P&O Ferries
 

Fine old British shipping company now owned by Dubai but still carrying on in the best traditions of the dreadfull outfit it always was. The ships were flagged out to Cyprus a couple of years ago so UK has no juristiction over this vital piece of our transport infrastructure. Shortsighted or what?

Re: P&O Ferries
 

If you are referring to the sit-in and 'redundancies with immediate effect' I completely agree. You cannot make staff redundant with immediate effect, there has to be consultation and compensation at the very least. Furthermore people are not made redundant, the job is and the post holder is moved or let go. You cannot have a whole new set of workers come in and do the same job for less money if the post is redundant.

So they are sacking people for no reason and without notice, which last time I looked is not legal in the UK (despite Brexit). I know sea-farers terms are likely to be a special case, but do not know the rules in this regard.

It does sound and look like P&O acting outside the law?

Re: P&O Ferries
 

if British companies were not so quick at selling out for a quick buck then things in the UK might be a bit better but greed and corruption in the UK is rife.

the UK is an old wooden boat that has run out of tar but lots of paint. its slowly sinking but looks good.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

P&O Ferries is no longer a Britsh company as it was sold to Dubai some years ago. The ships were flagged out to Cyprus a couple of years ago after the brexit vote allegedly due to some insurance requirement but the net effect is that the British government has no juristiction here. How a vital part of our transport infrastructure could have been left in this state I suppose we should ask our MPs who presided over the debacle.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

Many of the complaints about Brexit were related to the fact that it was being used to weaken UK employment rights compared to allegedly much stronger European requirements. So if not UK jurisdiction, do Cyprus flagged ships come under EU employment law? If so, in theory then it should have been harder to do what they appear to be trying to do. Sadly ironic?

IMHO, irrespective of relevant law, what I've heard reported is pretty dreadful behaviour when viewed from any reasonable moral and ethical perspective. This is the ugly face of capitalism in extremis - protect the company/shareholders at the expense of everything else.

If this is the owner's attempt to 'save' the company as claimed then perhaps the best solution is for as many customers and potential future employees as possible to completely stop using P&O so that it goes bankrupt asap and at least the company owner/directors feel loss too? Much short-term pain for employees of course but that's already there now and presumably there'll be a replacement organisation that appears (like a phoenix from the flames) if the travel demand is truly there.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

yes but you run the risk of leaving a hole in a transport link which will never be filled again.

should we also stop using UK banks that are owned by EU countries that are who benefit from the profits of UK residents? the list goes on and on. the UK was sold down the river a long time ago

Re: P&O Ferries
 

The issue of EU employment rights doesnt apply either because the seamen are employed under international seafarers rules which give few rights. I believe the legal juristiction for this specific part of the operation is in Jersey for some reason. Perhaps because Jersey doesnt confer much in the way of seafarers rights either. Maybe the UK government should nationalise P&O Ferries and the two UK ports owned by Dubai on the grounds of national infrastructure resilience and security.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

Yes, but if there's profit potential in it then I'm pretty sure the hole won't stay there for too long. Especially if they can buy a few ships cheap from a bankruptcy sale!

P&O weren't running it out of the goodness of their hearts.

I do accept that there is often a national interest overall point to consider in running certain services at a loss. That's a large debate for another time. I don't know how relevant it is here.

I'm not sure quite what issue you're querying here but, yes, we probably should boycott companies if they treat their staff immorally. Companies of all types though, not just transport companies, not just banks, not just clothing makers, not just warehouse-based online retailers ... You're right, sadly, the list does go on and on.

There have been calls for that sort of thing for a long time - 'consumer power'. It's not a new thing, though it's never really got to critical mass to be painful for any of them.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

OK useful to know. So it seems to boil down to the ethics of the company leadership. I'm not sure how to counter that except through trying to hit them where it hurts, on the bottom line. Doesn't matter what the cost base is, no sales = no profits!

Doesn't need to be in national ownership to protect the national interest. Appropriate use of licences and regulation backed up by legislation could be used to provide adequate governance and protection when services are provided by other party privatised owner/operators. How complex this is depends on whether there's a real market or if it's just pseudo-competition.

Re: P&O Ferries
 

I guess what they are doing similar to the time when the fishing fleet were forced to contract. The trawler owners tried keeping the compensation claiming the crews were just casual labour. John Prescott picked up the cudgel and eventually got some sort of compensation for the seamen. Harks back to the time when it was hire and fire on a whim.