On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:46:03 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:07:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <t1k7r9$6lh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:25 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t1ipio$ggb$3@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:48 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:29, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:57, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1hoc4$tjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:04 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when what he did was avoid the company going into receivership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increase the bonus!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the former employees could claim damages for
>>>>>>>>>>>>the lack
>>>>>>>>>>>> of consultation in the civil courts in addition to what they
>>>>>>>>>>>> could claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> in an industrial tribunal?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That way they would lose the, allegedly, generous redundancy
>>>>>>>>>>>terms that
>>>>>>>>>>> P&O Ferries are currently offering, with no guarantee that the courts
>>>>>>>>>>> would award any more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There
>>>>>>>>>>should be
>>>>>>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick
>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>>>>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok you can go to a tribunal and they will agree he broke the law. You
>>>>>>>>> get the legal minimum redundancy pay - eventually, less costs. Your
>>>>>>>>> colleagues who kept schtum walk away with 50 grand or more. And the CEO
>>>>>>>>> gets an enhanced bonus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Depends if he’s broken the criminal law. Then it’s up to the CPS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to inform the government would be criminal law but apparently
>>>>>>> doesn't apply.
>>>>>> It does apply, and they say they did inform the governments
>>>>>> concerned
>>>>>> (Cyprus, Bahamas, Bermuda) on 17 March, who probably weren't terribly
>>>>>> bothered. There was no requirement to inform the UK government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I inadvertently inserted one of Roland's invisible words there,
>>>>> should have read Faiure to inform the UK government…
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad we've now been informed *which* governments were told, and also
>>>> that (contrary to what a <<UK>> government minister implied earlier)
>>>> that there *was* a requirement to inform our government.
>>>
>>>No, there was no such requirement.
>>
>>Which made it peculiar they sent a minister onto the prime time news to
>>imply there might have been.
>>
>>It wasn't necessarily an employment law thing, rather than the
>>withdrawal of critical national infrastructure. How are the lorry
>>drivers coping, I've heard no reports.
>>
>>>What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>>>with the trade unions.
>>
>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>be consulted too?
>>
>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.

The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current crews from there. As we know, the ships are
registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda and Cyprus, and operate under those countries' maritime regulations.

Conceivably, some members of the future crews may be recruited in Asia, but the ships won't be re-registered there.

> There was some
>suggestion the staff were employed out of Jersey. It would be good to
>have some more facts.

Google is your friend:
<https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/watch-sacked-po-staff-were-contracted-through-jersey/#.Yj287zWny7A>

<https://www.ft.com/content/707d708a-bf0d-494f-b54a-ffd754152bca>

P&O Ferries scandal: was sacking 800 staff legal?

Move to replace UK-based crew has led to outrage and request for Insolvency Service to investigate

UK ministers have asked the government’s Insolvency Service to investigate whether P&O Ferries breached employment law
by firing 800 UK-based sailors and replacing them with agency staff.

The operator, owned by Dubai-based DP World, provoked a furious backlash from ministers and trade union leaders with its
decision on Thursday to abruptly sack the crew without notice.

Peter Hebblethwaite, chief executive of P&O Ferries, said in a letter to remaining employees seen by the Financial Times
that the radical decision was taken “to reduce our crewing costs by 50 per cent, secure the future of our business and
set it up for growth”.

But in a separate letter to P&O Ferries on Friday, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said the company appeared not to
have followed the proper legal process and that he had asked the Insolvency Service to investigate. In the meantime, he
asked the company to explain “why you think these rules do not apply to you”.

Are P&O’s actions legal?

Nautilus International, a trade union for British, Dutch and Swiss seafarers, said it believed P&O had acted illegally
by failing to launch a consultation process before making the redundancies or to notify the business secretary.

Alan Bogg, professor of labour law at Bristol university, said P&O’s action appeared to be a “clear breach” of its
obligations under collective redundancy law.

A company making 20 or more staff redundant within 90 days is required by UK law to run a consultation before dismissing
the staff. Eight hundred P&O crew were told on Thursday their employment would end that evening. A company dismissing
more than 100 people must also notify the business secretary in writing of the proposed redundancies before it gives
notice to the employees that their contracts will be terminated, and at least 45 days before the dismissals begin.

P&O declined to comment on whether it had complied with its legal obligations.

The workers dismissed on Thursday were employed by a hiring agency in Jersey. But Nautilus claimed their jobs still fell
under UK-based law and protections since it was the jurisdiction specified in their contracts.

Does it matter that P&O is paying compensation?

Hebblethwaite told staff on Thursday that the company would be giving “enhanced severance packages” to redundant
employees to compensate them for lack of notice.

Neil Todd, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, which is advising the RMT union, said P&O was effectively “buying out its
obligations under UK law” by offering staff 13 weeks pay on top of a redundancy package — equivalent to the penalty it
would have to pay if an employment tribunal found it had breached the requirement to hold a collective consultation.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:37 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 12:48, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 25/03/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus, when
>>>> what he did was avoid the company going into receivership. Increase the
>>>> bonus!
>>>
>>> Aren't directors / (managers?) legally required to protect the company?
>>
>>
>> But they're required to do it legally.
>>
>> With a bit of luck the whole board will be disqualified as directors in
>> the UK.
>
>Not going to happen.

Agreed, the company will have taken lots of legal advice before taking this action, and will have been reassured that it
will get away with it. The frothing politicians aren't as well informed.

On 25/03/2022 12:07, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t1k7r9$6lh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:25 on Fri, 25 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1ipio$ggb$3@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:48 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:29, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:57, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1hoc4$tjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:04 on Thu,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 24 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his
>>>>>>>>>>>> bonus,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when what he did was avoid the company going into receivership.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Increase the bonus!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the former employees could claim damages for
>>>>>>>>>>> the lack
>>>>>>>>>>> of consultation in the civil courts in addition to what they
>>>>>>>>>>> could claim
>>>>>>>>>>> in an industrial tribunal?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That way they would lose the, allegedly, generous redundancy
>>>>>>>>>> terms that
>>>>>>>>>> P&O Ferries are currently offering, with no guarantee that the
>>>>>>>>>> courts
>>>>>>>>>> would award any more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There
>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick
>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify
>>>>>>>>> law
>>>>>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ok you can go to a tribunal and they will agree he broke the
>>>>>>>> law. You
>>>>>>>> get the legal minimum redundancy pay - eventually, less costs. Your
>>>>>>>> colleagues who kept schtum walk away with 50 grand or more. And
>>>>>>>> the CEO
>>>>>>>> gets an enhanced bonus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends if he’s broken the criminal law. Then it’s up to the CPS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Failing to inform the government would be criminal law but apparently
>>>>>> doesn't apply.
>>>>> It does apply, and they say they did inform the governments
>>>>> concerned
>>>>> (Cyprus, Bahamas, Bermuda) on 17 March, who probably weren't terribly
>>>>> bothered.  There was no requirement to inform the UK government.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I inadvertently inserted one of Roland's invisible words there,
>>>> should have read Faiure to inform the UK government…
>>>
>>> I'm glad we've now been informed *which* governments were told, and also
>>> that (contrary to what a <<UK>> government minister implied earlier)
>>> that there *was* a requirement to inform our government.
>>
>> No, there was no such requirement.
>
> Which made it peculiar they sent a minister onto the prime time news to
> imply there might have been.
>
> It wasn't necessarily an employment law thing, rather than the
> withdrawal of critical national infrastructure. How are the lorry
> drivers coping, I've heard no reports.
>
>> What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>> with the trade unions.
>
> I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
> to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
> be consulted too?
>

I know that Filipino cfrews are employed on some British owned and
flagged ships, but unsure if any are employed on the P&O ferries
affected directly. However, the crew on the Norbank (currently operating
Liverpool / Dublin and Dutch flagged) are Filipino and I belive the same
applies to the Dutch-flagged Pride of Rotterdam, but not sure about the
Bahamian flagged Pride of Hull.

Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the Philipine
authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but there is a
umbrella body of maritime unions, the International Transport Worker's
Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things, lay down minimum
wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with a "Blue Card" to
show compliance. This payscale (in USD) is well below the UK minimum wage.
https://www.itfglobal.org/en
Although I am amused at the article below which talks about the P&O
sackings and uses a picture of the Pride of Bruges - which was sold over
a year ago and now trading for a new owner in the Medi!!
https://www.itfglobal.org/en/news/itf-and-etf-condemn-po-mass-sacking-and-outsourcing

--
Colin

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose
>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>
> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>
> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.

I’ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there’s no
point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:12:23 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:46:03 +0000, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:07:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t1k7r9$6lh$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:08:25 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>>2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t1ipio$ggb$3@dont-email.me>, at 21:58:48 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:56, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 21:29, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:57, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <t1hoc4$tjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:04 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when what he did was avoid the company going into receivership.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increase the bonus!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if the former employees could claim damages for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the lack
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of consultation in the civil courts in addition to what they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an industrial tribunal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That way they would lose the, allegedly, generous redundancy
>>>>>>>>>>>>terms that
>>>>>>>>>>>> P&O Ferries are currently offering, with no guarantee that the courts
>>>>>>>>>>>> would award any more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There
>>>>>>>>>>>should be
>>>>>>>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick
>>>>>>>>>>> choose
>>>>>>>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>>>>>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ok you can go to a tribunal and they will agree he broke the law. You
>>>>>>>>>> get the legal minimum redundancy pay - eventually, less costs. Your
>>>>>>>>>> colleagues who kept schtum walk away with 50 grand or more. And the CEO
>>>>>>>>>> gets an enhanced bonus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Depends if he’s broken the criminal law. Then it’s up to the CPS.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Failing to inform the government would be criminal law but apparently
>>>>>>>> doesn't apply.
>>>>>>> It does apply, and they say they did inform the governments
>>>>>>> concerned
>>>>>>> (Cyprus, Bahamas, Bermuda) on 17 March, who probably weren't terribly
>>>>>>> bothered. There was no requirement to inform the UK government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I inadvertently inserted one of Roland's invisible words there,
>>>>>> should have read Faiure to inform the UK government…
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad we've now been informed *which* governments were told, and also
>>>>> that (contrary to what a <<UK>> government minister implied earlier)
>>>>> that there *was* a requirement to inform our government.
>>>>
>>>>No, there was no such requirement.
>>>
>>>Which made it peculiar they sent a minister onto the prime time news to
>>>imply there might have been.
>>>
>>>It wasn't necessarily an employment law thing, rather than the
>>>withdrawal of critical national infrastructure. How are the lorry
>>>drivers coping, I've heard no reports.
>>>
>>>>What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>>>>with the trade unions.
>>>
>>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>>be consulted too?
>>>
>>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>>convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.
>
>The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current crews from there. As we know, the ships are
>registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda and Cyprus, and operate under those countries' maritime regulations.

I was misled by Roland. That's my excuse.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose
>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>
>> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
>> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
>> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>>
>> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.
>
>I’ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
>pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
>vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there’s no
>point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.
>
I hope no vulnerable pedestrians are injured as a result of your lack
of consideration.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:02:49 +0000
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn�t be able to pick and choose
>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don�t justify law
>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>
>>> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
>>> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
>>> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>>>
>>> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.
>>
>>I�ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
>>pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
>>vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there�s no
>>point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.
>>
>I hope no vulnerable pedestrians are injured as a result of your lack
>of consideration.

Doing that sort of speed on the pavement is dangerous for the cyclist too since
if something goes wrong you don't have much wiggle room and headbutting a
lampost or a wall is a distinct possibility.

In message <89er3h9t78ukcjrf9bgr6vrk6leqe006s9@4ax.com>, at 12:46:03 on
Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:

>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>be consulted too?
>>
>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>convenience' for the ship

Not any of the other three countries mentioned?

But if it *was* registered there, I agree my example a was a bad one.
Substitute Argentinean crew, and P&O having to inform the Argentinean
government.

If it turns out the ship was registered in Argentina, rinse and repeat
with any other random country. How about Central African Republic?

>and not an employment base. There was some
>suggestion the staff were employed out of Jersey. It would be good to
>have some more facts.

That's completely different to some of the staff just randomly happening
to be Phillipinos.
--
Roland Perry

In message <jnpr3h5n819kuv6ssdp3mqmv3709u7bl9d@4ax.com>, at 16:00:24 on
Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>>>be consulted too?
>>>>
>>>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>>>convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.
>>
>>The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current crews from there. As we know, the ships are
>>registered in the Bahamas, Bermuda and Cyprus, and operate under those countries' maritime regulations.
>
>I was misled by Roland. That's my excuse.

I wasn't trying to mislead, I was asking if every nation whose citizens
happened to be in the crew should have been informed. Just like the UK
might want to be informed about the potential demise of a ship whose
only relevant jurisdictions might be Bahamas, Bermuda and Cyprus, but
nevertheless happened to have some Brits working on it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tver3hpqdehgitr3iig7j680e9ktrktknp@4ax.com>, at 13:12:23 on
Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>>be consulted too?
>>>
>>My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>>convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.
>
>The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current
>crews from there.

Do we know there's not a single Philippino who happens to be a member of
the crew? And might like his government to have been given advance
warning, so they could threaten P&O with transgressing whatever the
Philippines have as employment law?
--
Roland Perry

In message <sler3hdfdd3berp1t1l6oiqj57etdpeaac@4ax.com>, at 12:55:34 on
Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>> I'm glad we've now been informed *which* governments were told, and also
>>>> that (contrary to what a <<UK>> government minister implied earlier)
>>>> that there *was* a requirement to inform our government.
>>>
>>>No, there was no such requirement.
>>
>>Which made it peculiar they sent a minister onto the prime time news to
>>imply there might have been.
>
>An unfortunate minister gets lumbered with the job of avoiding
>questions from news reporters each morning. That doesn't mean they have
>any expertise on the subjects that come up that morning. Their job is
>simply to try and sound credible (with varying degrees of success)
>without actually saying anything or answering any difficult questions.

Apart of course from having a whole team of people whose job it is to
brief them in advance on any questions they might be asked.

>>It wasn't necessarily an employment law thing, rather than the
>>withdrawal of critical national infrastructure. How are the lorry
>>drivers coping, I've heard no reports.
>>
>>>What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>>>with the trade unions.
>>
>>I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>be consulted too?
>
>Who knows? But they were members of the UK RMT, and the company was
>supposed to consult it.

Yes, and I'm asking if in the event there were any crew who happened to
members of the Philippine equivalent of the RMT, would that mean another
government/union to inform/consult.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1kkd9$d2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:50 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

>Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the
>Philipine authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but
>there is a umbrella body of maritime unions, the International
>Transport Worker's Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things,
>lay down minimum wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with a
>"Blue Card" to show compliance.

Was the ITF consulted; is it illegal not to consult them? What's special
about the RMT apart from the fact they might have an office in Dover to
deal with matters arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus registered ship in
port?
--
Roland Perry

On 25/03/2022 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t1kkd9$d2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:50 on Fri, 25 Mar
> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the
>> Philipine authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but
>> there is a umbrella body of maritime unions, the International
>> Transport Worker's Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things,
>> lay down minimum wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with
>> a "Blue Card" to show compliance.
>
> Was the ITF consulted; is it illegal not to consult them? What's special
> about the RMT apart from the fact they might have an office in Dover to
> deal with matters arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus registered ship in
> port?

The ITF is an umbrella organisation. Unions are members of it so the ITF
normally does not represent individual seafarers.

--
Colin

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:37 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

> On 25/03/2022 12:48, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 25/03/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus, when
>>>> what he did was avoid the company going into receivership. Increase the
>>>> bonus!
>>>
>>> Aren't directors / (managers?) legally required to protect the company?
>>
>> But they're required to do it legally.
>>
>> With a bit of luck the whole board will be disqualified as directors in
>> the UK.
>
> Not going to happen.

Maybe, but a bit of a blot on the CV nonetheless.

On 25/03/2022 17:46, mechanic wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:37 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> On 25/03/2022 12:48, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus, when
>>>>> what he did was avoid the company going into receivership. Increase the
>>>>> bonus!
>>>>
>>>> Aren't directors / (managers?) legally required to protect the company?
>>>
>>> But they're required to do it legally.
>>>
>>> With a bit of luck the whole board will be disqualified as directors in
>>> the UK.
>>
>> Not going to happen.
>
> Maybe, but a bit of a blot on the CV nonetheless.

Hardly I'm afraid, more likely to be seen as heroes.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 24/03/2022 21:36, Certes wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 21:29, Tweed wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:57, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t1hoc4$tjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:32:04 on Thu, 24 Mar
>>>>>>> 2022, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60862933>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus,
>>>>>>> when what he did was avoid the company going into receivership.
>>>>>>> Increase the bonus!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering if the former employees could claim damages for the
>>>>>> lack
>>>>>> of consultation in the civil courts in addition to what they could
>>>>>> claim
>>>>>> in an industrial tribunal?
>>>>>
>>>>> That way they would lose the, allegedly, generous redundancy terms
>>>>> that
>>>>> P&O Ferries are currently offering, with no guarantee that the courts
>>>>> would award any more.
>>>>
>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There
>>>> should be
>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and
>>>> choose
>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>
>>> Ok you can go to a tribunal and they will agree he broke the law. You
>>> get the legal minimum redundancy pay - eventually, less costs. Your
>>> colleagues who kept schtum walk away with 50 grand or more. And the CEO
>>> gets an enhanced bonus.
>>
>> Depends if he’s broken the criminal law. Then it’s up to the CPS.
>
> I hope the CPS will be interested, but it seems more likely to end with
> the company being fined £2.50

And the courts might even slash that on appeal.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:07:30 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:02:49 +0000
>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose
>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>
>>>> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
>>>> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
>>>> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>>>>
>>>> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.
>>>
>>>I’ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
>>>pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
>>>vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there’s no
>>>point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.
>>>
>>I hope no vulnerable pedestrians are injured as a result of your lack
>>of consideration.
>
>Doing that sort of speed on the pavement is dangerous for the cyclist too since
>if something goes wrong you don't have much wiggle room and headbutting a
>lampost or a wall is a distinct possibility.

My policy is not to get out of the way unless I have to as they should
not be there.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:49:13 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/03/2022 17:46, mechanic wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 12:50:37 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/03/2022 12:48, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>> On 25/03/2022 12:42, MB wrote:
>>>>> On 24/03/2022 13:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> Interesting that they are asking if the boss will forego his bonus, when
>>>>>> what he did was avoid the company going into receivership. Increase the
>>>>>> bonus!
>>>>>
>>>>> Aren't directors / (managers?) legally required to protect the company?
>>>>
>>>> But they're required to do it legally.
>>>>
>>>> With a bit of luck the whole board will be disqualified as directors in
>>>> the UK.
>>>
>>> Not going to happen.
>>
>> Maybe, but a bit of a blot on the CV nonetheless.
>
>Hardly I'm afraid, more likely to be seen as heroes.

I worked at a place (a long time ago) where there was a term Rambo
management.

In message <t1kt95$r5u$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:15 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 25/03/2022 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t1kkd9$d2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:50 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>> Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the
>>>Philipine authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but
>>>there is a umbrella body of maritime unions, the International
>>>Transport Worker's Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things,
>>>lay down minimum wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with
>>>a "Blue Card" to show compliance.

>> Was the ITF consulted; is it illegal not to consult them? What's
>>special about the RMT apart from the fact they might have an office
>>in Dover to deal with matters arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus
>>registered ship in port?
>
>The ITF is an umbrella organisation. Unions are members of it so the
>ITF normally does not represent individual seafarers.

Were the ITF member unions consulted; is it illegal not to
consult them? What's special about the RMT apart from the
fact they might have an office in Dover to deal with matters
arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus registered ship in port?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tver3hpqdehgitr3iig7j680e9ktrktknp@4ax.com>, at 13:12:23 on
> Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>> I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>>> to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>>> be consulted too?
>>>>
>>> My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>>> convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.
>>
>> The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current
>> crews from there.
>
> Do we know there's not a single Philippino who happens to be a member of
> the crew? And might like his government to have been given advance
> warning, so they could threaten P&O with transgressing whatever the
> Philippines have as employment law?

Asian crew members are not recruited individually.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1kt95$r5u$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:15 on Fri, 25 Mar
> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 25/03/2022 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <t1kkd9$d2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:50 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>> Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the
>>>> Philipine authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but
>>>> there is a umbrella body of maritime unions, the International
>>>> Transport Worker's Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things,
>>>> lay down minimum wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with
>>>> a "Blue Card" to show compliance.
>
>>> Was the ITF consulted; is it illegal not to consult them? What's
>>> special about the RMT apart from the fact they might have an office
>>> in Dover to deal with matters arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus
>>> registered ship in port?
>>
>> The ITF is an umbrella organisation. Unions are members of it so the
>> ITF normally does not represent individual seafarers.
>
> Were the ITF member unions consulted; is it illegal not to
> consult them? What's special about the RMT apart from the
> fact they might have an office in Dover to deal with matters
> arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus registered ship in port?

This business of 'consulting with the unions' is a UK thing.

In message <t1lch9$7tt$2@dont-email.me>, at 21:34:33 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tver3hpqdehgitr3iig7j680e9ktrktknp@4ax.com>, at 13:12:23 on
>> Fri, 25 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>> I'm still not quite up to speed on this. If some of the seamen belonged
>>>>> to the (eg) Philippines equivalent of the RMT, would that union have to
>>>>> be consulted too?
>>>>>
>>>> My understanding was that Philippines was merely a 'flag of
>>>> convenience' for the ship and not an employment base.
>>>
>>> The ships are not registered in the Philippines, and nor are the current
>>> crews from there.
>>
>> Do we know there's not a single Philippino who happens to be a member of
>> the crew? And might like his government to have been given advance
>> warning, so they could threaten P&O with transgressing whatever the
>> Philippines have as employment law?
>
>Asian crew members are not recruited individually.

Do you mean they only recruit a group of them, in which case do we know
there's no such group of them aboard; or are they agency staff, in which
case the employment law gets a further layer of complication.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t1lcha$7tt$3@dont-email.me>, at 21:34:34 on Fri, 25 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1kt95$r5u$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:14:15 on Fri, 25 Mar
>> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 25/03/2022 16:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <t1kkd9$d2c$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:42:50 on Fri, 25 Mar
>>>> 2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>> Filipino seafarers have standard contracts as laid down by the
>>>>> Philipine authorities/ As to unions I cannot recall their status, but
>>>>> there is a umbrella body of maritime unions, the International
>>>>> Transport Worker's Federation (ITF) which does, amongst other things,
>>>>> lay down minimum wages for seafarers and issue ships / companies with
>>>>> a "Blue Card" to show compliance.
>>
>>>> Was the ITF consulted; is it illegal not to consult them? What's
>>>> special about the RMT apart from the fact they might have an office
>>>> in Dover to deal with matters arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus
>>>> registered ship in port?
>>>
>>> The ITF is an umbrella organisation. Unions are members of it so the
>>> ITF normally does not represent individual seafarers.
>>
>> Were the ITF member unions consulted; is it illegal not to
>> consult them? What's special about the RMT apart from the
>> fact they might have an office in Dover to deal with matters
>> arising on a Bahamas|Bermuda|Cyprus registered ship in port?
>
>This business of 'consulting with the unions' is a UK thing.

Are you sure it doesn't also happen in other countries, such as Germany?
And the unions have a tight grip on many sectors in the USA especially
places like New York and Chicago.
--
Roland Perry

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose
>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>
>>> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
>>> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
>>> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>>>
>>> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.
>>
>> I’ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
>> pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
>> vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there’s no
>> point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.
>>
> I hope no vulnerable pedestrians are injured as a result of your lack
> of consideration.

Allow me to clarify: I sometimes drive a motor vehicle on the road at more
than the legal 20 mph limit; I do not cycle on pavements at that speed. No
pedestrians have been harmed by either of those activities, and I take care
not to put anyone at risk.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:02:49 +0000
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:29:01 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2022 18:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> The point is he knowingly and deliberately broke the law. There should be
>>>>> personal consequences for that. You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose
>>>>> which laws to obey. Expediency and the end result don’t justify law
>>>>> breaking in anything other than the utterly trivial.
>>>>
>>>> But people break laws all the time. Looks at all the laws the
>>>> Eco-Terrorist and BLM thugs break with mostly no action taken again them
>>>> and even when there is court action, they are usually let off.
>>>>
>>>> But even nominally law-abiding break laws regularly.
>>>
>>> I’ll confess to being nominally law-abiding but even I sometimes cycle on
>>> pavements and exceed the blanket 20 mph limit we have around here for motor
>>> vehicles. Mind you, a police officer of my acquaintance reckons there’s no
>>> point in pursuing anyone exceeding the 20 mph limit by less than 10 mph.
>>>
>> I hope no vulnerable pedestrians are injured as a result of your lack
>> of consideration.
>
> Doing that sort of speed on the pavement is dangerous for the cyclist too since
> if something goes wrong you don't have much wiggle room and headbutting a
> lampost or a wall is a distinct possibility.

That’s why I don’t and wouldn’t do it - see follow-up message.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply