P&O
- Thread starter Mugshot
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
winjim
Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
I didn't catch the name of the ?minister on PM last night but he claimed to be working very closely with the RMT and with Unite.
Milkfloat
Active Member
The Herald was a Townsend Thoresen ship, nothing to do with P&O.
Beebo
Guru
I think P&O had either recently bought TT or were in the process of buying them at the time.
mjr
Active Member
in part, to stop undercutting of seafarers! It was the usual "lexit" great-theory-that-the-Tories-were-never-gonna-do thinking: https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-sets-out-six-key-reasons-for-leaving-the-eu/
Nautilus, the next-biggest union affected, were pro-Remain https://www.offshore-energy.biz/nautilus-brexit-could-negatively-affect-uk-seafarers/
mjr
Active Member
Takeover/merger approved December 1986, ship sank March 1987, with a root cause of "poor workplace communication and stand-off relationship between ship operators and shore-based managers". (according to inquiry report)
Last edited:
Rusty Nails
Country Member
As Julia explained she cannot afford hundreds of pounds cancelling a booking. That does not mean she does not care.And Julia who is still using them.
And lazybloke who would still use them if he had booked.
And the thousands of people who will travel with them in the coming weeks.
So yeah, just me
Or are you all going to stop using P&O and goods carried by its parent company?
There is a legitimate difference between not being able to afford losses and not making future bookings.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
Nothing to do with Brexit but with not enough assurances demanded after Covid bail out funds, thet paid their shareholders 250 mil, after receiving bailout and furlough payments.
Many other countries have put restrictions demands on how to use/spend bailout money and so on, that hasn't happened here so capitalisms is going to capitalism, it's pure greed pulling money out of a company so you can make the guise to sack all employees and hire cheaper ones. The reason why they didn't do that the the french counterpart is they known they wouldn't get away with it.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
A few things I've noticed.
1) Any company that is going to fire more than 100 people must tell the Gov at least 45 days in advance. Seemingly, this didn't happen.
2) They've left a 146 million pounds pension hole, which may have to be paid for by the taxpayer, but they've sponsored the European Golf Tour for 147 million.
3) DP World were able to pay their shareholders 250 million quid last year.
4) DP World's profits, so far this year, have increased by 21%
5) Safety. This could be a case of paying peanuts and getting monkeys. Some highly trained staff are being fired, what are the safety implications?
6) Strange how that not one member of French P+O staff have been fired. I wonder why?
1) Any company that is going to fire more than 100 people must tell the Gov at least 45 days in advance. Seemingly, this didn't happen.
2) They've left a 146 million pounds pension hole, which may have to be paid for by the taxpayer, but they've sponsored the European Golf Tour for 147 million.
3) DP World were able to pay their shareholders 250 million quid last year.
4) DP World's profits, so far this year, have increased by 21%
5) Safety. This could be a case of paying peanuts and getting monkeys. Some highly trained staff are being fired, what are the safety implications?
6) Strange how that not one member of French P+O staff have been fired. I wonder why?
Last edited:
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
Everything to do with Brexit.
Not one member of French P+O staff have been fired.
Milkfloat
Active Member
Brexit may have emboldened the company to do this as the government have clearly indicated that workers rights are not a priority, but UK workers rights and protections have been considerably worse than any EU country I can think of for quite some time. I am pretty sure that P&O and their parent will be paying redundancy payments for this, there is no way they cannot. I assume the plan is to get rid of the workers and have them rehired by the agency on worse conditions, basically a fire and rehire but via an intermediary company.
dutchguylivingintheuk
Über Member
As i explained, but i guess the word ''Brexit'' make some people blind it more about the government not demanding protection in return for bailouts.
