On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
> 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.
>

No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
individual contracts.

--
Colin

"Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t1ineq$3bb$2@dont-email.me...
>> 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.

He still broke the law, even if no-one officially complains, and should
still pay the ultimate price for it. There really needs to be a way of
barring people who think such tactics are morally acceptable, from simply
walking into another job. He's admitted it, and admitted that he didn't give
the statutory warning because he knew the unions would complain. No further
evidence needed. Unless statements made to a parliamentary committee are
subject to the same parliamentary privilege (avoiding self-incrimination) as
statements in parliament or court.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:t1ineq$3bb$2@dont-email.me...
>>> 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.
>
> He still broke the law, even if no-one officially complains, and should
> still pay the ultimate price for it. There really needs to be a way of
> barring people who think such tactics are morally acceptable, from simply
> walking into another job. He's admitted it, and admitted that he didn't give
> the statutory warning because he knew the unions would complain. No further
> evidence needed. Unless statements made to a parliamentary committee are
> subject to the same parliamentary privilege (avoiding self-incrimination) as
> statements in parliament or court.
>
>

Why P&O’s captain calamity Peter Hebblethwaite is still on deck after
breaking the law

<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7a20397c-ad0f-11ec-8378-1c1dfedc8742?shareToken=b47f0ebdb4c3387ef7030de22d8de8a5>

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
> individual contracts.
>

P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
crewmen. It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
engineering crew, cooks, etc.

In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>> individual contracts.
>
>P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>crewmen.

But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.

>It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>engineering crew, cooks, etc.

A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
tasks?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>> individual contracts.
>>
>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>> crewmen.
>
> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.

On what visas?

>
>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>
> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
> tasks?

They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.

On 27/03/2022 12:00, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>>> individual contracts.
>>>
>>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>>> crewmen.
>>
>> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.
>
> On what visas?
>
>>
>>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>>
>> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
>> tasks?
>
> They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.
>
>

"Asian crew members are not recruited individually." Your post was
unclear, hence my comment. Shipping companies do not individually
advertise and find staff, they use an agency, so to an extent your
comment is correct. But each person employed is employed individually,
not as part of a block of people.

One definite error in your comment, it is not just Asian crew members
but the vast majority of crew members are employed via an agency these
days, even UK seafarers - I recall some posts mentioning that the P&O
staff affected are employed via a Jersey based agency.

--
Colin

On 27/03/2022 09:39, Recliner wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:t1ineq$3bb$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> He still broke the law, even if no-one officially complains, and should
>> still pay the ultimate price for it. There really needs to be a way of
>> barring people who think such tactics are morally acceptable, from simply
>> walking into another job. He's admitted it, and admitted that he didn't give
>> the statutory warning because he knew the unions would complain. No further
>> evidence needed. Unless statements made to a parliamentary committee are
>> subject to the same parliamentary privilege (avoiding self-incrimination) as
>> statements in parliament or court.
>>
>>
>
> Why P&O’s captain calamity Peter Hebblethwaite is still on deck after
> breaking the law
>
> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7a20397c-ad0f-11ec-8378-1c1dfedc8742?shareToken=b47f0ebdb4c3387ef7030de22d8de8a5>
>

Why is Boris Johnson still PM after breaking Covid laws? Why was Dominic
Cummings never prosecuted? etc etc

--
Colin

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:12:22 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/03/2022 12:00, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>>>> individual contracts.
>>>>
>>>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>>>> crewmen.
>>>
>>> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.
>>
>> On what visas?
>>
>>>
>>>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>>>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>>>
>>> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
>>> tasks?
>>
>> They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.
>>
>>
>
>"Asian crew members are not recruited individually." Your post was
>unclear, hence my comment. Shipping companies do not individually
>advertise and find staff, they use an agency, so to an extent your
>comment is correct. But each person employed is employed individually,
>not as part of a block of people.
>
>One definite error in your comment, it is not just Asian crew members
>but the vast majority of crew members are employed via an agency these
>days, even UK seafarers - I recall some posts mentioning that the P&O
>staff affected are employed via a Jersey based agency.

No, they are P&O brass-plate subsidiaries in Jersey, one for each ship. I posted their names.

I don't suppose there are any actual P&O employees or agency staff based in Jersey. It's just a mechanism to make sure
the crews are not on UK contracts.

In message <t1pg43$ko2$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:00:19 on Sun, 27 Mar
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>>> individual contracts.
>>>
>>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>>> crewmen.
>>
>> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.
>
>On what visas?

Whatever they needed for the job they about to leave.

>>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>>
>> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
>> tasks?
>
>They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.

That doesn't actually answer the question. Unless it's "yes" to the
first option.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 06:13:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

Sure, they'll have their own union laws, not a carbon copy of UK laws. Some of the local union power may be based on
factors other than legislation.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:14:48 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/03/2022 09:39, Recliner wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:t1ineq$3bb$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> He still broke the law, even if no-one officially complains, and should
>>> still pay the ultimate price for it. There really needs to be a way of
>>> barring people who think such tactics are morally acceptable, from simply
>>> walking into another job. He's admitted it, and admitted that he didn't give
>>> the statutory warning because he knew the unions would complain. No further
>>> evidence needed. Unless statements made to a parliamentary committee are
>>> subject to the same parliamentary privilege (avoiding self-incrimination) as
>>> statements in parliament or court.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why P&O’s captain calamity Peter Hebblethwaite is still on deck after
>> breaking the law
>>
>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7a20397c-ad0f-11ec-8378-1c1dfedc8742?shareToken=b47f0ebdb4c3387ef7030de22d8de8a5>
>>
>
>Why is Boris Johnson still PM after breaking Covid laws? Why was Dominic
>Cummings never prosecuted? etc etc

And I wonder why Michael Green was never prosecuted?

<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/15/grant-shapps-admits-he-had-second-job-as-millioniare-web-marketer-while-mp>

In message <8fk04ht46tu8na1k2v8le6khqfncrvg6nn@4ax.com>, at 13:03:27 on
Sun, 27 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:12:22 +0100, ColinR
><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 27/03/2022 12:00, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>>>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>>>>> individual contracts.
>>>>>
>>>>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>>>>> crewmen.
>>>>
>>>> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.
>>>
>>> On what visas?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>>>>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>>>>
>>>> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
>>>> tasks?
>>>
>>> They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>"Asian crew members are not recruited individually." Your post was
>>unclear, hence my comment. Shipping companies do not individually
>>advertise and find staff, they use an agency, so to an extent your
>>comment is correct. But each person employed is employed individually,
>>not as part of a block of people.
>>
>>One definite error in your comment, it is not just Asian crew members
>>but the vast majority of crew members are employed via an agency these
>>days, even UK seafarers - I recall some posts mentioning that the P&O
>>staff affected are employed via a Jersey based agency.
>
>No, they are P&O brass-plate subsidiaries in Jersey, one for each ship.
>I posted their names.
>
>I don't suppose there are any actual P&O employees or agency staff
>based in Jersey.

So the CV-screening employment agency isn't in Jersey. Does it actually
matter where they are? Or is it actually a facilities management company
(based in Jersey or somewhere else, may or may not be important, as a FM
company's employees' continuity of employment is not the client (P&O's)
responsibility.

>It's just a mechanism to make sure the crews are not on UK contracts.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t1pgqk$374$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:12:22 on Sun, 27 Mar
2022, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

>One definite error in your comment, it is not just Asian crew members
>but the vast majority of crew members are employed via an agency these
>days, even UK seafarers - I recall some posts mentioning that the P&O
>staff affected are employed via a Jersey based agency.

To return to my question, is that an agency providing outsourced
facilities, not just one doing recruitment, and the employer being
some part of P&O?

It's important because P&O can change agency (of either flavour) without
needing to consult the unions of the agency's employees (of either
flavour).
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 13:08:27 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <8fk04ht46tu8na1k2v8le6khqfncrvg6nn@4ax.com>, at 13:03:27 on
>Sun, 27 Mar 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Sun, 27 Mar 2022 12:12:22 +0100, ColinR
>><rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27/03/2022 12:00, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <t1pa18$u6r$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:16:24 on Sun, 27 Mar
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 25/03/2022 21:34, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No idea where you got that idea from! They are taken on individually,
>>>>>>> but (certainly in the case of Filipinos) on standard contracts, not
>>>>>>> individual contracts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P&O certainly won't have been going to the Philippines to hire individual
>>>>>> crewmen.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there may well be Filipinos already in Europe looking for jobs.
>>>>
>>>> On what visas?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would use an agency to provide a certain number of deck hands,
>>>>>> engineering crew, cooks, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> A purely recruitment agency, or one that provides outsourcing of the
>>>>> tasks?
>>>>
>>>> They would have a contract to recruit certain numbers of each type of crew.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Asian crew members are not recruited individually." Your post was
>>>unclear, hence my comment. Shipping companies do not individually
>>>advertise and find staff, they use an agency, so to an extent your
>>>comment is correct. But each person employed is employed individually,
>>>not as part of a block of people.
>>>
>>>One definite error in your comment, it is not just Asian crew members
>>>but the vast majority of crew members are employed via an agency these
>>>days, even UK seafarers - I recall some posts mentioning that the P&O
>>>staff affected are employed via a Jersey based agency.
>>
>>No, they are P&O brass-plate subsidiaries in Jersey, one for each ship.
>>I posted their names.
>>
>>I don't suppose there are any actual P&O employees or agency staff
>>based in Jersey.
>
>So the CV-screening employment agency isn't in Jersey. Does it actually
>matter where they are? Or is it actually a facilities management company
>(based in Jersey or somewhere else, may or may not be important, as a FM
>company's employees' continuity of employment is not the client (P&O's)
>responsibility.

I don't think the current P&O crews are on agency contracts, but their replacements are. All the recruitment and CV
scanning for the just-made-redundant crews was probably done in the UK, but on behalf of the Jersey brass-plate
operations.

On 25/03/2022 15:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
> 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.

That's Ok until the day when he gets out of bed on the wrong side and
decides to take it out on some motorists. or he has not reached his
quota for that week.

On 25/03/2022 11:08, Recliner wrote:
> What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
> with the trade unions. They knew that no unions could possibly agree with
> the proposal. So simply assumed the certain failure of such negotiations
> and budgeted to pay high enough compensation to bypass the otherwise
> inevitable fights in the courts.

Isn't that common?

I remember someone more familiar with trade unions than me saying that
they rarely agree to anything.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 25/03/2022 11:08, Recliner wrote:
>> What they were required to do, but deliberately did not, was to consult
>> with the trade unions. They knew that no unions could possibly agree with
>> the proposal. So simply assumed the certain failure of such negotiations
>> and budgeted to pay high enough compensation to bypass the otherwise
>> inevitable fights in the courts.
>
> Isn't that common?

I don't think cases like this are common.

>
> I remember someone more familiar with trade unions than me saying that
> they rarely agree to anything.
>

It probably depends on the circumstances and the character of the union.
Some unions seem to be willing to work with employers to produce mutually
beneficial compromises. They know it's better for their members if the
employer survives and prospers, rather than collapses BL-style. Some union
leaders may actually work to benefit their members, rather than to further
their own political aspirations. But the RMT is not such a union, and
probably even the most flexible, cooperative union would have struggled to
find an acceptable compromise with P&O Ferries total workforce replacement
proposal.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 25/03/2022 15:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's Ok until the day when he gets out of bed on the wrong side and
> decides to take it out on some motorists. or he has not reached his
> quota for that week.

The officer in question is on on traffic duty so wouldn’t be involved in
that kind of activity. And who said it was a he?

Sam

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

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 25/03/2022 15:29, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's Ok until the day when he gets out of bed on the wrong side and
>> decides to take it out on some motorists. or he has not reached his
>> quota for that week.
>
> The officer in question is on on traffic duty so wouldn’t be involved in
> that kind of activity. And who said it was a he?

<cough> … not on traffic duty … </cough>

Sam

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