Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
You'll certainly get a migraine if you engage with @HAYSIE
Not really been following this story as don't tend to follow the news and apologies if this has be mentioned earlier in the thread.
I read that it's agency staff and remove the permanents? Is that the long and short of it?
Being an agency worker for most of my working life there are little rights so assumption is they can be cut at a week's notice (or at least it was like that prior, may still be the case)
Cost cutting would be necessary for the business which is understandable, for someone raising a family or wishing to start on the property ladder not great for them.
A weeks notice, that's more than the employees got
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
You mean like Boris, the Conservative Party, everyone at the parties in lockdown?
Laws are for us common folk, not for those who make them.
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
I am not saying for a minute that I am in favour of what P&O have done, but if you wanted to be a Devils Advocate, there is an argument to be had. I watched a bit of the Select Committee interviews yesterday. The P&O guy wasnt very impressive, but he did make some valid points. Grant Schapps is denying that they spoke to him last November. He is threatening to put legislation in place next week, to force them to u-turn. Wouldnt he look silly if the company chose the bankruptcy route and 3,000 people lost their jobs, rather than the 800.
The MPs made a huge fuss about the fact that P&O employed a security firm, yet union leaders urged employees to stage a mutiny, and refuse to disembark from vessels.
Good post @HAYSIE. As distasteful as it may seem, it's essential to try to see all sides of these things. Of course P & O belong on the Naughty Step, but there's a need to see why.
And FWIW, I really don't think Mr Schapps is in any position to criticise the morality of others.
Good post @HAYSIE. As distasteful as it may seem, it's essential to try to see all sides of these things. Of course P & O belong on the Naughty Step, but there's a need to see why.
And FWIW, I really don't think Mr Schapps is in any position to criticise the morality of others.
He definitely isnt. The ridiculous claim made by the RMT that the replacement staff were being paid £1.80 per hour is clearly untrue.
listening to the argument yesterday raised questions in my mind. The min wage is £7.61 per hour. P&O said they will only pay the new workers while they work. So presumably they paid the sacked worker while they werent working. They sacked workers apparently earned an average of £36k per year. £36k per year is well over double £7.61 per hour. So did the unions negotiate a deal that couldnt be sustained? What were the sacked workers being paid for not working?
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Makes sense.
I think that it is foolish to expect any company to accept £100 million losses on a yearly basis, and do nothing about it. Although, I also think their actions were poorly advised.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Makes sense.
I think that it is foolish to expect any company to accept £100 million losses on a yearly basis, and do nothing about it. Although, I also think their actions were poorly advised.
If I were a shareholder of a company losing £100 million a year I'd be for sacking the decision makers at the top not the rank and file
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
You mean like Boris, the Conservative Party, everyone at the parties in lockdown?
Laws are for us common folk, not for those who make them.
Those words a few years back "We are all this together" Maybe a David Cameron one around financial crisis time? Still gives me the shivers.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Makes sense.
I think that it is foolish to expect any company to accept £100 million losses on a yearly basis, and do nothing about it. Although, I also think their actions were poorly advised.
It was a high-handed way of doing it no doubt about that. No notice and zoom meeting to say 'sorry but go away' is not good of course. The workers deserved better in that regard.
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
I am not saying for a minute that I am in favour of what P&O have done, but if you wanted to be a Devils Advocate, there is an argument to be had. I watched a bit of the Select Committee interviews yesterday. The P&O guy wasnt very impressive, but he did make some valid points. Grant Schapps is denying that they spoke to him last November. He is threatening to put legislation in place next week, to force them to u-turn. Wouldnt he look silly if the company chose the bankruptcy route and 3,000 people lost their jobs, rather than the 800.
The MPs made a huge fuss about the fact that P&O employed a security firm, yet union leaders urged employees to stage a mutiny, and refuse to disembark from vessels.
Saw a little bit of ITV news earlier on this. He looked a little too pleased with himself sticking the boot in to the P + O man.
Thanks for those posts Haysie. Not sure if it's just myself (in a way hopefully it is) however sometimes threads like these seem a bit 'cluttered' when the daily newspaper headlines are added. I may suffer for headaches and get a migraine now and again so could just be set in my ways.
The long and short of it seems to be that the company are saying that to stay in business they need to reduce costs. They have been losing £100 million per year. This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future. The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Makes sense.
I think that it is foolish to expect any company to accept £100 million losses on a yearly basis, and do nothing about it. Although, I also think their actions were poorly advised.
If I were a shareholder of a company losing £100 million a year I'd be for sacking the decision makers at the top not the rank and file
That saves nothing on the wage bill. If you fire the boss, you have to get another one.
Ok I'm going to go off at a tangent here, what else is new I hear you cry, and suggest that the powers that be use the laws that have been broken and commit the company to financial penalties that in effect bankrupt them anyway. Sort of a "Who's clever now eh?" kind of payback.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
I am not saying for a minute that I am in favour of what P&O have done, but if you wanted to be a Devils Advocate, there is an argument to be had. I watched a bit of the Select Committee interviews yesterday. The P&O guy wasnt very impressive, but he did make some valid points. Grant Schapps is denying that they spoke to him last November. He is threatening to put legislation in place next week, to force them to u-turn. Wouldnt he look silly if the company chose the bankruptcy route and 3,000 people lost their jobs, rather than the 800.
The MPs made a huge fuss about the fact that P&O employed a security firm, yet union leaders urged employees to stage a mutiny, and refuse to disembark from vessels.
Saw a little bit of ITV news earlier on this. He looked a little too pleased with himself sticking the boot in to the P + O man.
They obviously knew what they did was wrong. He was trying to say wrong, but unavoidable. The Government and unions are saying just wrong.
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.
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.
Comments
They have been losing £100 million per year.
This move reduces their wage bill by half, and the company say that this will enable them to make a profit in future.
The company claim that not doing this would bankrupt them.
Mind you I wonder if any other company out there would be stupid enough to enter into a contract with these people ever again. If they have shown they will break the law to get what they want what value if any is a binding agreement.
Laws are for us common folk, not for those who make them.
I watched a bit of the Select Committee interviews yesterday.
The P&O guy wasnt very impressive, but he did make some valid points.
Grant Schapps is denying that they spoke to him last November.
He is threatening to put legislation in place next week, to force them to u-turn.
Wouldnt he look silly if the company chose the bankruptcy route and 3,000 people lost their jobs, rather than the 800.
The MPs made a huge fuss about the fact that P&O employed a security firm, yet union leaders urged employees to stage a mutiny, and refuse to disembark from vessels.
And FWIW, I really don't think Mr Schapps is in any position to criticise the morality of others.
The ridiculous claim made by the RMT that the replacement staff were being paid £1.80 per hour is clearly untrue.
listening to the argument yesterday raised questions in my mind.
The min wage is £7.61 per hour.
P&O said they will only pay the new workers while they work.
So presumably they paid the sacked worker while they werent working.
They sacked workers apparently earned an average of £36k per year.
£36k per year is well over double £7.61 per hour.
So did the unions negotiate a deal that couldnt be sustained?
What were the sacked workers being paid for not working?
Although, I also think their actions were poorly advised.
If you fire the boss, you have to get another one.
He was trying to say wrong, but unavoidable.
The Government and unions are saying just wrong.
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.
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.