https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001

Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !

Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 03:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Dave Brown
<browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote:

>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>
>Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
>
>Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.

Indeed.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>
> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
>
> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.

Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a collapse or sale.

"Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement

On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
> >
> > Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
> >
> > Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a collapse or sale.
>
> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement

Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I was made redundant.

On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>
>>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
>>>
>>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a collapse or sale.
>>
>> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement
>
> Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I was made redundant.

Hmm, not so sure. Probably more to do with where wages are paid.

When Sun (UK) made redundancies they had to comply with UK law.
But IIRC (from my union rep days), as long as an "affected group" is
less than 100 then the rules change.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 17/03/2022 10:45, Dave Brown wrote:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>
> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
>
> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.

I noticed some of their ships are registered in the Bahamas. Out of idle
curiosity I checked what restrictions they had (if any) on eg minimum
wage. AFAICT, based on a 48 hour/6 day week, their minimum wage is circa
£2.50/hr.

FFS.

--
/Simon

On 17/03/2022 12:58, ogden wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>
>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like that !
>>
>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>
> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a collapse or sale.
>
> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement

The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea
In a beautiful P&O boat,
They took some honey, and plenty of money,
And came back with a redundancy note.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

siwilson <siwilson@nodamnspam.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:j9hjgkFjpb7U1@mid.individual.net:

> On 17/03/2022 10:45, Dave Brown wrote:
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>
>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships
>> to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like
>> that !
>>
>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>
>
> I noticed some of their ships are registered in the Bahamas. Out of
> idle curiosity I checked what restrictions they had (if any) on eg
> minimum wage. AFAICT, based on a 48 hour/6 day week, their minimum
> wage is circa £2.50/hr.
>
> FFS.
>

apparently DFDS already operate their ships with a mostly Filipino crew. I
guess they did this from Day 1 when they took over the slots from Sea
France.

On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
>
> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>
>>>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships
>>>> to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law like
>>>> that !
>>>>
>>>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>>> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a
>>> collapse or sale.
>>>
>>> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across its
>>> entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement
>>>
>>
>> Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can
>> ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I
>> was made redundant.
>
> Hmm, not so sure. Probably more to do with where wages are paid.
>
> When Sun (UK) made redundancies they had to comply with UK law.
> But IIRC (from my union rep days), as long as an "affected group" is
> less than 100 then the rules change.

The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government should
have been informed 45 days before the redundancies. Downing Street is
saying that they weren't told (of course, the letter could have been put
in a kayak which overturned and then fallen behind a radiator when
drying it out, as per The Mouse that Roared).

I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
reduction in bookings.

Mike Fleming wrote:
> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
> the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
> reduction in bookings.

Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow a
bit longer.

On 18/03/2022 01:21, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
>>
>> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need ships
>>>>> to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring law
>>>>> like that !
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>>>> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a
>>>> collapse or sale.
>>>>
>>>> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across
>>>> its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-sailings-before-major-announcement
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can
>>> ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I
>>> was made redundant.
>>
>> Hmm, not so sure. Probably more to do with where wages are paid.
>>
>> When Sun (UK) made redundancies they had to comply with UK law.
>> But IIRC (from my union rep days), as long as an "affected group" is
>> less than 100 then the rules change.
>
> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government should

This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.

<snip>
> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
> the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
> reduction in bookings.
Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to France.

However Jean is so appalled she has said she will take the longer
Brittany Ferries routes (and belive me, that is a big thing for her to
do with her seasickness)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:37:19 AM UTC, Sqirrel99 wrote:
> Mike Fleming wrote:
> > I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
> > the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
> > reduction in bookings.
> Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
> I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow a
> bit longer.

Ditto, I've never really used them, as Dover - Dunkirk works out a little cheaper and dumps you a little further along the coast for a channel crossing.

More than happy to pursue a policy of avoiding them totally.

On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 9:23:06 AM UTC, YTC#1 wrote:
> On 18/03/2022 01:21, Mike Fleming wrote:
> > On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC, browni...@googlemail.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
> [schnip]
> > The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government should
> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>
> <snip>
> > I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
> > the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
> > reduction in bookings.
> Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to France.

Don't they only run Dover to Calais ?

YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote in news:t11j1o$f0f$1@dont-email.me:

>
>
> On 18/03/2022 01:21, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 17/03/2022 14:33, YTC#1 wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2022 13:50, Dave Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 12:59:00 PM UTC, ogden wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 10:45:26 UTC,
>>>>> browni...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60779001
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting, I assume they've been bought by someone and need
>>>>>> ships to be in port to change ownership or some archaic seafaring
>>>>>> law like that !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see what the next few hours bring announcement wise.
>>>>> Looks like it's a staffing thing, to reduce costs, rather than a
>>>>> collapse or sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries has sacked its crew across
>>>>> its entire fleet after stopping all its sailings on Thursday."
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/17/po-ferries-halts-
sa
>>>>> ilings-before-major-announcement
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ouch, that's a bit harsh, I guess not being British owned they can
>>>> ignore the statutory consultation period that I went through when I
>>>> was made redundant.
>>>
>>> Hmm, not so sure. Probably more to do with where wages are paid.
>>>
>>> When Sun (UK) made redundancies they had to comply with UK law.
>>> But IIRC (from my union rep days), as long as an "affected group" is
>>> less than 100 then the rules change.
>>
>> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
>> should
>
> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.
>
> <snip>
>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>> and the reduction in bookings.
> Indeed, it looks like we now have reduced options for crossing to
> France.
>
> However Jean is so appalled she has said she will take the longer
> Brittany Ferries routes (and belive me, that is a big thing for her to
> do with her seasickness)
>

DFDS run services from Dover to Calais and Dunkirk plus there is that
new fangled tunnel thing...

Dave Brown <browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:71d39f5b-b8a0-428e-b725-846aaedccc06n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:37:19 AM UTC, Sqirrel99 wrote:
>> Mike Fleming wrote:
>> > I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>> > from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>> > and the reduction in bookings.
>> Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
>> I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow
>> a bit longer.
>
> Ditto, I've never really used them, as Dover - Dunkirk works out a
> little cheaper and dumps you a little further along the coast for a
> channel crossing.
>

DFDS have Filipino crews apparently
> More than happy to pursue a policy of avoiding them totally.

I had largely done that anyway, after the P&O Portsmouth routes were
binned. I prefer the Tunnel for short crossings and Brittany Ferries for
western routes.

On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 01:21:28 UTC, Mike Fleming wrote:

> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government should
> have been informed 45 days before the redundancies. Downing Street is
> saying that they weren't told (of course, the letter could have been put
> in a kayak which overturned and then fallen behind a radiator when
> drying it out, as per The Mouse that Roared).
>
> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make from
> the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation and the
> reduction in bookings.

Frankly I suspect the great british public will be very forgiving. Give it
a month or two and it'll be back to business as usual.

Stephen Packer <stephen.packer@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7f57f0d2-2f2a-4230-b2ec-b6601a9ae95fn@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, 18 March 2022 at 01:21:28 UTC, Mike Fleming wrote:
>
>> The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
>> should have been informed 45 days before the redundancies. Downing
>> Street is saying that they weren't told (of course, the letter could
>> have been put in a kayak which overturned and then fallen behind a
>> radiator when drying it out, as per The Mouse that Roared).
>>
>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>> and the reduction in bookings.
>
> Frankly I suspect the great british public will be very forgiving.
> Give it a month or two and it'll be back to business as usual.
>

that's what happened when Irish Ferries pulled the same stunt

On 18/03/2022 11:07, wessie wrote:
> Dave Brown <browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote in
> news:71d39f5b-b8a0-428e-b725-846aaedccc06n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:37:19 AM UTC, Sqirrel99 wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>>>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>>>> and the reduction in bookings.
>>> Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
>>> I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow
>>> a bit longer.
>>
>> Ditto, I've never really used them, as Dover - Dunkirk works out a
>> little cheaper and dumps you a little further along the coast for a
>> channel crossing.
>>
>
> DFDS have Filipino crews apparently
>

The last time I went DFDS, three years back, they were a mixed bag
including French and British as well as other nations.

Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote in news:t12c7m$bkv$1@dont-email.me:

> On 18/03/2022 11:07, wessie wrote:
>> Dave Brown <browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> news:71d39f5b-b8a0-428e-b725-846aaedccc06n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:37:19 AM UTC, Sqirrel99 wrote:
>>>> Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>>>>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>>>>> and the reduction in bookings.
>>>> Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
>>>> I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow
>>>> a bit longer.
>>>
>>> Ditto, I've never really used them, as Dover - Dunkirk works out a
>>> little cheaper and dumps you a little further along the coast for a
>>> channel crossing.
>>>
>>
>> DFDS have Filipino crews apparently
>>
>
> The last time I went DFDS, three years back, they were a mixed bag
> including French and British as well as other nations.
>

I read it on the internet, it must be true

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:37:49 -0000 (UTC), wessie
<willnotwork@tesco.net> wrote:

>Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote in news:t12c7m$bkv$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 18/03/2022 11:07, wessie wrote:
>>> Dave Brown <browniebrownz@googlemail.com> wrote in
>>> news:71d39f5b-b8a0-428e-b725-846aaedccc06n@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 8:37:19 AM UTC, Sqirrel99 wrote:
>>>>> Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>>>> I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
>>>>>> from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
>>>>>> and the reduction in bookings.
>>>>> Yet another company to add to the list of 'Avoid if at all possible'.
>>>>> I wish the list of 'Ethical companies, happy to deal with' would grow
>>>>> a bit longer.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto, I've never really used them, as Dover - Dunkirk works out a
>>>> little cheaper and dumps you a little further along the coast for a
>>>> channel crossing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DFDS have Filipino crews apparently
>>>
>>
>> The last time I went DFDS, three years back, they were a mixed bag
>> including French and British as well as other nations.
>>
>
>I read it on the internet, it must be true

I could see the seamen, cabin crew and those in contact with customers
being recruited very differently.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

Colin Irvine wrote:
> I could see the seamen, cabin crew and those in contact with customers
> being recruited very differently.

Heheheheh. He said he could see the seamen.

On 18/03/2022 16:53, ogden wrote:
> Colin Irvine wrote:
>> I could see the seamen, cabin crew and those in contact with customers
>> being recruited very differently.
>
> Heheheheh. He said he could see the seamen.

She was only the Admiral's daughter, but her naval base etc.

--
/Simon

YTC#1 wrote:

> > The affected group is 800, so as it's over 100, the UK government
> > should
>
> This can be bypassed by splitting them into teams, say per ship.

No, they can't. There has been some confusing case law on this but
it's mostly based on the overall structure of the business. In this
case that's 800.

In anycase the number is 20 which requires them to consult. I'm fairly
sure a ships crew is over 20.

There has been a demonstrable failure to consult which will
automatically make the dismissal unfair (redundancy is a form of
dismissal).

I have absolutely no idea what P&O are thinking. The reputational
damage alone is enormous let alone the forthcoming legal costs.

--
Simon

Stephen Packer wrote:

> > I do wonder whether P&O will find that the savings that they make
> > from the sackings will be greater than the cost to their reputation
> > and the reduction in bookings.
>
> Frankly I suspect the great british public will be very forgiving.
> Give it a month or two and it'll be back to business as usual.

I'm not so sure - I don't see it as a "Ratner moment" but the
reputational fallout will be huge.

However, the hauliers will be more driven on price and my guess is
that's where the money is, so they'll probably survive.

What I can't see, is how they thought this was a good idea? This isn't
"fire and rehire" which is basically the imposition of a new contract
(which you don't have to accept but *you* effectively terminate your
own employment) and is lawful for an employer if handled correctly.

This is just "fire" which has very different rules.

--
Simon

On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 16:48:23 +0000, Colin Irvine
<look@colinandpat.co.uk> wrote:

>I could see the seamen, cabin crew and those in contact with customers
>being recruited very differently.

It was always thus. Back in the day when I was on big ships (with P&O,
as it happens) the officers were nearly all brits (just one very
'British' Indian first mate, as I recall), the deck and engine room
crew were foreign, either Cantonese or Bombay Indians, if the latter
then the cooks and stewards were Goanese.

This was on mostly far Eastern routes, so it made logistical sense, as
well as financial, I suppose, and was a model much used by other
smaller British companies as well (at that time P&O were by far much
the biggest).

So yeah, I could well imagine the ferry crew being broken down into
engineering, cargo handling (i.e. everything on vehicle decks)
catering, cleaning, customer facing, etc. with different recruitment
locations and strategies for the various groups.

--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/