P&O Ferries make 800 British Workers Redundant

You appear to be ignoring the fact the parent company made increased profits from the previous year, which would have covered the loss three times over…

You seem to make a habit of trying to defend the indefensible in a number of threads…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You appear to be ignoring the fact the parent company made increased profits from the previous year, which would have covered the loss three times over…

You seem to make a habit of trying to defend the indefensible in a number of threads…

But the issue is that P&O Ferries is making a loss. No parent company is going to put up with one of its businesses making a loss. Either something must be done about the losses or the company that is unviable has to go.

That said, P&O Ferries have acted despicably in this case. But let us be in no doubt, being employed in a loss making company is not the best place to be.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

But the issue is that P&O Ferries is making a loss.

No it isnt, and Im getting tired of this thread being dragged off topic.

The issue is that they sacked 800 workers without [apparently] following proper procedures, whatever their reason for doing so.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

No it isnt, and Im getting tired of this thread being dragged off topic.

The issue is that they sacked 800 workers without [apparently] following proper procedures, whatever their reason for doing so.

Paul's right - the issue is not the corporate bottom line, it is the people involved, citizens of this country who deserve better.

[nomadking]

So people would be happy if the company where they worked, was put out of business, just because their competitors had "sugar daddies" that could constantly subsidise those competitors and charge lower prices? No doubt they would be screaming out for a law to prevent that from happening.
P&O has had job losses before, so they would likely to have had dealing with the unions before. They would've known whether it would be pointless to have further negotiations.

So you would be happy if they lined up all the workers, shot them, then dumped their bodies in the harbours?

(See, I can do extreme unrealistic scenarios as well…)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you would be happy if they lined up all the workers, shot them, then dumped their bodies in the harbours?

(See, I can do extreme unrealistic scenarios as well…)

How is companies being unfairly propped up by "sugar daddies" unrealistic?
It happens. A good example is Football. They introduced rules(laws) to combat the unfairness.
People are implying that a parent company should repeatedly prop up a company.

They have 2 main options, increase prices and risk people taking their business elsewhere, or decrease costs.

Originally Posted by Paul

No it isnt, and Im getting tired of this thread being dragged off topic.

The issue is that they sacked 800 workers without [apparently] following proper procedures, whatever their reason for doing so.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

How is companies being unfairly propped up by "sugar daddies" unrealistic?
It happens. A good example is Football. They introduced rules(laws) to combat the unfairness.
People are implying that a parent company should repeatedly prop up a company.

They have 2 main options, increase prices and risk people taking their business elsewhere, or decrease costs.

And possibly face the fact that possible customers might just think that using the company might be a mistake and look around for a company that treats it's workers and customers fairly.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Paul

No it isnt, and Im getting tired of this thread being dragged off topic.

The issue is that they sacked 800 workers without [apparently] following proper procedures, whatever their reason for doing so.

Of course it isn't off-topic! It's the reason why P&O Ferries are taking this action, but as we all know, they are doing it the wrong way.

There are some on this forum who seem to think that as long as the parent company is profitable, the losses made by a business don't need to be addressed. That is naive in the extreme.

The question is, whose brilliant idea was it to disregard the law in this way and who thought that they could get away with it? I don't think anyone on here is defending the company on the actions they have taken. This will cost them dearly in the courts, and it didn't have to come to that.

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy

:


And possibly face the fact that possible customers might just think that using the company might be a mistake and look around for a company that treats it's workers and customers fairly.

I agree. Who would want to work for them now? This is a massive own goal.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Maggy

And possibly face the fact that possible customers might just think that using the company might be a mistake and look around for a company that treats it's workers and customers fairly.

I think you'll find that 98.37%* of people wanting a quick ferry trip won't actually give two hoots




*figure may not be accurate, no Government or independent polls were consulted, neither were facebook, twitter, tiktok or snapchat used to obtain a figure that is simply my opinion of how things are . . and always will be.

Originally Posted by nomadking

How is companies being unfairly propped up by "sugar daddies" unrealistic?
It happens. A good example is Football. They introduced rules(laws) to combat the unfairness.
People are implying that a parent company should repeatedly prop up a company.

They have 2 main options, increase prices and risk people taking their business elsewhere, or decrease costs.

Originally Posted by Paul

No it isnt, and Im getting tired of this thread being dragged off topic.

The issue is that they sacked 800 workers without [apparently] following proper procedures, whatever their reason for doing so.

[nomadking]

As is all too often, too many people want to dodge underlying reasons for something, and don't suggest valid, workable alternatives.

The valid workable alternatives existed - P&O Ferries decided not to use them in the U.K.

Strange how all the Irish and French workers in the same company are still employed…

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The valid workable alternatives existed - P&O Ferries decided not to use them in the U.K.

Strange how all the Irish and French workers in the same company are still employed…

Are you suggesting it could be a Brexit thing?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The valid workable alternatives existed - P&O Ferries decided not to use them in the U.K.

Strange how all the Irish and French workers in the same company are still employed…

And many of them were shoreside workers? IE resident in Ireland or France.
So what are these valid, workable alternatives?