P&O Ferries make 800 British Workers Redundant

[ianch99]

From what I see in the news, only the UK workers have been sacked, not the French or Dutch ones.

This is capitalism at its ugliest. To quote from the letter sent to the UK employees from the CEO of P&O:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/u...g-800-23425666

Today we have entered into a new partnership with International Ferry Management (IFM) who are an international crewing company, and they will be responsible for providing new crews for all those ships affected by this change. Our new teams of seafaring colleagues have already joined our ships.

Our new crew are now going through a process of intense familiarisation and training programme on our ships, run by IFM. Only when that process has happened, will we gradually return to a normal service safely and securely - upholding our P&O standards and brand.

This new crew model will reduce our crewing costs by 50% and enable us to better compete and be more responsive to our customers’ needs. It is a model that is proven to work across the industry, while still allowing us to retain service and safety levels which are central to our operations.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022...king-800-staff

Is this “fire and rehire”?

Fire and rehire is a hugely controversial method used by some companies, usually – but not always – when in dire financial straits. It involves sacking staff and then telling them they can apply for their old jobs on less favourable terms. Companies that have deployed the tactic include Weetabix, Tesco, British Airways, Heathrow and British Gas. Trade unions and the public support a ban on the practice but ministers last year blocked a bill that aimed to do just that.

The government would be “dismayed” if P&O were doing this, a No 10 spokesperson said. But what P&O is trying to do looks slightly different. Rather than rehiring staff to their old jobs, it is replacing them with agency workers and saying that sacked staff could, if they wanted, join those agencies.

“That is effectively seeking to avoid having to renegotiate terms with staff and their representatives,” said Tata.

The TUC said it was not yet clear if P&O was planning to rehire staff on inferior terms but warned it was a growing trend, with 9% of workers affected by such a scheme in the first year of the pandemic.

Just a reminder:

(for Tory supporters of a nervous disposition, look away now)

Fire-and-rehire: Government blocks law to curb the practice

The government has blocked a new law to curb businesses' ability to lay staff off and take them back on different - often worse - pay and terms.

[nomadking]

Of course the desired(by Labour and the unions) outcome is that the firms go completely bust. What alternatives are there for businesses?

Originally Posted by ianch99

From what I see in the news, only the UK workers have been sacked, not the French or Dutch ones.

This is capitalism at its ugliest. To quote from the letter sent to the UK employees from the CEO of P&O:

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/u...g-800-23425666



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022...king-800-staff



Just a reminder:

(for Tory supporters of a nervous disposition, look away now)

Fire-and-rehire: Government blocks law to curb the practice

Erm, just before you get a little bit excited and throw another wobble about the UK government, if P&O Ferries is based in Jersey, then Jersey jurisdiction applies. Jersey is a self governing country with its own independent laws. The only responsibilities the UK government has on Jersey, is to defend it and represent it, internationally.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Of course the desired(by Labour and the unions) outcome is that the firms go completely bust. What alternatives are there for businesses?

The 1970s were just on the phone. They said your spaghetti hoops are going cold and can you pick up 20 woodbines on your way home.

…

Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, I believe all the union actually wants here (in agreement with MPs from all parties) is for P&O to obey employment law. Redundancies on this scale should have been notified and consulted on well in advance. It is unlikely they can get around such an egregious breach of employment law no matter how generous the severance package is, and I bet it’s not nearly as generous as they’re making out anyway.

[Hom3r]

A very similar thing happened to me, we say through a boring 2-hour state of the company meeting (which had us nervous as the top people turned up and this never happens).


On PowerPoint page 168 of 169, it had a simple bullet point, to close our office by end of year, they literally just skipped through it like it didn't matter on to the last page.


Someone said "Woah, go back a page, WTH is that about closing this office".


Needless to say, they had made their minds up and 100 of us lost our jobs.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Erm, just before you get a little bit excited and throw another wobble about the UK government, if P&O Ferries is based in Jersey, then Jersey jurisdiction applies. Jersey is a self governing country with its own independent laws. The only responsibilities the UK government has on Jersey, is to defend it and represent it, internationally.

True, but we must be able to stop them entering UK ports under normal circimstances?

Originally Posted by Mick

Erm, just before you get a little bit excited and throw another wobble about the UK government, if P&O Ferries is based in Jersey, then Jersey jurisdiction applies. Jersey is a self governing country with its own independent laws. The only responsibilities the UK government has on Jersey, is to defend it and represent it, internationally.

It’s unlikely that UK based employees will have contracts directly with the Jersey-registered company. There will be a UK-registered subsidiary in there somewhere. Otherwise it would be easy for any big business to evade UK employment law, by operating out of a territory with lax controls on what an employer can do to its staff.

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s unlikely that UK based employees will have contracts directly with the Jersey-registered company. There will be a UK-registered subsidiary in there somewhere. Otherwise it would be easy for any big business to evade UK employment law, by operating out of a territory with lax controls on what an employer can do to its staff.

Agreed, but this fire and rehire law mantra being passed about. Employment law protections still exist despite it, there are Statutory minimums in place that no company can legally go below of.

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 ----------

Just seen this though from ITV News’s Joel Hill:

The unions argue that P&O’s UK crew were easy to fire because their contracts were issued in Jersey as part of P&O’s “offshore employment model”.

I’m told P&O has c50 Dutch + French crew, employed on contracts in the Netherlands and France who weren’t dismissed yesterday.

That’s a horrific loophole if true and the law should be changed to prevent it.

Originally Posted by Chris

That’s a horrific loophole if true and the law should be changed to prevent it.

Jersey law, UK law or both?

Originally Posted by Mick

Jersey law, UK law or both?

Well what Jersey does is Jersey’s business. But we ought to be able to frame UK employment law so as to prevent employers dodging it in this way. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole process.

Originally Posted by Chris

Well what Jersey does is Jersey’s business. But we ought to be able to frame UK employment law so as to prevent employers dodging it in this way. Otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole process.

ITV News’s Joel Hill added bit more:

Employing crew in places like Jersey, Guernsey and Singapore is apparently common across the ferry industry.

By doing this, P&O (and others) avoid paying Employers National Insurance contributions. There are also fewer protections for employees.

P&O’s UK crew did pay NI and Were therefore eligible for furlough support. The RMT says P&O received £150m from Job Retention Scheme.

It’s very possible that DP World also put extra money into the business to keep it going during COVID.

I have sought clarity of all of the above from P&O but no comment yet.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Jersey law still has consultation requirements

https://www.jacs.org.je/media/1105/r...-sept-2020.pdf

Yes, the statutory requirements aren’t a million miles away from the UK’s. They’ve broken the law, no two ways about it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

The 1970s were just on the phone. They said your spaghetti hoops are going cold and can you pick up 20 woodbines on your way home.

…

Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, I believe all the union actually wants here (in agreement with MPs from all parties) is for P&O to obey employment law. Redundancies on this scale should have been notified and consulted on well in advance. It is unlikely they can get around such an egregious breach of employment law no matter how generous the severance package is, and I bet it’s not nearly as generous as they’re making out anyway.

I remember the Winter of Discontent, constant strikes, car workers with makeshift beds in the factory. Whatever did happen to British Leyland and so many other companies? Little point "protecting jobs", if the company as a whole goes bust as a result.
Of course the Unions want particular(they get to choose which ones) laws to followed, especially when they paid for the laws to be implemented in the first place.
Nobody seems to ever come up with valid alternatives, that would work.
Eg if a company started negotiations, would customers have faith in using them? The consequences of that and other issues would mean the business went bust anyway.
They have been announcing closure of routes, reduction in journeys, and loss of jobs for more than a year.

[1andrew1]

There's another theory circulating on the redundancies. It's paywalled in The Telegraph though.

DP World's principal investor, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum (Dubai's ruler) has reportedly developed a grudge against the UK after the UK High Court ordered him last year to pay his estranged wife £550 million for her family’s security and maintenance. She fled to London in 2019 saying she feared for her life and was the youngest of his six wives.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...tle-po-ferries

Originally Posted by nomadking

I remember the Winter of Discontent, constant strikes, car workers with makeshift beds in the factory. Whatever did happen to British Leyland and so many other companies? Little point "protecting jobs", if the company as a whole goes bust as a result.
Of course the Unions want particular(they get to choose which ones) laws to followed, especially when they paid for the laws to be implemented in the first place.
Nobody seems to ever come up with valid alternatives, that would work.
Eg if a company started negotiations, would customers have faith in using them? The consequences of that and other issues would mean the business went bust anyway.
They have been announcing closure of routes, reduction in journeys, and loss of jobs for more than a year.

Well, when O2/BT Cellnet split off from BT in 2002, they followed the guidelines (90 day consultation, notifying "at risk" employees, looking for alternative posts in the company for those at "at risk) - pretty sure O2 didn’t go bust (or all the other companies that followed the process).

I have been made redundant four times, have had the awful task of making others redundant four times, and the guidelines were followed every time, and all of those companies (except one) are still in business.

(The one that isn’t was a Financial Services company, and it failed in 2008…)