Where P&O Leads....

[Benson]

If P&O's business model wasn't working, then it's a failed business. Basically, rather than manage the business correctly by implementing changes over a period of time, the shit accumulated and was about to hit the fan when the CEO went ballistic. Would appear to be a reactive decision no proactive decisions along the way.

[cromwell]

Have to say when the CEO of a company gets up and says I know we broke the law and I'd do it all again is time to say well yes you did and now you're going to jail.

Sieze the ferries and operate them till someone else can do it.....within the law.

[srb7677]

Dismissing an entire workforce with immediate effect - no notice at all - by video call is obnoxious behaviour and callous in the extreme, and only to replace them with cheaper foreign labour (the kind of thing our depoarture from the EU was meant to prevent).

Laws need to change here. At the very least - unless it is dismassal for gross misconduct of some kind - it should be a mandatory requirement to give a minimum week's notice, so that people have time to adapt and get their financial affairs in order, and look for another job whilst sorting welfare claims in the meantime.

I can understand that sometimes there can be financially necessitated restructuring leading to the loss of some jobs. If certain roles are no longer required, necessitating redundancies, that is just one of those unfortunate facts of life sometimes. But to dismiss people from roles that still exist simply to replace them with cheaper labour - foreign or indiginous - ought to be illegal too. If anyone is replaced for any reason it ought to be on the same terms and conditions by law. Firing and rehiring should also be outlawed.

If a business is ceasing to be viable and can no longer afford the current wage levels for any reason, companies should explain this harsh reality to their work forces and negotiate pay cuts to save their jobs, making clear that all involved could be out of work if the company goes under. This would be a harsh choice for workers but if the situation is explained clearly to them that it is either lower pay or no job because their employer will go bust, a majority will be persuadable. Of course, workers would much more readily accept such a bitter pill if absolutely necessary if those in charge take similar pay cuts, with shareholder dividends cut too. Workers are unlikely to agree to pay cuts if their boss still gets to keep the entirety of his fat salary.

[Nick]

Your just a number is probably true of many companies ,this outfit has taken that to another level .  Hope they go under .

Any company can have an economic situation that requires redundancies but that's not the way to handle it. Never been a fan of them anyway so yeah, hope they go belly up. 

[cromwell]

Are you sure Brittany Ferries aren't already using the same type of employment that P&O is moving to?  I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised.

Doubt it,it's owned by a bunch of French farmers.

[Javert]

Are you a socialist, or not? I would have expected you to be cheering for the workers rights and for them and their unions to campaign against this cynical and unethical sacking of workers.

I hope P&O soon cease to exist if this is how they want to do business. Just as well we usually go on Brittany Ferries.

Are you sure Brittany Ferries aren't already using the same type of employment that P&O is moving to?  I haven't checked but I wouldn't be surprised.

I'm still not totally clear how P&O ferries thinks they can do this unless they believe they are not covered by UK (or France) employment law.  I've heard a few politicians state that there is a loophole that allows (some?) companies to do this and get away with it, and that the government has been asked to close this loophole in the past but has not done so.

I've also read that Rishi Sunak has been working with P&O on his freeports stuff, and promising them that one of the big advantages is that there will be "no employment laws" in freeports.  This was one of the huge selling points of Brexit according to Brexit supporters.

I do also wonder if this is what leave voters in the Brexit vote were wanting - UK workers being sacked with no notice and replaced by workers, many of whom are brought in from abroad.  Granted they are probably not EU citizens, but it doesn't really indicate that the vested interests who funded the Brexit project were really serious about protecting UK jobs.  If you look at the writings of major Brexit backers like JRM, it's pretty clear that this is exactly what he wants - no pesky employment laws interfering with the rich people being able to get richer and potentially allowing those without a lot of money already a reasonable life.

[Streetwalker]

Your just a number is probably true of many companies ,this outfit has taken that to another level .  Hope they go under .

[cromwell]

[johnofgwent]

Nationalise? Are you mad? The only thing that would determine is that it loses for ever. Of course it has to adjust if losses are ongoing but this action is just so wrong it should be illegal.  I just wonder how many others are watching this unfold with interest. How many others would try the same given half a chance?

You need to look at earlier issues.

The company is leaking money like there is no tomorrow. They did this on the Hull route and then sold the ships.

[B0ycey]

Are you a socialist, or not? I would have expected you to be cheering for the workers rights and for them and their unions to campaign against this cynical and unethical sacking of workers.

I hope P&O soon cease to exist if this is how they want to do business. Just as well we usually go on Brittany Ferries.

I am a Social Democrat Barry and I made it very clear I support workers and their right to protest in my first post. In fact if you actually understood what I wrote it wasn't that I support P&O but was explaining the mechanism of Capitalism. That and I am fed up with Capitalists complaining about Capitalism but brush off Socialism as dark arts. The truth is there are aspects of every single economy that should be nationalised and aspects of an economy that should be privatised. Vital channel crossings should never have been allowed as an enterprise and always should have been a operation run by our government. To complain about how CEOs act when we have sold the golden goose is having no understanding what the free market is all about. I don't know how much you know about the invisible hand, but to put it in as simple laymen so you can understand the principle of it, if there isn't a market for something it either adapts or disappears. P&O are running at a lost . So the company have decided to adapt and that means redundancies. Do I support that. Of course not. But that IS ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT VITAL SERVICES to be run as an enterprise and as such I don't support the contracts being sold off to begin with. But now they have, we have to accept that businesses want to earn a profit and that in this instance means morally poor choices. You might be happy that P&O goes bust or whatnot, but then I will just have to explain monopoly to you. If the only choice you have is Brittany Ferries, what then do you expect the price of a crossing to be? And what then of the price of goods that we import? There is always a cost with the free market because ultimately the objective of it is to make a profit. Take away that expect of it and you will find both the jobs will be retained and the service would remain as a competitive price because any years of loss are subsided by the tax payer.

[Barry]

The £100mn loss is reoccurring though Cromwell. Like every business, if something isn't profitable you either reform it or you get rid of it. I can appreciate that people are protesting and have been treated badly and I support their right to protest. But it doesn't change the fact that something needs to change in this business if it is to survive. Now me, being me, I understand the importance of cross channel crossing so I will just state the bleeding obvious that P&O should be a nationalised business and if there are losses, the tax payer would pick up the bill and they would also gain the profits on good years. That would save the jobs and the business. But we have cavalier Tory Heyeknite Capitalists in charge and the number one rule with the invisible hand is the market dictates what businesses survive and what businesses don't. A 100mn loss business will not survive without changes. That is just a truth I am afraid.

Are you a socialist, or not? I would have expected you to be cheering for the workers rights and for them and their unions to campaign against this cynical and unethical sacking of workers.

I hope P&O soon cease to exist if this is how they want to do business. Just as well we usually go on Brittany Ferries.

[cromwell]

https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1504438315025637381?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1504438315025637381%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

[cromwell]

Nationalise? Are you mad? The only thing that would determine is that it loses for ever. Of course it has to adjust if losses are ongoing but this action is just so wrong it should be illegal.  I just wonder how many others are watching this unfold with interest. How many others would try the same given half a chance?

Not neccesarily,the east coast public owned that took over that line made a profit nevertheless it was retrned to private ownership.

[B0ycey]

You'll excuse me if I don't take your advice! 

You don't need to I guess. But unfortunately you are in what is known as a paradox. You can see the problem but have no understanding what has caused it. Nationalisation doesn't require profits and as such viability of a business doesn't require it for its survival. The same isn't true for enterprise. It doesn't matter whether you think what P&O has done is right or not. The objective of any business isn't morals but profits. P&O has done what it believes is needed to survive. That is just basic Capitalism.

[T00ts]

Why am I mad to support nationalisation? Given the losses which I suspect will be difficult to prevent even with reforms, it maybe P&Os only option. But in any case, I do hate Capitalists complaining about Capitalism. I agree that such a thing should be illegal but that is because I don't believe such a business should be in the private sector. It seems you do. So why does the decision making of the CEO for the interest of the shareholder bother you? That is the fundamental rule of Libertarianism T00ts. Morals and ethics are for the electorate to decide. My advice to you is you need to jump on the Socialism revolution and support nationalisation in key sectors for the benefit of the state. If you think Rand is right, you should be happy to lose unprofitable businesses and job losses.

You'll excuse me if I don't take your advice!