Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Travel] P and O







Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,529
The arse end of Hangleton
The P & O Ferries that we see today, is a mere shadow of the company of not so many years ago. By far their greatest revenue earner was the short sea route from Dover to Calais, where business was reduced massively upon the opening of the Channel Tunnel in the 1990's.

In more recent years of course we have had Brexit, and then the Covid pandemic, all of which have led to a significant shortfall in passenger, vehicle, and freight traffic.

So noone should be surprised that the company is now in dire trouble, though unfortunate of course that so many individuals are losing their jobs through no fault of their own.

Not the first company to take this route though, and l doubt very much that they will be the last, such are modern business methods.

I don't think anyone believes a company losing £100m a year shouldn't reduce one of it's major costs - i.e. wages. What is disgusting is HOW it's been done. By all means make people ( in reality roles ) redundant but go through the proper process - with 800+ people tbat means a 90 day consultation as an absolute minimum. They also can't refill a role that has been made redundant. This is all a legal requirement - not optional. I hope the employees take P&O to the cleaners.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,744
The Fatherland
“ Brexit has also clearly contributed to its difficulties.

In the pre-pandemic and pre-Brexit period, P&O Ferries was carrying some two million units of freight per year, but that is understood to have fallen as trade in goods with the EU has fallen.

This will have affected the Hull-Rotterdam crossing in particular, and it is also understood that, with fewer Irish trucking firms using Great Britain as a "land bridge" to and from continental Europe, traffic on the Liverpool-Dublin crossing will have been hurt.
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,568
Deepest, darkest Sussex
There was recently a vote in Parliament on an opposition motion to ban these “fire and re-hire” schemes. The Tory party abstained this meaning it didn’t pass.

The owners of P&O are Tory donors.

These two statements may or may not be related.
 




Seaview Seagull

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 1, 2021
561
There was recently a vote in Parliament on an opposition motion to ban these “fire and re-hire” schemes. The Tory party abstained this meaning it didn’t pass.

The owners of P&O are Tory donors.

These two statements may or may not be related.

This is not fire and rehire it's fire and hire someone else! I have no idea how this can be legal..
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,026
on the surface there's a lot of employment law being broken. be interesting how the legal works out, like where they employed.
 


Randy McNob

> > > > > > Cardiff > > > > >
Jun 13, 2020
4,725
Allegedly the in-coming crew are mainly Asian or South American. Who has been granting these visas to work then ?

hmmm, cheap foreign labour, isn't that why we voted leave?

Thatcherism still working its magic decades on....
 




Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,429
Location Location
This is not fire and rehire it's fire and hire someone else! I have no idea how this can be legal..

Indeed.

How can you possibly announce this to your staff, completely out of the blue on a recorded Zoom, with the cheap foreign labour literally sitting in a van on the quayside waiting to take their jobs ? Its bonkers. You'd assume a business the size of P&O would have taken advice and know exactly what they can and can't do legally. But like you, I have no idea how this redundancy "process" can possibly stand up.
 


birthofanorange

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 31, 2011
6,512
David Gilmour's armpit
Accepting that the replacement crews are clearly going to be on a lower pay rate, surely the fact that they are agency staff means that the agency also gets paid? Usually, it's not cost-effective to use them, and I wonder what the difference in total costs per crew member really is?
 










jessiejames

Never late in a V8
Jan 20, 2009
2,756
Brighton, United Kingdom
Accepting that the replacement crews are clearly going to be on a lower pay rate, surely the fact that they are agency staff means that the agency also gets paid? Usually, it's not cost-effective to use them, and I wonder what the difference in total costs per crew member really is?

I can say that when my company has used agency staff, we have paid the agency £18.50 per hour, guaranteed 8 hours a day, any work over the 8 hours or if with us 5 days 40 hours per week £27.25 per hour. The agency person was actually on £10 per hour, or £15 per hour above 8 hours a day worked.
 




Paulie Gualtieri

Bada Bing
NSC Patron
May 8, 2018
10,646
No redundancy consultation process.

Employment tribunal field day awaits.

Had wondered how this approach would stand up against UK employment law and surely a firm of their size would know this?

I wonder if there was any way their workers were some how exempt but then the EU rules are more stringent I believe
 


birthofanorange

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Aug 31, 2011
6,512
David Gilmour's armpit
I can say that when my company has used agency staff, we have paid the agency £18.50 per hour, guaranteed 8 hours a day, any work over the 8 hours or if with us 5 days 40 hours per week £27.25 per hour. The agency person was actually on £10 per hour, or £15 per hour above 8 hours a day worked.

That's what I was thinking, so how can this be cheaper for P&O than keeping existing staff?
 












Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here