P and Oh Dear!
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 YT  Oxford 19 Mar 22 8.49am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
Tony Blair said to the 1995 Labour Party Conference "[under a Labour government] there will be an end to zero-hours contracts". As I recall it, there was a Labour government between 1997 and 2010, but Blair's pledge appears not to have been met.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Badger11 Beckenham 19 Mar 22 9.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
Please give examples. I have tried looking on the interweb and so far I have comes across lots of articles saying the Tories will do this and that but no actual legislation. In fact employment rights have actually been strengthened e.g. court decisions about the gig economy / Uber for example. I am not saying that the Tories won't weaken them in the future but I don't think the major stuff has changed since Labour was in power but happy to be proved wrong. Simply put Tony Blair had the chance to roll back the anti union Thatcher laws and didn't.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dubai Eagle 19 Mar 22 11.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
I would suspect that the biggest issue was the fact of the P&O workers belonging to a union - it has its plus points for the worker but very little benefit for the management (in the modern day) Unions want a fair deal for their people which is completely understandable, however you sometimes get situations where what the company can realistically afford to pay & still bring the product (or service) to market (with profit for the shareholders) is a considerable distance from the bargaining position of the Union / workers. With rising energy costs its not difficult to imagine that if there has been a history of difference of opinion between company & union over wages , perks, terms & benefits that at a certain point in time there has to be a line drawn in the sand - In this case there was apparently an option - Negotiate with the union(s) or cut the jobs from the company (redundancy & take the legal ramifications / costs in one hit- one financial year) & outsource the work to a 3rd party company which if the press reports are to be believed reduce the labour costs by 50%. Originally posted by Mapletree
In 2020 - the last filed accounts - it made £68.4m EBITDA. I guess the question would be what would the future hold, would it return to profit. I assume Brexit will have reduced its revenue last year as well as COVID. But we are told the Brexit effect is now reducing and trade recovering so I don't see why 2021 would be anything other than a blip. Maybe P&O is using last year's results as an excuse to do what it had been wanting to do for a while... Also, annual results can be worked upon to make them look better or worse, I suspect the worst possible scenario was put forward.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Jimenez  SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 19 Mar 22 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Grumbles
He wasn't. He was pointing out extremely light weight thinking. You were rude just apologise, a thought that would go far with many posters on this site. It seems here many will fire off insults until they get a yellow card, and then because they can't trust themselves don't post for a month. Then I apologise for 'light weight thinking' in any case who asked you?
Pro USA & Israel |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 19 Mar 22 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
I would suspect that the biggest issue was the fact of the P&O workers belonging to a union - it has its plus points for the worker but very little benefit for the management (in the modern day) Unions want a fair deal for their people which is completely understandable, however you sometimes get situations where what the company can realistically afford to pay & still bring the product (or service) to market (with profit for the shareholders) is a considerable distance from the bargaining position of the Union / workers. With rising energy costs its not difficult to imagine that if there has been a history of difference of opinion between company & union over wages , perks, terms & benefits that at a certain point in time there has to be a line drawn in the sand - In this case there was apparently an option - Negotiate with the union(s) or cut the jobs from the company (redundancy & take the legal ramifications / costs in one hit- one financial year) & outsource the work to a 3rd party company which if the press reports are to be believed reduce the labour costs by 50%. In my (long) experience, unions do lots of "political agitation" but do very little towards securing a "fair deal" for their members. I suspect that, deep down, they recognise that the vast majority of employers are pretty decent towards their workforces.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 19 Mar 22 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
I would suspect that the biggest issue was the fact of the P&O workers belonging to a union - it has its plus points for the worker but very little benefit for the management (in the modern day) Unions want a fair deal for their people which is completely understandable, however you sometimes get situations where what the company can realistically afford to pay & still bring the product (or service) to market (with profit for the shareholders) is a considerable distance from the bargaining position of the Union / workers. With rising energy costs its not difficult to imagine that if there has been a history of difference of opinion between company & union over wages , perks, terms & benefits that at a certain point in time there has to be a line drawn in the sand - In this case there was apparently an option - Negotiate with the union(s) or cut the jobs from the company (redundancy & take the legal ramifications / costs in one hit- one financial year) & outsource the work to a 3rd party company which if the press reports are to be believed reduce the labour costs by 50%. Not really There is a consultation requirement of 45 days but not negotiation. I assume this is guess work. It appears to be based upon an anti union bias but have no substantiating facts. Note that there is also a legal requirement to inform the redundancy payments service 45 days before redundancies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 20 Mar 22 5.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
I would suspect that the biggest issue was the fact of the P&O workers belonging to a union - it has its plus points for the worker but very little benefit for the management (in the modern day) Unions want a fair deal for their people which is completely understandable, however you sometimes get situations where what the company can realistically afford to pay & still bring the product (or service) to market (with profit for the shareholders) is a considerable distance from the bargaining position of the Union / workers. With rising energy costs its not difficult to imagine that if there has been a history of difference of opinion between company & union over wages , perks, terms & benefits that at a certain point in time there has to be a line drawn in the sand - In this case there was apparently an option - Negotiate with the union(s) or cut the jobs from the company (redundancy & take the legal ramifications / costs in one hit- one financial year) & outsource the work to a 3rd party company which if the press reports are to be believed reduce the labour costs by 50%. Reducing labour costs would be one benefit and can also be used as a bargaining tool. P&O seem to want to play hardball with negotiations.
,.,.,.., |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Dubai Eagle 20 Mar 22 7.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Hi Maple, My take (my guesswork, if you will) was based on Middle East experience where the concept of having an additional body For a global operator if you cant get the labour force in a specific country / location to operate at a cost that you can accept then outsourcing labour to 3rd party contractors doesn't have anywhere near the same "social conscience" level as say a company wholly owned & based in one country. We have all seen manufacturing companies who have taken over other manufacturing companies in different countries, when downsizing inevitably occurs its almost always the company that got bought out that suffers not the company that did the buying out Also - if this goes reasonably well - obviously everything is relative (not too much disruption to service / not too much bad press / not too much litigation cost, not too much Government fall out etc) I wouldn't be surprised to see the same company do it again in other operating centres. On the 45 days thing - I have no idea- but if your undertaking this kind of exercise & its going to take a massive chunk off your wage bill / HR responsibilities for 800 employees going forwards - is there a possibility to pay each effected worker another 45 days money (in lieu of consultation time ? along with whatever severance pay is offered) I am not connected to anything, not in the know - this is just my tuppence worth from afar for what its worth. Originally posted by Mapletree
Not really There is a consultation requirement of 45 days but not negotiation. I assume this is guess work. It appears to be based upon an anti union bias but have no substantiating facts. Note that there is also a legal requirement to inform the redundancy payments service 45 days before redundancies.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 21 Mar 22 1.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
P & O can Piss Off as far as I'm concerned.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Grumbles 23 Jun 22 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Has anyone else noticed, the Government stance: * replacing P&O workers with agency staff = BAD let's be consistent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
croydon proud  Any european country i fancy! 23 Jun 22 1.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Grumbles
Has anyone else noticed, the Government stance: * replacing P&O workers with agency staff = BAD let's be consistent. The CONservatives are consistent - on having no idea what they are doing, , making up good stories on what they are going to do, only not checking out the cost or legality, but consistent!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 23 Jun 22 6.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by croydon proud
The CONservatives are consistent - on having no idea what they are doing, , making up good stories on what they are going to do, only not checking out the cost or legality, but consistent! Ok
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.