UKC

I'm not up on my Employment Law but you surely cant just sack all of your employees and then employ cheaper agency labour a few days later to carry out the same tasks?

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

This is what Britannia looks like when it's been unchained.

I've heard it suggested that maritime employment law differs greatly from "land based" employment law, so they actually could do it when e.g. a bus company couldn't.

It is however an utter disgrace.

Brutal. The great free market.

Governments force businesses to shut during pandemic, business makes move to address the massive losses from this decision, the free market gets the blame.

From the article:

"However, like many transport operators it saw demand slump in the pandemic, forcing it to announce 1,110 job cuts. That came after it failed to secure a £150m bailout from the government."

I'd prefer we didn't force businesses to close OR bailout failing businesses.

What can P&O do, continue to run at £100 million losses year on year? Are people suggesting they are lying about losses and are actually in profit and only looking to increase this profit?

The corrupt government could bail out P&O for decades with the money "spaffed" away on useless PPE provided by their VIP mates.

If they cannot run profitably while paying fair wages then they should close.

What is inacceptable is businesses making money for the owners while cutting the wages of their employees, sometimes paying wages that are so low that they have to be topped up by state benefits.

Direct subsidies to the companies themselves is a double edged sword. It is a valuable tool in times of acute crisis, e.g. the current pandemis, but it should not be allowed to be abused as a tool to shovel taxpayer money to offshore owners while the workers get screwed anyway.

As for P&O, they used to be great 25 years ago, but by the last time I used them about 10 years ago their ferries were rusty buckets you would e.g. not see anywhere in Scandinavia and the service was shit. Not surprised that brexit broke their back.

Anyway, IMO a ferry service is key infrastructure just like roads, canals, or water works, and should be run under state ownership or at least tight regulatory control and not necessarily for profit.

CB

They could, but why would they? And why would we want them to?

Pre covid they seemed to turn over £40-50million profit on approx £1billion revenue and the parent (Dubai's DP World) company seemed to making approx $1billion in profit with plenty of money going to shareholders in dividends......

It is guaranteed that the brexshiteers will be along to remind you that it woz Covid wot did it.

Before calling you a woke marxist snowflake.

But I agree 100% with your post. 

The freight component, anyhow.

In reply to rj_townsend:

Keeping ferry freight/logistics flowing is in the national interests.  So there's reason to want the state to be able to intervene in a subset of their business.  Freight is just getting hit by a succession of hammer blows lately.  That's bad in all sorts of ways.

Brutal. The free market. That's better....no sarcasm.

The ships are registered in Cyprus and the staff are employed by a Jersey subsidiary of P&O, which is itself owned by a company based in Dubai. From their point of view the UK is only relevant in that it happens to be where the staff live.

Jesus. Looks like the BBC has sacked all their editors too

No change from WW2 then, merchant sailors' pay was stopped when the ship was sunk.

indeed, best response is to deploy the “free market” against them by not using them…..issue is people struggle to stick to that (I.e. everyone knows Amazon pays little tax but when push comes to shove people still buy from them if it’s £2 cheaper - I am not judging them just observing)

I have made a big effort this year to not use Amazon, sports direct etc, but it’s hard and does involve a lot of effort. 

There's DFDS and the tunnel, no need to ever use P&O again.

I feel qualified to say that the mgt are utter bastards 

Wow! I didn't know that. Do you have a link reference to this?

That's rather a simplistic view, pretty much the whole world shut down, if the UK had stayed open where would the ferries sailed to?

Its a shitty situation and exploitation of the workforce.  I also heard as someone else mentioned that the company is registered in Jersey and maritime law is different. 

We had a state-run ferry service (Sealink, part of the railways). If you think P&O ferries are rustbuckets you haven't lived! Like built in 1924, used as a hospital ship and saw service at Dunkirk old when I travelled on one in the late 50's.

Allowing private operators changed things for the better.

Current ships are at least that old!

Wikipedia's List of P&O Ships suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P%26O_Ferries_ships

Like Townsend-Thoresen? (Actually P&O)

OK, up to that old!

But just compare the P&O ships to, say, Finnjet from Travemünde to Helsinki, or Color Line from Denmark to Norway.

No comparison, really.

CB

I recall reading it in a museum in Liverpool.

Wikipedia suggests that loss of pay occurred up to May 1941, when a 'reserve pay pool' was created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_merchant_seamen_of_World_War_II#Merch...

Its utterly immoral, I hope that if this decision is not immediately reversed, the British public and haulage industry will vote with their feet and boycott the company. A disgusting way to treat their workforce. 

This was the argument used by the Thatcher government to justify the sale of Sealink ferries. They claimed the average age of the nationalised Sealink fleet was older than the competition and the only way they could compete was to hand them over to the private sector who could finance their modernisation.

However the average age calculation included the historic Windermere steamer fleet which at the time was owned by Sealink. Without the hundred year old historic steamer fleet, the average age of the Sealink Ferries were newer than their competition.

Finnjet was scrapped in 2008 so as you say no comparison.

My mistake, Finnlines....

My point still stands, though!

CB

One can hope that before the morning of the first sailing the MCA, HSE and representatives/auditors of the vessels insurers board to check everyone’s tickets and then get them to run through all their emergency drills to see if the new staff can actually work as an effective functional crew under stress.  Then check they can follow thier standard operating procedures. If they can’t they don’t get to sail……. P&O management will then have a poison pill called ‘ the cost of change’ to swallow.

Having known someone in a offshore facilities audit roll, they were particularly diligent and always had concerns when there was a crew that didn’t know each other and didn’t know the kit. The end result was often that they weren’t signed off to operate, to much wailing by management whom quickly learnt that they were no longer the king pin.

That thought had crossed my mind. Brand new crew, never even been onboard, they're good to start sailing with passengers?

Time somebody stood up to the hard left RMT union, hope there's more of it.

Leaving aside the rights/wrongs of the employment model. Changing a whole crew at once is not good practice…..and a huge risk both safety, service and operationally.

Do you really believe these services are loss making; in the pandemic yes maybe.

But for example 14 cross channel sailings a day suggests these boats are almost at max operational efficiency with limited non working time tied up along side. They are also serving an affluent western market with good prices. I would suggest the loss is probably more due to the shell company structures, than any ‘slacking’ of the UK crew.

Just watching a thing on this on the BBC a little while ago. One of the interviewees (I think either an employment solicitor or a union guy) commented that in spite of the 100 million loss* the last year's total dividend payout was £250 million. I've just had a quick look and can't find link to a total sum but I'm tired and lazy so not looking very hard.

I was wondering the same thing regarding some legal but grey accounting practice. I'm sure I read something somewhere about companies conveniently making a loss due to the company effectively having to pay for itself because of the debt owed to buy it (or something similar)

*bullsh*t

The employent law situation will be based on the location of the country the ship is registered in. I'm not sure exactly but the ferries and other ships are often registered in places such as the Bahamas, Liberia or any number of obscure places, regardless of who owns the company owning the ferry.  Its all rather a muddle.

Leaving ethics aside I would be looking to cancel and go with someone else for that reason.

Unless like us you're unfortunate enough to have a ticket booked already and it's not refundable 😞

The fact they are pulling such a stunt despite predictable big negative publicity tells us they aren’t scarred of losing market share; ergo they think they have a strong hand/monopoly. It’s basically two fingers to the UK staff and suck it up buttercup to the customers.

Look at the posting history, it's a troll.

P&O are paying other opperators to take their customers so they have time to change staff change.

We should nationalise the whole fu*king lot as a warning to others but we won't because this sort of bollocks is what this wrecking government was bought for.

Jk

P&O minus 1.

Have just changed our P&O Hull-Rotterdam to Irish Ferries Dover-Calais.

but the line owners are financing a flagship Brexit promise - Free Ports!  I'm sure there will be a way of them getting away with it

Sadly I think they will do okay in the end but looking at how it played out today seems like they have badly misjudged it so far. The original announcements implied it was just going to be a couple of hour delay but now it seems to be stretching out to 10 days or so.

I think they were probably hoping to get it out quietly with everything else going and it hasnt quite worked.

Of course they'll get away with it. They shouldn't but they will.

Jk

I've worked on ships in the past as an Instrument tech.  If I was a tech on one of those p&o boats I'd be leaving a clear message that a lot of their equipment has been de-calibrated.  You wouldn't have to actually do anything, but there's no way they could go to sea if there was any doubt. They'd have to get the entire vessel checked over. The time in dock and cost! 😂😂😂😂😂

Smarty pants.

As I understand it the £250 million is tho holding company that owned them and many other companies. The group is making a profit but not this leg of it. Probably down to creative accounting though because you don't save £100 million by saving a few quid on 800 wages

If these ships are sailing between the UK and EU then the operator should have a choice between having EU crew with EU employment rights or UK crew with UK employment rights.  If they are losing money they can close loss making services or raise fares. They shouldn't be able to opt out of employment laws and neither should their competitors so everyone's fares should reflect UK/EU level wages.

Are t the employment laws the same as before, almost of our GB law has been simply copied across, so unless it’s been revised since Brexit, the rules haven’t changed. 

Just heard an employment lawyer laying out in brief what the law is, and it appears that employees shouldn’t sign the offered agreement as they have a good case for unfair dismissal.  In addition, they should have submitted a notice to the Govt, which is a legal requirement and could be open to criminal charges too.  Guessing watch this space, but P&O are utterly contemptible 

Cruise ships have been employing people on race to the bottom contracts for years, just no one cared because they weren't uk nationals and Brits were the passengers. 

It's odd overall, there must be more to it and why they didn't just put 5% on their prices, the other companies must feel the same pressure with fuels costs etc..

And the people who voted for this shambles, that being the only time they ever voted, won't even know that there's an issue. They might complain that there's no English staff on the ship though.

Finnjet was obviously just a ship, fastest for a while, gas not bunker oil driven. 

The actions of P&O are entirely consistent with the outlook / ethos of the cretins that wrote Britannia Unchained, most of whom are now in cabinet.

DP world ! they’ve all been shafted.

They've apparently got the cut-price freight service up and running this morning.

That's an interesting article, thank you. I had no idea that their pay ceased when their ship was sunk prior to May 1941. Grossly unfair. What brave men those seamen were, 49% died. That's a similar loss rate to that of Bomber Command, although on a smaller scale in terms of numbers. I think the only Arm that had an even higher loss rate was the German U Boat service.

I'd have asked the captain to take us for a cruise ...

Are the other ferry companies that much different? A quick google -

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2005/irish-ferries-dis....

https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2020/july/dfds-immingham-usi...

I am not sure how on a cross channel ferry they can employ anybody else other than UK or European citizens. its probably impractical and illegal to bring in staff form outside those area unless they stop the ferries mid Channel and load unload new staff.

I also doubt that the ferry operator can suddenly have  qualifed suitable technical staff to be on effectively on zero hours contracts.I will bet those sort of staff will be reemployed quickly.

Its those on catering or cleaning or non skilled contracts who will suffer.

I'd agree, as bad as the decision is I doubt it's spur of the moment, they must have some plan in place, but maybe misjudged the reaction and hoped many would switch to the inferior contract.

Nobody has made any comments on the other Ferry operators- do they work on worse/similar/better contracts.Its possible that P and O had a really good contracts but other ferry companys are worse and P and O were not competitive in the ferry market. Just speculatingas to why they took such drastic action.

I think there is  a Brexit dimension to this. Many countries control who can 'ship' goods (by truck, ship or plane) within their boundaries (cabotage), but there's treaty agreements that anyone can move goods (or passengers) internationally. For instance any ship has a right to load up in one country and take their cargo for unloading in the US, but the Jones Act prevents them from loading up there with cargo / passengers for another US port. Only US built ships with US owners and US crew can work between US ports.

Part of the single market provision in the EU was to move from individual country based cabotage rules to a pan-EU model. This allowed trucks from any EU country to move goods between any points within the EU without restriction. I believe it also resulted in Italian ferry companies running services across the channel, between Greek islands, etc.

With Brexit, the Channel is now a route between sovereign states so neither country can restrict international trade (as long as the ships meet minimum World shipping standards) and the employment regulations will be that of the flag state.

I imagine the P&O owned Herald of Free Entreprise was exciting. No end of irony in the name.

Did it have a climbing wall?

Probably not, but my trip is imminent.

A quick google -

Coincidentally, this was the first time in forty years of travel to Europe that I'd booked the Hull-Rotterdam ferry in preference to a Channel crossing... and then this happens! Sod's Law.

just another example of how we've sold off  British enterprises built up over the years to people like the Shaikh of Dubai by the self interests of those who run our government and now running cap in hand to the nouveau riche UAE and Saudi Arabia

Nobody will boycott them, as they’re a vital part of the UK transport system. Owned by Arabs and fleet registered in Cyprus. They have undoubtedly lost millions. I travelled to France in Jan and there were 4 cars on the boat! With great regret I think they will get away with this a la British Airways. Public ownership? Check out how the SNP run CalMac. Not only can’t they run ferries, but they can’t build them either. Shipbuilding capability on the Clyde yet years of overrun and costs on one ferry, so now outsourced to Turkey.

British Airways backed down in hte end after pressure from Govt and Unions ( they were called before Hof C).

USA is possibly redherring as Ports are controlled by the Unions and local State rules.So for example in CA you have to be unionised trucker and comply with local environmental legislation, stops non unionised truckers from outside the State getting involved. Very complicated there.

Not sure about the Brexit dimension as different contracts available even before Brexit. Suspect its more ownership of vessels and a capability on ships becuase of International maritime law to use employees from outside Uk and EU which is the real issue.

Think Pand O bailed out and sold it becaase they were even then losing money from what I recall.

The Tunnel made Dover/Calais route very competitive.

A bit like coaches, where I suspect either Flixbus will fail or gobble up one of the other two, I'm not sure there's room for a third operator on the Calais route.  Irish Ferries coming in will have made the economics of P&O even worse.

No, it's simple, the law has been like Jim Lancs says for maybe 150 years.

Cabotage is pretty irrelevant anyway since P&O ships are registered in the EU but transport ouside the EU. What Cypriot law says about crew pay rates  on their shipping I can only guess but their wages are tax free which is probably a help! They will be governed by whatever the collective bargaining agreement for Cyprus says.

Unfortunately a poor example for theUKC xenophobes; British owned, flagged and crewed.

I'm pretty sure that as well as having pay stoped those who survived a sinking were left to find/fund their own way back home.

Yes generally lower survival chances than in the armed forces.

I have a friend whose grandfather served on the Arctic conveys and apparently spent most of the war with an iron bar smashing ice off the railings and deck, so the vessel didn't become top heavy and capsize under its own weight. (My Grandfather in law served as chief engineer, so at least was below deck in the warmth.)

Like you I am not sure how it practically works with say non European/Uk employees getting on or off at French or UK Ports.Is Cyprus not in the EU-- are are you talking about Turkish Cypriots.

Still does not stop them employing people on say zero hours contract from say the UK ( although practically probabaly not possible as once you are on a ship difficult to get off).

As I understand it most crews effectively live on Ferries for a few days.

For what it's worth, Condor Ferries running the France - CI - UK route have been employing Ukranians in their enginerooms for years on salaries well below UK and French minimum wage and there have been a number of strikes by their French staff in protest at this.  However, as the CI aren't in the EU I'm not sure if this has a bearing on your thoughts.

The P&O staff are/were employed by a Jersey company, almost certainly as this is standard practise in the maritime / offshore (oil rig) world to allow the staff to avoid taxes in their country of residence. A mate of mine worked on cableships and got caught one year because work dried up and he spent long enough ashore to have to pay income tax.  There are a number of 'ship management / payroll' companies in Guernsey for this exact reason.

Cyprus is in the EU, the ships are also registered there so wherever their crews come from in the world they are subject to the Cypriot CBA assuming P&O are part of it.

Here is the relevant law:-

https://www.gov.uk/seafarer-working-and-living-rights/maritime-labour-conve...

Is that a real photo?? If so it's brilliant 

The Greek part yes.....the Turkish part?

So what you are saying is that the UK employees avoided taxes in the UK?

Gets better and better.

If that is the case then I have little sympathy....in reality no sympathy...

I would be keeping my mouth shut.

Dubai owned company. Cyprus flagged vessels so they can operate in the EU.

Less than minimum wage paid crews.

The only ones dodging tax are the foreign owners. 

Two bus loads of foreign workers were staying in a hotel in Ashford last night, ready to move on the boats. 

All of Cyprus is in the EU, the illegally Turkish occupied part is " not under the control of the government of Cyprus" so EU law is suspended. All Cypriot flagged ships are registered in the Republic.

Yeah it does, UKC is full of people who can like to go 'Aha!' and score a point, I can wonder if they're like that in everyday life too, or save it for UKC to employ their rapier like wit and intellect. 

Condor is a C.I registered company and the ships registered in the Bahamas so crew pay and taxation is the resposibility of the Bahamas and company taxation the responsibility of the C.I.

The British truck driver carrying your exports across Europe doesn't register for income tax in every country they cross either.

So what you are saying is that the Turkish side is not under EU law. And when people talk about Cyprus do they mean the EU bit or the non EU bit. 
 

 No idea what you are on about .

Copy and paste from the EU website:-

Cyprus is a presidential republic. The president is both head of state and government. Despite joining the EU as a de facto divided island, the whole of Cyprus is EU territory. Turkish Cypriots who have, or are eligible for, EU travel documents are EU citizens. EU law is suspended in areas where the Cypriot government (Government of the Republic) does not exercise effective control. Cyprus has two official languages: Greek and Turkish; only Greek is an official EU language."

What people mean when they talk about Cyprus I don't know, how would I?

Absolutely shocking, watching our employment rights dwindle away every year.... if your not in a union I suggest you join up. 

Wasn't it Townsend Thoresen, not P&O?

I was reminded about what we were taught at school about how things were before unions existed, in workers being able to be treated badly by bosses without having any recourse.

I thought the combination of being made redundant without notice via a recorded video and email, and private security staff with handcuffs being deployed, was especially unwholesome.

Same thing. TT was quickly rebadged after the tragedy. Like German Wings becoming Eurowings, Winscale becoming Sellafield etc. But history never forgets.

Owned by P&O.

Thanks, didn't realise that.

Bit of a myth, that one. The Windscale site is still there, but as part of a much larger facility incorporating a number of other licensed sites, e.g Calder Hall, created nearly 25 years after the Windscale fire. Not exactly a speedy bit of PR spin.

Fair do s. I always thought it was only the Greek side that was in the EU

How do those fit in if as Toersg suggested the crew had different contracts and paid no tax in the U.K. and were paid offshore?m

Do you think that those employees are then entitled to the same rights as those employees in the U.K. who paid tax and NI?

Complicated??? 

Generally I agree. But it helps to be able to join a union that isn’t too short-sighted to recognise where its members’ interest lie…

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/rmt-sets-out-six-key-reasons-for-leaving-the-eu...

If you sack every one of your deck and engine officers, that's a colossal amount of know-how and experience -specific to each ship and route- that you lose. It blows my mind that P&O don't see that. 

I'm a merchant seafarer by trade. One of my classmates worked for P&O. I'll use DFDS and the tunnel from now on, without fail. 

That's something I haven't seen anything on, is it all the crew or just household staff etc?

I don’t know either but all crew members surely need to be fully aware of procedures onboard their specific vessel and route, from both a safety and practical workday point of view.

I work shoreside for a ferry company and all our sea-going staff must do familiarisation sessions onboard with experienced crew before working on a different vessel or route.

I think it is everyone.... that is what most news outlets say.

Aside from moral reasons not to use them, the safety implications are a bit of a discouragement to travel with the new service for several months.

I was going to reply "they've rebadged it, you fool" then realised you might not be a Partridge fan 😂

Yes in an emergency I would be very surprised if the vast majority of staff don't have an active role assigned to them. (Roll call at muster points, fire fighting, first aid,  launching lifeboats etc).

All crew on passenger carrying ships have to have a STCW certificate, depending on their shipboard responsibility there are differing requirements (paragraphs) they need endorsments for. These are all IMO requirements and the crew members carry them from ship to ship.

The onboard familiarisation depends obviously from ship to ship but a couple of days is apparently normal.

True but not especially relevant. They were never going to crew the ship with unqualified staff. To get the STCW courses that are needed to work on a ferry (Crowd Control, Crisis Management) isn't hard. To know the ship well enough to be useful in an emergency is a whole different thing. 

Normally, for a ferry, the whole crew doesn't change at once (this does happen on, for example, standby vessels, but there each officer does a comprehensive handover, usually by email a day befote then in person for an hour or two).  One officer will change out, then another will change out next week; there is rarely if ever a time when every officer onboard leaves and is replaced. This is to ensure that ship and route-specific knowledge is retained. P&O just lost this.

I hope the agency crew have time to figure out how to close the doors before they start sailing. And where they are in their planned maintenance, what the password is to the office laptop, where the box of fuses is kept...

That's why I asked if ALL the crew had been sacked which I still don't know.

specifically, for a new crew member and an existing crew experienced with the vessel, or does this 2 days apply to an entirely new crew without a handover period?

I find it inconceivable that the two scenarios are at all equivalent.

Oh come on, you are making a bit of a big deal of this. It's not like it's a fleet of planes which could crash. They are only little boats aren't they? Boats don't ever sink.

Somebody somewhere made the decision to do what they did, in the way they did it. They probably do sleep well at night right now, as I would imagine any conscience they ever did have would be long since departed. However, as the real cost of this fiasco starts to mount for P&O I wonder if that individual will sleep quite so peacefully over the next few months?

Edit for fat fingers.

Probably depends if you are a complete noob or someone with twenty years experience on car ferries throughout Europe.

yes but each ship has its own limitations on operation/load etc to be observed to keep within safety limits.  Its own list of deficiencies, nonconformance with specifications, workarounds etc etc. 

Not just engineering but also all the electronic systems, communications, radar, control systems apart from the propulsion systems

New ship to crew might require sea trials to establish these. It's not like knowing how to drive a certain kind of car.

more like a commissioning process

None of which is relevant to the person who cooks the chips or cleans the toilets.

Some explanation in this article why P&Os French workers kept their jobs but not UK workers.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20220318/why-did-po-ferries-axe-uk-jobs-but-keep-it...

And Nigel Farage got rather cross that Brexit isn’t working out in quite the way he said it would.

youtube.com/watch?v=M-atAbAdEKQ&

So what does the UK have to do to actually “Take back control”?

nothing, as the important people, the only ones whose rights and aspirations (but not duties) matter, now have control.

So ridiculously short sighted, I’ve worked offshore and we only received holiday pay and time off under the European working time directive because it was taken to the European court.

While I wholeheartedly agree with unions being an essential part of a democracy and balance in society, I do find the language and attitude of some union organisations very frustrating. The sooner Gen Z get involved and displace the dinosaurs the better.

How different are things for the Stranraer to Larne ferry in employment terms, since that is UK-UK rather than international? Looks like they did the same thing to their crews there

you can be glad we're well rid of all that extra "EU Red Tape" now it's on the Brexit Bonfire of Rights

but your comments about dinosaurs discredit you

That's the route we regularly use.

I hope Stenna to Belfast isn't too much more expensive!

I was selective in saying the language of some, and I will stand by my view that the RMT’s stance on brexit was idiotic and short sighted I’ve been a union member in the past and I’ve seen them being pragmatic and realistic and I’ve often said that the “look at the 70’s, winter of discontent “ narrative is distorted and that we’ve as a society have fallen for it. We have the weakest unions in the Whole of the original EU so how can the RMT advise its members that the only reason they haven’t reached the socialist sunny uplands is because of the EU.

However some of the more traditional unions use language and references that also have a wiff of the “70’s “ throwback, which I see as a impediment to recruiting younger members who have a vested interest in dealing with zero hours contracts, service jobs etc. (most uk maritime jobs are service jobs now your average ferry has more catering, shop staff and cleaners than they do “seamen”)

I know unions are trying to belatedly trying to make inroads but from the outside in the internal politics looks off putting.

Not sure why this thread is descending into *another* Brexit debate P&O is a foreign company (DP World, based in Dubai) that registers its ships in Bermuda. None of that is in the EU.

But P&O operate regulated transport routes in UK that are subject to a variety of contractual and legal operating obligations, then they need to do things the right way and the UK government should kick them in the *** if they don't. Waiting for the government to have some teeth and do the right thing... still waiting...

Registered in Cyprus and operating under EU law.

According to a news article I read this morning, the employment law used is that of the place where the staff are employed i.e. UK.

If its under UK law then I guess their get out is that all the roles are made redundant.  So no selection,  no consultation,  just gone.

Pretty cr*p behaviour by any standard though.

If the roles are redundant, the redundant staff cannot be replaced by cheaper staff. 

If those roles are redundant, no catering, cleaning, engineering or sailing is required either. Presumably these ships have some serious automation on the bridge...

The previous crew were agency staff working on ships registered in Jersey, not the UK.

Hmmm... Maybe as a holding company for tax/accounting reasons, but when you have global companies it's hard to know as different spins can be put on that answer. Sure the workers will need to have some fine-print reading done on their contracts to see whose law governs them, don't fancy their chances, poor people! Do we count it as UK, Cyprus, Dubai (or perhaps where ships are registered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%26O_Ferries#Present_fleet which for the ferries is Cyprus,  Thanks for correcting me jimtitt) or what. I'm sure the parent company will afford them all the "generous" rights of a foreign (i.e. non Dubai citizen) worker under their employment laws

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/18/dp-world-p-and-o-ownership...

The article mentions the ports in UK owned/managed by DP World. Will Rishi Sunak sell out on the P&O workers?  I think we can make an educated guess. But it goes back to the sale of ports etc etc to Dubai Ports ltd in 2006 when Tony Blair was PM, so I don't think we can play a simple Tory/Labour finger pointing game

Because international shipping is by it's nature complicated there are usually plenty of contracts or signatories to the contracts, there are ship owners, leasees, charterers, ship management companies, crew management companies and crew agencies. And possibly others.

Due to this there is international law governing crew pay and conditions and generally the country of registry is then the applicable law. I once moved an ex-minesweeper from Greece to Croatia owned by HSBC, registered in Australia, captained by a British captain employed by a Greek agency under a Greek warrant flag and we all had contracts from a British based shipping company under Cypriot law. It's like that!

The previous crew knew what they signed up to or didn't read what they signed.

Hate to break this to you but the young today become tomorrows old, not in all cases but typically its easy to be forward looking and all altruistic when your young and don't have much but most people get far more conservative as they get older and accumulate wealth and have something to lose. 

Maybe we should all form a agreement between the counties that the ship sails to/form that helps safeguard the rights of workers? 

Nah! Stupid idea, sorry.

I'll give it a go anyway. Perhaps we say that for the period of a voyage the ships crew are paid in accordance with the laws of whichever ports they are sailing from. So, Dover to Calais  = UK minimum wage or better, Calais to Dover = French minimum wage or better.

I was talking about the redundancy process , not what comes next

Most of gen z aren’t going to accumulate wealth, most of the “wealth” accumulated by our generation has been due to the ponzi housing prices that we have, Gen Z are loosing economically so have something to fight for, that something looks different to the vision the RMT has at the moment.

It would appear that P&O aren't going to be able to hide behind the fact that the staff were employed by a Jersey subsidiary.

https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/opinion/po-redundancies-show-why-its-c...

Not sure on this point but I think PandO can in certain circumstance do this as an alternative to in effect going into liquidation .lots of companies go bust - Carillion being an example- where no due process is followed because financial circumstances catch up wit them. If the directors considered they had no alternative to save the company then I reckon they could probably do it.

Not easy one to grasp. 

I think what happened pretty much exactly two years ago when a case of the sniffles proved a bit more serious than that shows just how far a business can actually go in terms of "ill treatment" of staff if they face an existential threat.

Though wouldn't it maybe be better for everyone if P&O did fail, and thus a lower frequency service operated (but with adequate capacity) with properly paid staff?

I haven’t read all the posts, but P&O were definitely losing money hand over fist. When I travelled in Jan there were four cars on the boat and all facilities were closed. This is not sustainable. If all the crew are reinstated and passenger numbers don’t massively rise, then the whole company will go into liquidation and thousands of jobs will be lost, not to mention a hole in our transport infrastructure. The company will then be restructured and relaunched  using agency labour. People may wish to boycott P&O, but shit behaviour hasn’t stopped Ryanair from prospering, when in the final analysis, for most people the bottom line is cost.

So that the pension scheme is then taken over by the taxpayer and we have to cough up even more money?So that the tax payer takes on responsibility for redundancy payments? so that creditors are not paid?

Because it is the natural order of things.  If businesses are competing and there is not enough business, the worst one dies.  That is what keeps the pressure on to deliver for the customer, and to remove those companies who refuse to do so from the market.
 

Yes, I know, Hermes and Yodel.  But what you need to know about these two is that you aren't the customer in this case, the seller is, and they only care that it is cheap and arrives at some point.

Going to get thin on the ground (water), Irish ferries have outsourced their ships and staff since 2005 (Cyprus registry and East European agency crew provided by a Cypriot management company).

Another way of looking at it is.

There are 25,000 members of the pension scheme . Those members would probably prefer that the scheme was kept going instead of going into the Gov pensions  lifeboat if the company went into liquidation.

So in effect 800 staff have been made redundant  and the  P and O pension kept going ....to date

Bit of an awkward one to resolve.Not pretty.

The worse thing is that EU members of the crew were not made redundant because of EU rules and yet RMT was supporting Brexit........you do not read much about that in the press.

True, and while P&O Cruises are bleating on about it not being them, almost all cruise ships use cheap labour for their crews, and there's not really a way around that.

What happened is in essence equivalent to outsourcing a call centre to India, just the physical ship is still here.  Interestingly that's falling out of favour because it is now preferred to have a higher quality UK call centre but to reduce the size of it by providing self-service facilities.

It is odd how ship crew are paid so little when rail staff are very highly paid - even a bus driver gets more than most of them.  Which does result in overstaffing, I guess - if you wanted higher wages you would need more automation.  800 is a lot of crew to operate 4 boats x 3 8hr shifts* when you think about it!

* I know that's not how it works, just looking for equivalence with other transport jobs.

Which rules specifically and how did Irish Ferries get around them when pulling the same trick?

They operate with 4 crews, 2 on alternating duty for 2 weeks then they get 2 weeks off and the other crews take over so 50 crew per ship at any one time. Cleaning toilets or washing dishes is hardly comparable with driving a train!

No idea.Not read up on that.

And the boycott China fans better not look where DFDS's latest ship was built

They're not paying tax if they spend enough time at sea.  That's why they're paid through an offshore company.

Hmmm...  so the operators register ships abroad (like Cyprus) to avoid some of the tax or obligations of UK

The workers' contracts are offshore so that the workers can avoid some of the tax or obligations of the UK

I still feel bad for low income ordinary people getting taken advantage of in this manner, but comments in the post above and some of the others is taking the edge off some of my sympathy.

**If**?? they haven't been paying tax like an ordinary UK worker, should they expect treatment and protection like an ordinary UK worker?

I don't think the ref above to the workers not paying tax is down to avoidance schemes / dodgy foreign contracts necessarily.  Its the same situation with a lot of offshore workers (on ROVSV/DSVs anyway, not platforms or FPSOs).  If you are outside of the 12 mile limit for a set number of days (180+ from memory) and have at least 1 non UK port call (might be some other criteria as well) during the year then you claim tax back.  That used to be the case anyway, years since I looked into it as mainly onshore based now.  

On the flip side of that, crew I know who are all on contracts based in the far east still need to pay UK tax, but can't do so via PAYE (which is a major PITA for them!).

No idea if P&O have a dodgy setup to try and avoid their crews paying taxes though!

Cheers,

Stu

It's not just payroll tax, there's all sorts of regulations and costs that can be avoided by using a flag of convenience.  anyhow, I found this on a local crew payroll company which will be of interest.  They mainly deal with superyacht crewing, but I guess many of the reasons apply to ferry crews:-

"Background

The employment and payment of permanent crew working and living onboard yachts is complicated. The jurisdiction of a yacht’s ownership, registration and homeport will often differ.

The personal circumstances of each crew member in terms of where they are domiciled, where they might be resident, (if they have an ‘onshore’ residence), and where they might be liable to pay tax and/or account for social security will be different.

Throw in the often perpetual movement of many yachts between different countries and continents and suddenly a yacht owner is faced with a variety of complex jurisdictional issues in terms of employment law and the payment of tax and national insurance on behalf of the crew who work onboard their vessel.

In an effort to help simplify arrangements Oceanskies has developed a unique dedicated offshore crew employment vehicle based on the Channel Island of Guernsey.

The vehicle is known as ‘Oceanskies Crew Limited’ (“OCL”), a Guernsey based limited liability company.

OCL has been established on a clean sheet basis to operate from its inception within the requirements of the Marine Labour Convention 2006 (“MLC”) environment which applies to all commercial yachts and is recommended best practice for all private yachts. OCL will become fully certified and audited to MLC standards prior to the convention coming into force during 2013.

The yacht owner will usually enter into a contract with OCL for the provision of crew employment and payroll services for their yacht.

In cases where a third party yacht manager is involved it is possible to have a tripartite agreement clearly apportioning responsibility between the manager and OCL so that the employment and payroll services can easily be dovetailed into the vessel’s existing management structure.

The yacht owner and/or yacht manager funds OCL on a monthly standing order to cover each crew member’s salary plus costs.

Advantages

The key advantages of our crew employment service are as follows:

Crew are employed by OCL separately from the underlying client and/or the vessel owner. The structure removes the client completely from the liabilities associated with the employment of crew and the onshore reporting requirements linked to the owning of an offshore company.

OCL is owned by Oceanskies Limited and is not only fully based on the Channel Island of Guernsey but it is also run by Guernsey residents.

All crew can be employed offshore even when the yacht itself is owned by an onshore company located in a jurisdiction that might not be favourable for the employment of seafarers.

All crew are employed through a Seafarers Employment Agreement (SEA) in line with Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) best practice requirements.

All crew are employed from Guernsey by a Guernsey based company (i.e. non-EU) without any deductions being made at source in Guernsey for tax or national insurance/social security.

Oceanskies charges on a fixed fee basis rather than as a percentage of the crewmember’s salary."

I used to know someone who worked on a yacht, he effectively lived on it full time and earned good money traveling the world. He did however choose pay voluntary NI contributions in the UK, so that he would be eligible for health care, pension etc. (In other words not everyone who can legitimately avoid paying taxes chooses to do so)

Perversely this use to happen within the EU when agency workers from say Eastern Europe were employed in say UK, France or Germany and received the min wage of the Eastern European country.The rules have considerably been tightened up to try and  eliminate this practise.I think the last big scandal on this was the Eastern European abbatoir workers in Germany at the time Covid kicked off.

I read the other day about how Japan is now trialling fully automated robot container cargo ships to keep crew costs down..

I guess it depends on whether you view NI as tax or insurance...

There is a good historical reason why UK seafarers get a tax rebate. The UK government likes having a core of qualified, experienced seafarers; history has shown that, as an island nation, it can prove handy once in a while. 

Being able to claim seafarers earning deduction does not depend on being paid through a non-UK based company. Studoig is right r.e. the requirements to claim. More than half the year spent outside the UK (including outside UK waters), at least one instance of joining or leaving ship in a foreign port.