P&O cancels services and tells ships to stay in port
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Hopefully P&O will now lower prices!!!
Some people think that the Tory government is soft on big companies and employers and they can get away with abuse of workers.
How did they get that impression?
"P&O’s actions highlight an underwhelming record by government on enforcement of employee rights. For years campaigners have complained of underfunding for enforcement of employee rights and huge backlogs at employment tribunals. While the government did last year announce a new single enforcement body for employment laws after a years-long wait, it left the position of director of labour enforcement vacant for 10 months even as the pandemic had tilted the balance of power in favour of employers.
Rishi Sunak’s resistance to extending the potential consequences of P&O’s actions to parent DP World and its freeports risks compounding a perception the UK is ultimately weak on enforcing employee protections. It is to be expected that the chancellor wants to preserve investment and limit the scope for job losses from other parts of the corporate group. But it cannot be the case that investment buys you freedom from consequences.
For its part, the government needed to show from the start resistance in the strongest possible terms to action by P&O without further engagement. Instead a bungled internal memo from officials a day before the sackings reportedly said changes would “align [P&O] with other companies in the market that have undertaken a large reduction in staff” and “ensure that they remain a key player in the UK market for years to come through restructuring”.
Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between flexibility for employers and protection of employees. But it seems reasonable to question whether the UK has drawn that line in the right place. It seems laughable to think that guidance would be sufficient to contain fire and rehire practices, as ministers argued last year, if companies think they do not have to comply with requirements set out in statute as it is.
It cannot be good enough that large companies only have to disclose scant details about their employment models, limiting the scope of investors and others to hold them to account. More broadly, it seems right to revisit once again whether UK corporate law is too shareholder centric and fails to give sufficient weight to other stakeholders, including employees.
P&O has said it acted as it did after “full consideration of all other options”. It should trouble ministers that they preside over a regime in which a company might consider an aggressive attitude to what are, at the very least, employment niceties as acceptable."
FT.com
How did they get that impression?
"P&O’s actions highlight an underwhelming record by government on enforcement of employee rights. For years campaigners have complained of underfunding for enforcement of employee rights and huge backlogs at employment tribunals. While the government did last year announce a new single enforcement body for employment laws after a years-long wait, it left the position of director of labour enforcement vacant for 10 months even as the pandemic had tilted the balance of power in favour of employers.
Rishi Sunak’s resistance to extending the potential consequences of P&O’s actions to parent DP World and its freeports risks compounding a perception the UK is ultimately weak on enforcing employee protections. It is to be expected that the chancellor wants to preserve investment and limit the scope for job losses from other parts of the corporate group. But it cannot be the case that investment buys you freedom from consequences.
For its part, the government needed to show from the start resistance in the strongest possible terms to action by P&O without further engagement. Instead a bungled internal memo from officials a day before the sackings reportedly said changes would “align [P&O] with other companies in the market that have undertaken a large reduction in staff” and “ensure that they remain a key player in the UK market for years to come through restructuring”.
Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between flexibility for employers and protection of employees. But it seems reasonable to question whether the UK has drawn that line in the right place. It seems laughable to think that guidance would be sufficient to contain fire and rehire practices, as ministers argued last year, if companies think they do not have to comply with requirements set out in statute as it is.
It cannot be good enough that large companies only have to disclose scant details about their employment models, limiting the scope of investors and others to hold them to account. More broadly, it seems right to revisit once again whether UK corporate law is too shareholder centric and fails to give sufficient weight to other stakeholders, including employees.
P&O has said it acted as it did after “full consideration of all other options”. It should trouble ministers that they preside over a regime in which a company might consider an aggressive attitude to what are, at the very least, employment niceties as acceptable."
FT.com
Sponsored Links
And????
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,467
- Reaction score
- 2,148
- Country
Generally the flag on the ship determines the employment law etc. But if they operate in UK territorial waters, They are subject to national minimum wage rules. The only exemption would be if they happened to transit through our waters. So that RMT letter is wrong or P&O have it wrong. Minimum wage rules apply.
btw it was of course this government that introduced rules to expand those who must be paid minimum wage. Previously Fishermen and dredgers were exempt from minimum wage, for some reason.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/779/article/2/made
Last edited:
ALEX BRUMMER: Starmer may be steaming about P&O Ferries and its lamentable behaviour, but it was Labour who sold the firm down the river (msn.com)
Keir Starmer’s Labour is hyperventilating over the ‘scandalous’ decision of P&O Ferries to sack 800 crew and replace them with less expensive agency colleagues.
Before Labour becomes too hot under the collar, it should consider some history.
The maritime heritage of P&O dates back to 1837. But in 2006, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown stood on the sidelines when P&O Ports was sold to UAE-based Dubai Ports World for £5billion in a debt fuelled deal which would later go badly wrong.
It was obvious that Britain, with its distinguished naval traditions, was making a big strategic error in selling vital national and global infrastructure.
P&O Ports, the owner of the ferry company, was vital to the domestic economy. Under the leadership of Lord Sterling it had built up a global network of ports running from the sub-Continent to West Africa.
The UK’s role as an entrepot provided support to our service economy of insurance and trade finance in fast growing regions of the world. Had the UK retained command and control, it could have been a vital part of Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit global ambitions.
The most remarkable aspect of the transaction was that the US, Britain’s most significant trading and strategic partner, wanted no part of it.
Then Senator of New York, Hillary Clinton, fought a fierce battle against six P&O ports, mainly on the Eastern Seaboard of the US, being sold to DP World.
The American part of the deal was blocked by George W Bush’s White House, which didn’t want critical ports falling into Gulf hands when they could potentially be a national and economic security threat.
Paradoxically, the most red in tooth and claw capitalist nation on earth was unwilling to sell, but Labour saw no reasons to intervene even though it could have invoked Gordon Brown’s Enterprise Act 2002 on national security grounds.
What is indisputable is that under its pre-DP World ownership, with a powerful board and a full London listing, P&O would never have even attempted a flawed and immoral approach to cut its wages bill.
Keir Starmer’s Labour is hyperventilating over the ‘scandalous’ decision of P&O Ferries to sack 800 crew and replace them with less expensive agency colleagues.
Before Labour becomes too hot under the collar, it should consider some history.
The maritime heritage of P&O dates back to 1837. But in 2006, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown stood on the sidelines when P&O Ports was sold to UAE-based Dubai Ports World for £5billion in a debt fuelled deal which would later go badly wrong.
It was obvious that Britain, with its distinguished naval traditions, was making a big strategic error in selling vital national and global infrastructure.
P&O Ports, the owner of the ferry company, was vital to the domestic economy. Under the leadership of Lord Sterling it had built up a global network of ports running from the sub-Continent to West Africa.
The UK’s role as an entrepot provided support to our service economy of insurance and trade finance in fast growing regions of the world. Had the UK retained command and control, it could have been a vital part of Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit global ambitions.
The most remarkable aspect of the transaction was that the US, Britain’s most significant trading and strategic partner, wanted no part of it.
Then Senator of New York, Hillary Clinton, fought a fierce battle against six P&O ports, mainly on the Eastern Seaboard of the US, being sold to DP World.
The American part of the deal was blocked by George W Bush’s White House, which didn’t want critical ports falling into Gulf hands when they could potentially be a national and economic security threat.
Paradoxically, the most red in tooth and claw capitalist nation on earth was unwilling to sell, but Labour saw no reasons to intervene even though it could have invoked Gordon Brown’s Enterprise Act 2002 on national security grounds.
What is indisputable is that under its pre-DP World ownership, with a powerful board and a full London listing, P&O would never have even attempted a flawed and immoral approach to cut its wages bill.
Sounds a bit like Cadbury being bought up. Several comments were made that in other countries it would be stopped some how. Craft had already bought Terry's so monopoly rules may have worked. If DP bought up shares of P&O that is not really the same as a gov selling it. They can't as it isn't theirs. 
Corbyn and state ownership can make sense in some areas. I wonder where a lot of utility shares are now. Some suggest in Canadian pension funds. Pass. The real problem is that there is no suites all solution. It needs to be selective in this sort of area. Maybe we should privatise our entire defence system. Iran might buy it.
Is P&O a uk registered company? If so surely it has to work to uk rules. There were some on making people redundant but I have no idea if they are still current. People had to be notified but that was not popular with companies. There has been mention of fire and hire being discussed in the Commons recently but nothing came of it. Were they prewarned or has this been going on?
Corbyn and state ownership can make sense in some areas. I wonder where a lot of utility shares are now. Some suggest in Canadian pension funds. Pass. The real problem is that there is no suites all solution. It needs to be selective in this sort of area. Maybe we should privatise our entire defence system. Iran might buy it.Is P&O a uk registered company? If so surely it has to work to uk rules. There were some on making people redundant but I have no idea if they are still current. People had to be notified but that was not popular with companies. There has been mention of fire and hire being discussed in the Commons recently but nothing came of it. Were they prewarned or has this been going on?
Sponsored Links
