Cowsham wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 8:52am
P&O should be excluded from doing business in the UK with immediate effect.
How?
There's a fair bit of huffing and puffing, but DP World knew what they were doing, knew how limited the reaction could be, knew the workers would have to settle for a pay-off, knew that UK logistics needs them more than they need it... it would need a time machine to change any of this.
Jdsk wrote: ↑31 Mar 2022, 8:31pm"A two-week battle to hold P&O Ferries to account for the summary sacking of 786 crew members appears to have ended with a whimper, as unions said the Dubai-owned company had “got away with it” after ministers backtracked on legal action and all but one employee accepted the firm’s controversial payoff ahead of Thursday’s deadline."
"Last week Boris Johnson told parliament: “We will take them to court, we will defend the rights of British workers … P&O plainly aren’t going to get away with it.”
I really want the guy in charge to be sacked; deciding to break the law because it suits the outcome they want for me is the height of irresponsibility in any society and he (and others in the management) deserve to be barred from being a company directors. The actions of P&O management is totally contrary to what our society and Government should be about. We are continually sold the line that it is in our interest to support the big corporations yet they pay minimal tax, impose terrible working conditions and pay on employees, sack people breaking the law, etc. Government is about the people, not an elite few and profits disappearing overseas to the cost of society.
Trouble is that that wont help the sacked/redundant staff.
Psamathe wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 4:44pm
I really want the guy in charge to be sacked; deciding to break the law because it suits the outcome they want for me is the height of irresponsibility in any society and he (and others in the management) deserve to be barred from being a company directors. The actions of P&O management is totally contrary to what our society and Government should be about. We are continually sold the line that it is in our interest to support the big corporations yet they pay minimal tax, impose terrible working conditions and pay on employees, sack people breaking the law, etc. Government is about the people, not an elite few and profits disappearing overseas to the cost of society.
Trouble is that that wont help the sacked/redundant staff.
Ian
Would your view be the same if it was true* and that the state of the company was so parlous that going through the full formal process - where the outcome was known, i.e. the TUs could and would never agree, and wheels would be spun for weeks and months, meaning that the company may have been unsalvageable (see what I did there) and the workers would run the risk of ending up in the same position with much smaller, statutory payments only?
Psamathe wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 4:44pm
I really want the guy in charge to be sacked; deciding to break the law because it suits the outcome they want for me is the height of irresponsibility in any society and he (and others in the management) deserve to be barred from being a company directors. The actions of P&O management is totally contrary to what our society and Government should be about. We are continually sold the line that it is in our interest to support the big corporations yet they pay minimal tax, impose terrible working conditions and pay on employees, sack people breaking the law, etc. Government is about the people, not an elite few and profits disappearing overseas to the cost of society.
Trouble is that that wont help the sacked/redundant staff.
Ian
Would your view be the same if it was true* and that the state of the company was so parlous that going through the full formal process - where the outcome was known, i.e. the TUs could and would never agree, and wheels would be spun for weeks and months, meaning that the company may have been unsalvageable (see what I did there) and the workers would run the risk of ending up in the same position with much smaller, statutory payments only?
*The statement to Parliamentarians, that is
I'm not familiar with current employment law but where redundancies are necessary I thought the unions could not block the process, just that consultations are required to explore alternatives.
But either way (my understanding above) we have a law. Companies are subject to the law. If the law is bad then the law should be changed but you cannot unilaterally just break the law because you don't think you'll get your way. I can't believe this is not the 1st company who have traded themselves into a dire situation and needed to make redundancies, just that most obey the law of the country. I've had to make redundancies twice in my career and in both cases the companies were making a loss and continuing on that course would have meant the end of the company - so redundancies were necessary (in what way was that different from P&O other than that we did it within the law).
Psamathe wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 4:44pm
I really want the guy in charge to be sacked; deciding to break the law because it suits the outcome they want for me is the height of irresponsibility in any society and he (and others in the management) deserve to be barred from being a company directors. The actions of P&O management is totally contrary to what our society and Government should be about. We are continually sold the line that it is in our interest to support the big corporations yet they pay minimal tax, impose terrible working conditions and pay on employees, sack people breaking the law, etc. Government is about the people, not an elite few and profits disappearing overseas to the cost of society.
Trouble is that that wont help the sacked/redundant staff.
Ian
Would your view be the same if it was true* and that the state of the company was so parlous that going through the full formal process - where the outcome was known, i.e. the TUs could and would never agree, and wheels would be spun for weeks and months, meaning that the company may have been unsalvageable (see what I did there) and the workers would run the risk of ending up in the same position with much smaller, statutory payments only?
*The statement to Parliamentarians, that is
I'm not familiar with current employment law but where redundancies are necessary I thought the unions could not block the process, just that consultations are required to explore alternatives.
But either way (my understanding above) we have a law. Companies are subject to the law. If the law is bad then the law should be changed but you cannot unilaterally just break the law because you don't think you'll get your way. I can't believe this is not the 1st company who have traded themselves into a dire situation and needed to make redundancies, just that most obey the law of the country. I've had to make redundancies twice in my career and in both cases the companies were making a loss and continuing on that course would have meant the end of the company - so redundancies were necessary (in what way was that different from P&O other than that we did it within the law).
Ian
I think, as I mentioned earlier thread, that the TUs are increasingly seeking injunctions to delay/freeze the statutory consultation process which has, I'm sure, influenced the company's thinking.
The thing is, every single day employment law is broken, albeit not in such a high-profile way, simply because it is possible for employers to 'buy their way out' of a situation* via a Settlement Agreement - a mechanism which is in Statute.
*In the most part - cf my previous comments v-a-v Protective Awards for failure to consult
A work colleague got made redundant from his last job and a few took the company to court. As a result they all got £5000 protective awards and a few got taken on at another site, after a 12 week hiatus for payments in lieu of notice. It seems that was not considered a big deal to the company since the outcome of breaking rules meant overall q better financial outcome for the company.
I suspect that if unions are involved a very necessary redundancy process can become very protracted all at a time when a company could be hemorrhaging cash badly. Perhaps there's cases where consultation process can result in unions causing damage for more workers than they're trying to help. I know one of my old employers went through a long period of financial difficulty during which there were several rounds of redundancies. Luckily no unions involved and individual employees could appeal decisions, occasionally successfully. I recall a few cases where the scoring system used failed to catch a positive due to poor records that changed employees score to save their job. Any unions would have sunk the company.
Cowsham wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 8:52am
P&O should be excluded from doing business in the UK with immediate effect.
How?
There's a fair bit of huffing and puffing, but DP World knew what they were doing, knew how limited the reaction could be, knew the workers would have to settle for a pay-off, knew that UK logistics needs them more than they need it... it would need a time machine to change any of this.
Our government has allowed this so I think the government should also be held accountable. We need to show a no confidence vote in our government at the next elections.
Tangled Metal wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 6:26pm
A work colleague got made redundant from his last job and a few took the company to court. As a result they all got £5000 protective awards and a few got taken on at another site, after a 12 week hiatus for payments in lieu of notice. It seems that was not considered a big deal to the company since the outcome of breaking rules meant overall q better financial outcome for the company.
And in most capitalist companies, directors are required to maximise the financial return and can be removed if they do not break the law if it costs less.
I suspect that if unions are involved a very necessary redundancy process can become very protracted all at a time when a company could be hemorrhaging cash badly. Perhaps there's cases where consultation process can result in unions causing damage for more workers than they're trying to help. I know one of my old employers went through a long period of financial difficulty during which there were several rounds of redundancies. Luckily no unions involved and individual employees could appeal decisions, occasionally successfully. I recall a few cases where the scoring system used failed to catch a positive due to poor records that changed employees score to save their job. Any unions would have sunk the company.
Why? Unions are the workers so they have no interest in sinking companies and leaving workers without work because then the workers stop paying dues and the union has no-one to negotiate with.
I think unions are often flawed in their methods but that isn't one I believe would have happened.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Tangled Metal wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 6:26pm
I suspect that if unions are involved a very necessary redundancy process can become very protracted all at a time when a company could be hemorrhaging cash badly.
We're talking about the 800 workers from P&O, a company owned by DP World, the costs of the proper redundancy process would have been small change compared to their turnover. When I googled them at the time this was announced, I found plenty of reports about how well they're doing, much of the increased shipping costs over the last couple of years has gone their way. There is no justification for it, it's the actions of a bully, doing whatever they like in the firm belief they're the ones with the power. It wasn't a decision not to talk to the unions, it was a decision they weren't going to consider any interests other than their own.
Tangled Metal wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 6:26pm
I suspect that if unions are involved a very necessary redundancy process can become very protracted all at a time when a company could be hemorrhaging cash badly.
We're talking about the 800 workers from P&O, a company owned by DP World, the costs of the proper redundancy process would have been small change compared to their turnover. When I googled them at the time this was announced, I found plenty of reports about how well they're doing, much of the increased shipping costs over the last couple of years has gone their way. There is no justification for it, it's the actions of a bully, doing whatever they like in the firm belief they're the ones with the power. It wasn't a decision not to talk to the unions, it was a decision they weren't going to consider any interests other than their own.
And the UK government knew about it all before hand,Johnson made a big noise in the HofC how P&O weren't going to get away with it then,predictably,did nothing about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Tangled Metal wrote: ↑1 Apr 2022, 6:26pm
I suspect that if unions are involved a very necessary redundancy process can become very protracted all at a time when a company could be hemorrhaging cash badly.
We're talking about the 800 workers from P&O, a company owned by DP World, the costs of the proper redundancy process would have been small change compared to their turnover. When I googled them at the time this was announced, I found plenty of reports about how well they're doing, much of the increased shipping costs over the last couple of years has gone their way. There is no justification for it, it's the actions of a bully, doing whatever they like in the firm belief they're the ones with the power. It wasn't a decision not to talk to the unions, it was a decision they weren't going to consider any interests other than their own.
OTOH the bully has paid them very significantly enhanced terms, with likely another 3 months to come. They could have gone through due process and received significantly smaller Statutory sums - or perhaps the company could have gone down a 'fire and re-hire' process*
It is the case that in employment law terms the employer, by and large, holds the power, as long as they follow process. If they don't, then they can expect to pay for the 'privilege'.
BTW, that's not a personal position, just a counterpoint. Much turns on whether the company's commercial position was as parlous as claimed, as you allude to.
