many people within that 800 who you need more than their salary. There are 100 other reasons why the Law is exactly as it is.
3. "The £300 million cost"
The biggest lie. It is just lumping on 1 scale everything you can think of, as a worst case scenario, and totally ignoring the other side of the scales.
DP made £6 billion last year. They did that because they know how to make a profit. And mitigate a loss. But not this time. They should have been consulting a year ago. And incentivising change. Unions are there to advise their Members. Which would include helping people to decide between risking redundancy or taking the money. How much is their ill-advised actions costing the Company?
3. "Staff were grossly overpaid"
Well done. Nearly as offensive as DP World.
DP World bought P & O. Due diligence would have revealed their contractual obligations. Then they sold it. Then they bought it again. When you buy a Company you look at exactly this sort of thing. You look at the Goodwill within the Company. You look at the potential problems. And you proceed according to accepted business legal practices.
4. "Is their claim that all other routes out of this situation would have led to the loss of 3,000 jobs, not just 800, correct?"
Not in a million years. Only a Barbarian would do this. I've been in lots of situations where people have said this. But not one where they were telling the truth.
5. "Is there really any point in fining them after giving £550million to the parent company."
Yes. Unless you want British industry to return to the Middle Ages. The £550 million looks like a strange business decision. But we can't go breaking 1 contract just because someone has broken a different one. Accountability should centre on these sackings, and the Ferry division.
6. "Are the sacked staff happy to receive a largish lump sum, particularly during the current economic climate?
I am sure that many of the sacked staff will retire/find new jobs fairly quickly, and be glad of what may be the largest lump sum that they may have seen in their life time."
This is a tricky one. Without an easy answer. On the one hand, the Company cannot be allowed to get away with acting as they have done. On the other hand, these employees should not be prevented from getting their money.
A deal should be done there. Almost certainly, one we shall never see.
7. "Whilst I wouldnt advocate any law breaking, I think that any law that forced a company to operate with large numbers of workers, for long periods, that had been given notice, is stupid."
Fundamentally disagree. The only people I have seen advocating this approach are fervent Brexiteers, and devotees of Nigel Farage. You know-people considerably to the Right of the Conservative Party.
However I will say this,
You seem to think that you are the person that knows the truth.
Put simply, I know where DP are telling the truth. and where they are not.
Therefore how much do you think the consultation would have cost?
You purposely misquoted me, I didnt say the staff were grossly overpaid.
What I said was, It seems clear from the information that has been released that their staff were grossly overpaid, compared to their competitors.
I dont think that there can be any doubt that there would have total disruption to their services once the staff and unions had been informed.
I think the consultation would have started with a P&O statement saying they intended to sack 800 workers, and the union replying that they could not under any circumstances.
I have worked with resentful staff working their notice, and it is not pleasant or productive.
Ships that can still carry paying passengers. Staff that would have chosen to go willingly. At about the same cost per employee that they are paying now.
I did not misquote you. Grossly overpaid is exactly the same as Grossly overpaid in the particular marketplace.
Would there have been a level of disruption? Of course. But how exactly could it be bigger disruption that is actually happening now?
I have worked with Management who are unwilling or incapable of managing staff during a period of change. But not for long. That will be the next wave.
They got themselves into this mess.
However, I think that the way out was always going to prove difficult.
Any long period of consultation would be unlikely to be ideal.
The mess was created by them having a pay structure that involved them paying their staff far higher rates than their competitors.
In addition to this they employed far too many staff, in comparison to their competitors.
They were employing 4 crews per vessel, in comparison to their competitors 2.
They were also paying staff during times they werent actually working, unlike their competitors.
Employing double the number of staff, at substantially higher rates, and paying them for not working, is not a formula for success.
This didnt occur overnight, and probably reflects poor management decisions in the past.
They claim that their current pay structure and numbers of staff mirrors their competitors.
They claim that the UK min wage was not applicable to all routes.
It seems that their competitors were already paying lower rates on some routes, and P&O werent.
Although it seems that this was accepted by unions and government.
The government now seem intent on changing this.
Although this will not affect P&O going forward, assuming it is remedied across the board.
Don't know if your use of the word "door" was deliberate. A lot of the historic problems can be traced back to the 1987 disaster. Which predates the current ownership.
While they were not at fault for the situation arising, the management have clearly been doing nothing (other than secret planning) when they should have been bringing about consensual change.
To give 2 quick examples, firstly staff turnover in these roles is probably over 20% per annum-why were new staff still being recruited on the older contracts? Secondly, I believe they gave all their staff a pay rise earlier this year-which is both nonsensical and goes against their stated claims. In any event, the time to plead poverty was while the pandemic was providing those big losses, with no end in sight.
It is not easy to change conditions for existing staff, particularly those with more than 2 years' service. But so much could have been done within the law at the very time they were instead plotting outside it.
The minimum wage bit all hinges on whether the employees were on UK contracts. It is irrelevant for P&O to claim they need not be on Min Wage-if on UK contracts, then the need is there. It might possibly have been that the then-owners were considering altering the contracts away from UK-based ones roughly 35 years ago, but political and other pressure meant they could not do so. Also important to recognise that Minimum Wage is relatively recent, and not applicable in lots of countries. Even so, the actual Company had moved offshore-some changes could (and should) have been made. Ship by ship, and route by route.
If the Government sets out new criteria going forward, that might well level the playing field. But it will mean that most of the sudden changes were a very expensive mistake.
It would also be good to see some real leadership from the EU on this issue, instead of the deafening silence. One of the undoubted disadvantages of the EU is that Western Europe Members use Eastern Europe Members to hide behind in avoiding Minimum Wage structures.
There are ways of legally restructuring the business moving forward. But DP World decided to plot an entirely different course.
One of the anomalies that P&O alluded to was that they pay staff for not working, while their competitors dont.
So the P&O route from Hull to Rotterdam is an 11 hour crossing.
Presumably they take a replacement crew for the return journey.
The original crew presumably rest on the return journey.
How much do they pay the original crew for resting?
They maintain that their competitors dont pay their staff while not working.
What happens to the the original crew when they return to Hull.
Do they go back on shift, having not been home.
What happens to the replacement crew when they return to hull, they have just finished their shift?
How can you get away with just 2 crews, and how can you pay a crew nothing for not working, when they are stuck on board the vessel?
With a replacement crew taking over on the return to Hull.
Perhaps P&O took 2 crews on each journey.
Where their competitors just took 1, and allowed them to rest during the journey.
The P&O system with have involved an increased level of staffing being paid while resting.
1. The UK has more stringent safety rules than some countries where a ferry company might choose to operate. Hence the need for more staff. Which we cannot insist upon in relation to foreign-owned & crewed vessels
2. This comes back to the EU and Minimum Wage. Both the UK and the EU are quite clear that, where crew are required to sail back to port, then that counts as Working Time for various things. 1 of which is Minimum Wage. Which in, say, the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Germany (all the major ports for UK ferries) is a large wage bill. Whereas if you pretend your Crew come from, say Portugal, it is about £4 per hour. Bulgaria? £2 per hour. Cyprus (and various others)-£0 per hour.
How difficult would it be for the UK and the EU to have a rule saying that crew working between, say, the UK and the NL must be paid the Minimum Wage of 1 of those 2 countries? Unless you believe the crew are commuting to and from Cyprus every day or week for work?
Number of ferry operators in Hull prior to P&O suspending services? 1.
Where did Hull lorry drivers have to travel to, in order to get a ferry to Holland? Harwich.
Quite close to Hull in the alphabet. But a long way by road...
They obviously employ staff to supervise the boarding of passengers and vehicles.
It may be that these stuff have nothing to do until reaching the other end, when they supervise the passengers and vehicles getting off, and the new ones getting on.
It would seem that their competitors will have allowed these staff to rest until the journey was completed, before resuming their duties.
However P&O employed a separate crew to rest on the outward journey, while getting paid, while also paying the original crew while resting on the return journey.
So on each journey P&O will have paid 2 crews for 2 shifts each.
Hence the 4 crews per vessel.
Where their competitors will have paid one crew for one shift, and only 2 crews.
A massive difference.
No wonder the P&O worker averaged £36k per year.