Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

P&O sack/make redundant 800 staff on the spot

2456710

Comments

  • Options
    Making the number of redundancies they have would mean they should have consulted (and notified the Secretary of State), I believe for 45 days. So in that respect, regardless of the moral aspect, they appear to have broken employment law.

    However no doubt they have calculated this, I may be a little out of date/touch, but from memory not consulting would mean people could go for unfair dismissal, however as the maximum payout is a years salary it may well be for the vast majority the 'enhanced' payout offered exceeds that anyway, but I've not seen anywhere what those terms are.

    Either way all very underhand, got to feel for the staff today.
  • Options
    Anyone else think that the timing of this is deliberate given that all resources are currently being concentrated on the current disaster in Ukraine?
  • Options
    Gammon said:
    Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
    Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffs
    Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?

    Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.

    The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.

    Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done  today.

    if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant? 
  • Options
    I'm no lawyer, but I assumed that any business has to keep within the laws in the country where they operate. Whether they give a shit is another matter.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Gammon said:
    Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
    Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffs
    Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?

    Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.

    The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.

    Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done  today.

    if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant? 
    The British based  employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.

    Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.
  • Options
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
  • Options
    Rob7Lee said:
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
    I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.

    I agree entirely with your sentiments though. 
  • Options
    Huskaris said:
    Rob7Lee said:
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
    I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.

    I agree entirely with your sentiments though. 
    We all share  the sentiments I hope but if it is crude oil prices and leases will cutting labour costs make a difference. 
  • Options
    Huskaris said:
    Rob7Lee said:
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
    I would imagine the rising crude prices plus a couple of years of significantly reduced trading (whilst presumably having expensive leases on boats?) would be the main factor.

    I agree entirely with your sentiments though. 
    We all share  the sentiments I hope but if it is crude oil prices and leases will cutting labour costs make a difference. 
    Probably a part of it, the only area they can "control" as it were. 
  • Options
    Gammon said:
    Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
    Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffs
    Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?

    Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.

    The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.

    Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done  today.

    if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant? 
    The British based  employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.

    Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.
    Then let’s hope authorities come down on them like a ton of bricks. 
  • Options
    Rob7Lee said:
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
    I would have thought it would be hard to make a loss. Its pretty much a captive market bearing in mind we are an island with one rail tunnel as an alternative. 
    Also a short while back (I think I'm correct), a Tory MP had a ferry company with no ships. I think he  managed to make a small profit while it lasted. 
  • Options
    It might be a captive market, but reckom there's quite a bit of competition.

  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Gammon said:
    Take back control is what Boris promised. This is what was delivered.
    Literally nothing to do with Brexit ffs
    Of course it is? Replacing hard working British Workers with cheap, un-unionized agency staff who can be hired and fired at a moments notice is what was promised by taking back control?

    Or how about the fact the owners of P and O also happen to own one of the major free- ports in the UK. A scheme designed to expand global trade which we need to claw back due to us leaving the EU.

    The government had opportunity to make fire and re-hire illegal policies illegal less than a year ago and they chose not to, instead they just described them as a 'last resort'.

    Unless you make something illegal unscrupulous employers like P and O will exploit every loop-hole in the book to increase their bottom line, as they have done  today.

    if the company is based in Dubai, and employees are employed in Dubai, is Uk law relevant? 
    The British based  employees are employed under British law, hence the enhanced redundancy packages offered.

    Law is that redundancies involving more than 20 staff have to be notified in advance and consultation take place, which it appears they ignored.
    Correct, UK employment law will apply to their contracts.

    These are not redundancies though as the test of ‘work of that nature has ceased or diminished at that location’ is not met. They are however black and white unfair dismissals.

    The employees’ recourse is to an Employment Tribunal and they would win their cases, although it won’t get that far - as someone else said, settlement agreements will be offered.


  • Options
    cabbles said:
    Ten million claimed through furlough 
    We should definitely get that back.
    Thieving cnuts. 
    It’s highly impractical, but I wonder if we could ever get an audit into where all the furlough money went.  

    I know Sunak wrote off £4.3 bn, but I would imagine it’s a horror story of shell companies linked to organised crime, and nasty little men & women up and down Britain who lists themselves as company directors of consultancies that do absolutely nothing who pocketed at the taxpayer’s expense.  

    I dread to think how much money some people made during the big give away 
    I know a woman here in France, who is fully French registered, but still applied for and received £10k off the UK government for her UK registered Limited Company. She told us that she sunk it into premium bonds, so obviously wasn't in need of it. I reckon her UK business is in her married name and she's managed to get French registered in her new double barrelled name (she married the woman she left her husband for). 

    I know most of the above to be correct as I made initial phone calls for her re'  French registration, before I found out she was a ponce. We don't don't talk to them now.
  • Options
    edited March 2022
    In the circumstances, the company's corporate social responsibility section of its web site has a certain element of gallows humour about it. https://www.poferries.com/en/corporate-social-responsibility
    I'll never use them again. Stena Line must be laughing all the way to the bank.
  • Options
    What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?

    I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?

    I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.
  • Options
    edited March 2022
    See 8.27am.
  • Options
    edited March 2022
    Rob7Lee said:
    Whilst I'm not excusing their behaviour at al I think the fact the parent company made a profit is irrelevant to whether 'P&O Ferries' is a going concern/runs at a loss.

    The question more so is why do they run at a loss, I've never quite understood service type companies doing so, either they are doing something wrong (if competitors are able to do so) or they need to put their prices up.
    I would have thought it would be hard to make a loss. Its pretty much a captive market bearing in mind we are an island with one rail tunnel as an alternative. 
    Also a short while back (I think I'm correct), a Tory MP had a ferry company with no ships. I think he  managed to make a small profit while it lasted. 
    You aren't.

    Also its very easy to make a loss - When you have fixed and variable costs that are greater than your income, you make a loss. 

    By the way, I'm in no way defending P&O Ferries... 
  • Options
    What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?

    I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?

    I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.
    Me neither. Used them countless times (usually at least twice a year) but never again. I booked the ferry for our French summer holiday via DFDS this morning. Never used them so don't know what they're like.
  • Options
    What's happened to the French workers? Does anybody know?

    I can't see any bonfires, mass blockages of the motorway or any sunk ferries so assume it's business as usual on that side?

    I will never use P&O Ferries or any company owned by the same people. Poor Dover is on its knees already.
    Me neither. Used them countless times (usually at least twice a year) but never again. I booked the ferry for our French summer holiday via DFDS this morning. Never used them so don't know what they're like.
    I prefer the DFDS Newhaven / Dieppe route anyway. It might be a 4 hour crossing, but it takes quite a bit of the journey and, if you're wanting to avoid Paris, it's less of a detour. 

    Assuming you're coming south that is
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!