Interesting to see the current process with Covid. When I reported the positive test I got an automated reply saying although it was no longer mandatory I should not meet anyone for 11 days (presumably including not going for walks. A Track and Trace form to list everyone I've met recently is being sent, and as I'm over 60 I've been offered a place in a randomised trial for a Covid treatment.
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
Our Ukrainians have finally arrived. I'm in charge of teaching them English and teaching them to drive. Who better?
Happy to watch from 500km away...
"If a policeman stops you when you were driving at 150 mph, what we usually say in Britain is 'Fuck off, you jumped-up wanker, think this is a police state?''
Unless you've robbed a bank the Old Bill generally don't pursue at three digit speeds. They just nab your plate off CCTV and come round to your house for a session of patronising sarcasm and threats.
Surely by now you're on a first name basis with them? So I'd assume theyd warm up.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
There's a lovely bit in the BBC report about the priest who has been shot (Ukraine war: The priest shot at a checkpoint). 'The group were armed with hunting rifles plus a small number of Russian army Kalashnikovs that had come into their possession,'
In other words, no-one really knows. Heck, I doubt the Russians really know to within 10%. Fog of war and all that.
The fog of war is not completely impenetrable though. For example, we can observe that Kyiv is not surrounded, which tells us something concrete about the limits of Russian capability, and that Ukraine has not launched a counter-offensive to break the siege of Mariupol which demonstrates the limits to their ability to defend themselves.
There's a lovely bit in the BBC report about the priest who has been shot (Ukraine war: The priest shot at a checkpoint). 'The group were armed with hunting rifles plus a small number of Russian army Kalashnikovs that had come into their possession,'
' that had come into their possession' Hmmm,
Fell off the back of a truck. Which was on fire at the time.
Interesting to see the current process with Covid. When I reported the positive test I got an automated reply saying although it was no longer mandatory I should not meet anyone for 11 days (presumably including not going for walks. A Track and Trace form to list everyone I've met recently is being sent, and as I'm over 60 I've been offered a place in a randomised trial for a Covid treatment.
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
P&O ferries question: Am I right in thinking that the UK to UK ferries have to apply UK minimum wages? Does that mean that the UK - Ireland route can pay 3rd world rates?
No idea. This whole episode at all levels is an education. Legally the issues involve: conflict of laws, international law, maritime law and the law of the sea, UK employment law, trade union law and contract law, company law in both UK and other jurisdictions.
The number of people qualified to comment holistically on this is vanishingly small, and quite well paid, and don't give free advice.
There's always a nostalgic view about the past, usually from those who live quite well now. Think of the lack of stress?
No, the stress was different. Having enough to eat day by day. Oh goody, turnips again. Or enough to drink without it killing you. Then, disease was far more likely to take you off before you reached five years of age.
Smallpox didn't always kill you but it made a mess of your cute tattoos. Consumption? That's a nasty cough you've got there. As for syphillis, it could manifest as anything. We are currently living in the Panglossian world. Be grateful.
I understand that my great grandmother, a farmers daughter in rural Mid Wales...... you'd think that would be healthy ..... and several of her sisters died from TB which was afterward suspected to have come from infected milk.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
There's another side to that story. If the Germans had been *really* interested in getting those secrets, there were, and are, automated processes to help. Even back in the early 1990s. Doing it by hand (are they really still doing it?) means they're uncovering those secrets very slowly, which may be of the benefit to some, yet can be seen to be doing something.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
I thought he started his path to riches by selling off KGB safe houses illicitly, or something similar.
There's a lovely bit in the BBC report about the priest who has been shot (Ukraine war: The priest shot at a checkpoint). 'The group were armed with hunting rifles plus a small number of Russian army Kalashnikovs that had come into their possession,'
' that had come into their possession' Hmmm,
Fell off the back of a truck. Which was on fire at the time.
Tutu, tut. Terrible the roads round. Stuff's always bouncing about on trucks.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
There's another side to that story. If the Germans had been *really* interested in getting those secrets, there were, and are, automated processes to help. Even back in the early 1990s. Doing it by hand (are they really still doing it?) means they're uncovering those secrets very slowly, which may be of the benefit to some, yet can be seen to be doing something.
They did say that they now use a special program which scans and identifies pieces that go together so it’s stepped up but clearly slow would be good for some….
There's a lovely bit in the BBC report about the priest who has been shot (Ukraine war: The priest shot at a checkpoint). 'The group were armed with hunting rifles plus a small number of Russian army Kalashnikovs that had come into their possession,'
' that had come into their possession' Hmmm,
Fell off the back of a truck. Which was on fire at the time.
Tutu, tut. Terrible the roads round. Stuff's always bouncing about on trucks.
If this was a couple of months down the road, the truck could have been driven into by @Dura_Ace 's pupil.
In other words, no-one really knows. Heck, I doubt the Russians really know to within 10%. Fog of war and all that.
The fog of war is not completely impenetrable though. For example, we can observe that Kyiv is not surrounded, which tells us something concrete about the limits of Russian capability, and that Ukraine has not launched a counter-offensive to break the siege of Mariupol which demonstrates the limits to their ability to defend themselves.
Yes, Kyiv looks impenetrable with the current facts on the ground, whereas the east and the south are going better for Russia.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
From a truth n reconciliation point of view destroying those records was probably the absolutely right thing to do, it doesn't really help for spouses/neighbours/kids etc to learn they've been informing on each other all these years
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
I thought he started his path to riches by selling off KGB safe houses illicitly, or something similar.
Not sure - they didn’t go into that as the book being serialised is about the history of story-telling in relation to things such as national myth, identity etc. v interesting it has been too.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
I thought he started his path to riches by selling off KGB safe houses illicitly, or something similar.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
There's another side to that story. If the Germans had been *really* interested in getting those secrets, there were, and are, automated processes to help. Even back in the early 1990s. Doing it by hand (are they really still doing it?) means they're uncovering those secrets very slowly, which may be of the benefit to some, yet can be seen to be doing something.
They did say that they now use a special program which scans and identifies pieces that go together so it’s stepped up but clearly slow would be good for some….
IIRC the Iranians published whole books of stuff they pieced together from the shredder baskets at the US Embassy in 1979
There's always a nostalgic view about the past, usually from those who live quite well now. Think of the lack of stress?
No, the stress was different. Having enough to eat day by day. Oh goody, turnips again. Or enough to drink without it killing you. Then, disease was far more likely to take you off before you reached five years of age.
Smallpox didn't always kill you but it made a mess of your cute tattoos. Consumption? That's a nasty cough you've got there. As for syphillis, it could manifest as anything. We are currently living in the Panglossian world. Be grateful.
ELI5 why the good old days weren't so great seems to be the topic du jour. If you aren't particularly worried that about 40 pharmaceuticals plus micro and indeed macro plastics can be found in every single waterway in the world, nor about the terrifying implications of climate change, try worrying about the bomb.
also, read Candide. It's quite short, and will tell you what Panglossian really means.
There's always a nostalgic view about the past, usually from those who live quite well now. Think of the lack of stress?
No, the stress was different. Having enough to eat day by day. Oh goody, turnips again. Or enough to drink without it killing you. Then, disease was far more likely to take you off before you reached five years of age.
Smallpox didn't always kill you but it made a mess of your cute tattoos. Consumption? That's a nasty cough you've got there. As for syphillis, it could manifest as anything. We are currently living in the Panglossian world. Be grateful.
ELI5 why the good old days weren't so great seems to be the topic du jour. If you aren't particularly worried that about 40 pharmaceuticals plus micro and indeed macro plastics can be found in every single waterway in the world, nor about the terrifying implications of climate change, try worrying about the bomb.
also, read Candide. It's quite short, and will tell you what Panglossian really means.
That one hasn't really gone away, there's no reliable strategic anti-nuke defence system still other than MAD.
Incidentally, the dark recesses of my mind contain a TV program - perhaps Tomorrow's World - that had a segment on how the Germans were tackling ammunition after reunification.
They inherited massive amounts of Soviet-standard 5.45×39mm rounds, plus other stuff, that were incompatible with NATO guns. So how do you get rid of them? They built a massive reinforced furnace (I think it rotated), put rounds in, then heated it up. The rounds would go off within the furnace, then scrap metal would come out at the end.
Our Ukrainians have finally arrived. I'm in charge of teaching them English and teaching them to drive. Who better?
Happy to watch from 500km away...
"If a policeman stops you when you were driving at 150 mph, what we usually say in Britain is 'Fuck off, you jumped-up wanker, think this is a police state?''
Unless you've robbed a bank the Old Bill generally don't pursue at three digit speeds. They just nab your plate off CCTV and come round to your house for a session of patronising sarcasm and threats.
Surely by now you're on a first name basis with them? So I'd assume theyd warm up.
I haven't been done for a while. Not since the famous 129 in a 60 where I only escaped porridge on a technicality.
This may or may not be related to the Icelandic plates I got off eBay.
"According to Reuters, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has said this morning that India and China agreed on the importance of an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine, after he held talks with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi.
Both China and India have so far held back from strongly condemning Russia’s invasion."
I'm sure Rishi will be wielding his soft power like a mad thing.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
I reckon they (some at least) may be closet LibDems.
No Conservatives. Who'd have thunk that the City of London is part of the red wall? Just rejoice at that news.
I see Ben Murphy was elected in the Corporation elections and was a Conservative Councillor and Mayor of Epping. So not true
Not, apparently, standing as a Conservative though. Just 'what they do in the City' or has he seen the error of his ways?
No he is still very much a Tory and in regular touch with Epping Tories.
Just like most village parish councillors most Corporation of London councillors stand as independents
Yes, councillors in our small town have no political labels, although one year a batch of enough forms was left on the bar of the Con Club to be completed. Replaced retiring councillors, who had decided not to stand again who, from my conversations with them, seemed to be largely Labour members or sympathisers. Didn't seem to make a lot of difference. Anyway, most of the 'new' councillors resigned during their terms of office. I'm not sure about the 'national' political opinions of most of the present lot. Up until recently they were either for or against charging for the main car park.
Incidentally, the dark recesses of my mind contain a TV program - perhaps Tomorrow's World - that had a segment on how the Germans were tackling ammunition after reunification.
They inherited massive amounts of Soviet-standard 5.45×39mm rounds, plus other stuff, that were incompatible with NATO guns. So how do you get rid of them? They built a massive reinforced furnace (I think it rotated), put rounds in, then heated it up. The rounds would go off within the furnace, then scrap metal would come out at the end.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Good luck to the govt in doing that. Because there are no profits. The employees need to receive every penny that they are due by law. Without question. But beyond that I'm guessing that if the company declares bankruptcy then the employees will have to get in the queue as creditors of the company but goodness knows ( @DougSeal? ) what their rights are.
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Our Ukrainians have finally arrived. I'm in charge of teaching them English and teaching them to drive. Who better?
Happy to watch from 500km away...
"If a policeman stops you when you were driving at 150 mph, what we usually say in Britain is 'Fuck off, you jumped-up wanker, think this is a police state?''
Unless you've robbed a bank the Old Bill generally don't pursue at three digit speeds. They just nab your plate off CCTV and come round to your house for a session of patronising sarcasm and threats.
Surely by now you're on a first name basis with them? So I'd assume theyd warm up.
I haven't been done for a while. Not since the famous 129 in a 60 where I only escaped porridge on a technicality.
This may or may not be related to the Icelandic plates I got off eBay.
I'm told that the way to use the Dartford Crossing free is to use non GB plates. The Crossing authorities just don't both chasing.
Interesting to see the current process with Covid. When I reported the positive test I got an automated reply saying although it was no longer mandatory I should not meet anyone for 11 days (presumably including not going for walks. A Track and Trace form to list everyone I've met recently is being sent, and as I'm over 60 I've been offered a place in a randomised trial for a Covid treatment.
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
Hope you are feeling better, Nick. Where do you think you might have caught it?
"Exactly one month since the start of the special military operation in #Ukraine; it is going according to plan, and all the stated goals will be achieved."
Russia's spokesman should be aware that The Hustle was a TV show; rarely in life do things appear to go catastrophically badly before turning out to actually have gone to plan.
Incidentally, the dark recesses of my mind contain a TV program - perhaps Tomorrow's World - that had a segment on how the Germans were tackling ammunition after reunification.
They inherited massive amounts of Soviet-standard 5.45×39mm rounds, plus other stuff, that were incompatible with NATO guns. So how do you get rid of them? They built a massive reinforced furnace (I think it rotated), put rounds in, then heated it up. The rounds would go off within the furnace, then scrap metal would come out at the end.
The one that I found interesting was that destroying chemical weapons in furnaces on Johnson Atoll in the Pacific ran into the problem of dumping all the energy generated - they had to install some serious cooling systems.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
P&O ferries question: Am I right in thinking that the UK to UK ferries have to apply UK minimum wages? Does that mean that the UK - Ireland route can pay 3rd world rates?
Larne to Stranraer doesn't appear to be doing so as of now. Dunno if that is legal or not.
Haha, just been listening to a book serialisation on R4 called “Making History” and by coincidence Putin has come up in the book.
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
I thought he started his path to riches by selling off KGB safe houses illicitly, or something similar.
I think that was later. Possibly next.
I think a Petersburg (or Leningrad as it still was) taxi driver was shortly afterwards, a formative and scarring experience according to some profiles. You can just imagine some of the more credulous reactionaries on here lapping up his shtick from the back seat: 'See them trannies, lock 'em up, they're destroying the family and Christian civilisation, they are'.
For the Putin is a Commie lads.
'In 1999, Putin described communism as "a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization"'
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Good luck to the govt in doing that. Because there are no profits. The employees need to receive every penny that they are due by law. Without question. But beyond that I'm guessing that if the company declares bankruptcy then the employees will have to get in the queue as creditors of the company but goodness knows ( @DougSeal? ) what their rights are.
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
I'm sure all manner of businesses would be more profitable if they didn't follow various laws, but the NMW, statutory consulatation periods and so forth are there for a reason. If they go bust, they go bust - Brittany, DFDS and so forth can and will pick up the routes.
It seems to me that the only relief that would benefit P&Os employees would be an injunction requiring P&O to continue to trade, and I don't believe the Court could require that. Employee's claims, other than for the payment of wages, rank as an unsecured debt in a liquidation, including exemplary damages.
There's always a nostalgic view about the past, usually from those who live quite well now. Think of the lack of stress?
No, the stress was different. Having enough to eat day by day. Oh goody, turnips again. Or enough to drink without it killing you. Then, disease was far more likely to take you off before you reached five years of age.
Smallpox didn't always kill you but it made a mess of your cute tattoos. Consumption? That's a nasty cough you've got there. As for syphillis, it could manifest as anything. We are currently living in the Panglossian world. Be grateful.
ELI5 why the good old days weren't so great seems to be the topic du jour. If you aren't particularly worried that about 40 pharmaceuticals plus micro and indeed macro plastics can be found in every single waterway in the world, nor about the terrifying implications of climate change, try worrying about the bomb.
also, read Candide. It's quite short, and will tell you what Panglossian really means.
I look back on the nineties as being fairly good time for the world, seemed to be a more optimistic time. I've obviously forgotten about all the syphillis and smallpox.
Of course governments and their criminal billionaire fossil fuel friends already knew all about climate change (and chose to do nothing - just imagine how much better the world would be in every way if they had done everything possible to reduce burning fossil fuels from the time the IPCC was founded in 1988), but many of us were still living in blissful ignorance.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Yes I'm sure it might - one for the courts. As I mentioned earlier, of course, there are no profits and I'm sure the P&O lawyers are as aware of this law as you and I (now) are. And in all likelihood did the math and proceeded as they did.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth. .
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
There is enough wiggle room here: 1. Rule of Law no longer applies. See Rees-Mogg, Patel, Johnson, Lewis et al 2. Failing Grayling did a whoopsie and made it legal not to tell HMG 3. Not consulting the Unions leaves them open to being slapped hard for compensation at tribunal which they are more than covering up front.
They acted with impunity knowing they will get away with it. This government are not going to decisively act to reinforce the rights of unionised labour to enforce stricter employment laws. That is precisely why Baker, Rees-Mogg etc voted for Brexit, to have less communism.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Good luck to the govt in doing that. Because there are no profits. The employees need to receive every penny that they are due by law. Without question. But beyond that I'm guessing that if the company declares bankruptcy then the employees will have to get in the queue as creditors of the company but goodness knows ( @DougSeal? ) what their rights are.
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
I'm sure all manner of businesses would be more profitable if they didn't follow various laws, but the NMW, statutory consulatation periods and so forth are there for a reason. If they go bust, they go bust - Brittany, DFDS and so forth can and will pick up the routes.
I have found it remarkable, in business, the number of times I have encountered people who are simply ignoring/breaking the law. And doing so with all the letters etc written by lawyers.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Good luck to the govt in doing that. Because there are no profits. The employees need to receive every penny that they are due by law. Without question. But beyond that I'm guessing that if the company declares bankruptcy then the employees will have to get in the queue as creditors of the company but goodness knows ( @DougSeal? ) what their rights are.
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
I'm sure all manner of businesses would be more profitable if they didn't follow various laws, but the NMW, statutory consulatation periods and so forth are there for a reason. If they go bust, they go bust - Brittany, DFDS and so forth can and will pick up the routes.
100% agree. Let's see what laws they broke and prosecute them for it. I'm sure none of it will come as a surprise to the P&O lawyers.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
Absolutely bang on. If only the government had ordered the CEO to share his salary with the workers then P&O would be profitable.
It’s really easy to solve.
Maybe the govt should just nationalise the ferry co, doesn’t matter that they aren’t registered in the UK it’s easy.
Maybe ban P&O from accessing UK ports, so easy and no need to worry about who will pick up the slack in freight deliveries.
Luckily we have a government because we all know that whatever solution the government puts forward everyone will rejoice and accept that as the best and only solution.
And at least the government don’t have to abide by any international laws, agreements etc - they can do anything they want as that’s how the system works.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Yes I'm sure it might - one for the courts. As I mentioned earlier, of course, there are no profits and I'm sure the P&O lawyers are as aware of this law as you and I (now) are. And in all likelihood did the math and proceeded as they did.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth. .
Whether there is a profit or not is surely referring to the decision in dispute, not the overall enterprise. There is profit in making that decision, and P&O have admitted that is why they broke the law.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Yes I'm sure it might - one for the courts. As I mentioned earlier, of course, there are no profits and I'm sure the P&O lawyers are as aware of this law as you and I (now) are. And in all likelihood did the math and proceeded as they did.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth. .
Whether there is a profit or not is surely referring to the decision in dispute, not the overall enterprise. There is profit in making that decision, and P&O have admitted that is why they broke the law.
The good news is that having admitted breaking the law it should be relatively straightforward for the authorities to prosecute them for it.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
The point of having this government is to protect the rich.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
Absolutely bang on. If only the government had ordered the CEO to share his salary with the workers then P&O would be profitable.
It’s really easy to solve.
Maybe the govt should just nationalise the ferry co, doesn’t matter that they aren’t registered in the UK it’s easy.
Maybe ban P&O from accessing UK ports, so easy and no need to worry about who will pick up the slack in freight deliveries.
Luckily we have a government because we all know that whatever solution the government puts forward everyone will rejoice and accept that as the best and only solution.
And at least the government don’t have to abide by any international laws, agreements etc - they can do anything they want as that’s how the system works.
Note that Big Dog refused to garner any questions about P&OF with regards to future contracts. Because this government will reward them for their actions. Smiting the unions and encouraging more profits is precisely what Brexit was supposed to deliver if you are the Baker / Mogg / Smith Singapore-on-Thames Brexit mob.
Which also has a story "Is it too late to save the Commonwealth after 'patronising and outdated' tour?", they'll be merging with the Morning Star soon. I think the big picture plan is to put Baldy n Deathshead front and centre to underline that the crumblies due to inherit from London Bridge won't be there for ever. Not working on this showing.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
No sign of the 20 point lead Blair promised Labour if they got rid of Corbyn either.
Starmer is an unprincipled, uncharismatic mediocrity with a poor record and a difficult party to lead.
It MAY be enough if the electorate are sick enough of the Conservatives, but I think he's more Gordon Brown than Tony Blair.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Yes I'm sure it might - one for the courts. As I mentioned earlier, of course, there are no profits and I'm sure the P&O lawyers are as aware of this law as you and I (now) are. And in all likelihood did the math and proceeded as they did.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth. .
Whether there is a profit or not is surely referring to the decision in dispute, not the overall enterprise. There is profit in making that decision, and P&O have admitted that is why they broke the law.
The good news is that having admitted breaking the law it should be relatively straightforward for the authorities to prosecute them for it.
AIUI, they admitted deliberately breaking civil law. Nothing for the authorities to prosecute but hopefully one the courts can award exemplary damages to put them in a worse position than they would have been without taking the action.
And legislation is needed to make it a criminal offence for directors to do similar in future.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
Labour expectometer...
Lab fail to gain Wandsworth - Piss poor night Lab Gain Wandsworth - Expected. Lab gain Barnet - Good night Lab gain Westminster - Starmer on his way to No 10 probably.
No I'm not from London, but they're 1-2, Evens and 2-1 shots at the bookies for Labour whereas not sure of competitive odds for elsewhere.
Interesting to see the current process with Covid. When I reported the positive test I got an automated reply saying although it was no longer mandatory I should not meet anyone for 11 days (presumably including not going for walks. A Track and Trace form to list everyone I've met recently is being sent, and as I'm over 60 I've been offered a place in a randomised trial for a Covid treatment.
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
Get well soon, Nick. Nearly 2 weeks now for me - better but still can't smell anything and still very tired. A bit of a sniffle if you're vaxed? - nope, not really. I'd recommend just not getting it.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
The point of having this government is to protect the rich.
Unfotunately for P&O the Gov't doesn't run the courts.
Breaking the law for profit is something the courts take an incredibly dim view of iirc too. They're going to get their clocks cleaned.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Do the workers not have a chance of exemplary damages given that the company have admitted wilfully breaking the law for a profit motive?
Good luck to the govt in doing that. Because there are no profits. The employees need to receive every penny that they are due by law. Without question. But beyond that I'm guessing that if the company declares bankruptcy then the employees will have to get in the queue as creditors of the company but goodness knows ( @DougSeal? ) what their rights are.
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
I'm sure all manner of businesses would be more profitable if they didn't follow various laws, but the NMW, statutory consulatation periods and so forth are there for a reason. If they go bust, they go bust - Brittany, DFDS and so forth can and will pick up the routes.
100% agree. Let's see what laws they broke and prosecute them for it. I'm sure none of it will come as a surprise to the P&O lawyers.
Didn't the CEO admit he broke the law regarding a consultation period?
Incidentally, it has been suggested that yesterday's explosion on that ship was not as a result of Ukrainian action, but because of a happy accident whilst the ship was being unloaded. In other words, the Russians did it themselves.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
Labour expectometer...
Lab fail to gain Wandsworth - Piss poor night Lab Gain Wandsworth - Expected. Lab gain Barnet - Good night Lab gain Westminster - Starmer on his way to No 10 probably.
No I'm not from London, but they're 1-2, Evens and 2-1 shots at the bookies for Labour whereas not sure of competitive odds for elsewhere.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
Of course they can't and if they broke the law by not consulting then they should face the full force of that law. And I'm sure they will. I am just making the point that they in all probability did all this calculus and determined that their chosen course of action was the one that gave them the best chance of staying in business and equally, that the unions in all likelihood would have rejected out of hand any proposal.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Is your suggested approach, which P&O also followed, not dealt with by exemplary damages?
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Yes I'm sure it might - one for the courts. As I mentioned earlier, of course, there are no profits and I'm sure the P&O lawyers are as aware of this law as you and I (now) are. And in all likelihood did the math and proceeded as they did.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth. .
Whether there is a profit or not is surely referring to the decision in dispute, not the overall enterprise. There is profit in making that decision, and P&O have admitted that is why they broke the law.
The good news is that having admitted breaking the law it should be relatively straightforward for the authorities to prosecute them for it.
AIUI, they admitted deliberately breaking civil law. Nothing for the authorities to prosecute but hopefully one the courts can award exemplary damages to put them in a worse position than they would have been without taking the action.
And legislation is needed to make it a criminal offence for directors to do similar in future.
Absolutely. If the government wants to change the behaviour of people and companies then they can change the law. As could I presume Labour have done when in power.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
I'm really not sure what you expect the consultation to achieve.
Union: We what a pay rise. Company: Sorry mate, but no we are firing you all and employing much cheaper Filipinos. Union: You cant do that Company: Yes we can Union: OK, we will work for less Company: They are working for £5.50 an hour you cant beet that, even if your members agreed its below UK NMW Union: well we what a big redundancy package then. Company you well have the legal amount we must pay. Union: if you don't give us more we will stick! Company: fine go on strike, you repellents will be there in an hour, but you wont get any more.
If somebody can give me another more credible sinareo, then do so, but I don't see it.
Maybe it was the law, I am not an employment layer, with a specialisation in Maritime issues. but in that clip where he 'admits to knowingly not obeying the law', he did start to enplane more but was cut off, while the MP question him went on his rant, then the P and O boss asked if he could explain and was again cut off. I don't know what his explanation is, but sometimes the people not given an opportunity to explain might have an explanation. what might that be. perhaps, Yes we know what we did brakes UK law but.......... because of our contact we come under ..... law which overrides that bit of UK law, for example. Now this might just not be the case, but I wish he had been given the change to explain rather than cut off.
Incidentally, the dark recesses of my mind contain a TV program - perhaps Tomorrow's World - that had a segment on how the Germans were tackling ammunition after reunification.
They inherited massive amounts of Soviet-standard 5.45×39mm rounds, plus other stuff, that were incompatible with NATO guns. So how do you get rid of them? They built a massive reinforced furnace (I think it rotated), put rounds in, then heated it up. The rounds would go off within the furnace, then scrap metal would come out at the end.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
There is enough wiggle room here: 1. Rule of Law no longer applies. See Rees-Mogg, Patel, Johnson, Lewis et al 2. Failing Grayling did a whoopsie and made it legal not to tell HMG 3. Not consulting the Unions leaves them open to being slapped hard for compensation at tribunal which they are more than covering up front.
They acted with impunity knowing they will get away with it. This government are not going to decisively act to reinforce the rights of unionised labour to enforce stricter employment laws. That is precisely why Baker, Rees-Mogg etc voted for Brexit, to have less communism.
There is such a thing as an electoral cycle (except in S Africa and Scotland) and sooner or later it will catch up with the Tories. The question really is whether it will be minor landslip in 2024 with Starmer scraping in or - if BoJo wings it - a 1997-style damburst five years later.
I really can't tell as everything seems so febrile and changeable. You do get the feeling that the greased piglet might just wriggle through somehow.
P&O ferries question: Am I right in thinking that the UK to UK ferries have to apply UK minimum wages? Does that mean that the UK - Ireland route can pay 3rd world rates?
Larne to Stranraer doesn't appear to be doing so as of now. Dunno if that is legal or not.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
Labour expectometer...
Lab fail to gain Wandsworth - Piss poor night Lab Gain Wandsworth - Expected. Lab gain Barnet - Good night Lab gain Westminster - Starmer on his way to No 10 probably.
No I'm not from London, but they're 1-2, Evens and 2-1 shots at the bookies for Labour whereas not sure of competitive odds for elsewhere.
On current polling, minus Kantar, Labour should likely gain all 3.
If Labour fail to gain Barnet and Westminster, then given 2 out of 3 Barnet seats are in the top 50 Labour target seats and Cities of London and Westminster is in the top 100 Labour target seats then the Tories will likely at least keep most seats. That would be a bad night for Labour.
If Labour fail to even gain Wandsworth then Labour could even be going backwards as all 3 Wandsworth MPs after Labour gained Putney in 2019 are now Labour
Incidentally, it has been suggested that yesterday's explosion on that ship was not as a result of Ukrainian action, but because of a happy accident whilst the ship was being unloaded. In other words, the Russians did it themselves.
That was one of my first thoughts, I don't think H and S is a big thing in the Russian armed forces, but in one of the videos I thought I sore something looking like a missiles heading in just before the explosion, there have been lots of videos and it was only visible on one. I might be mistaken, but I think it was hit by something.
I have so far managed to avoid it, even when my 11 year old son had it.
You might be one of the 5-10% who are, supposedly, naturally immune and will never get it?
I wouldn't rely on that, tho. My 20-something niece in Falmouth was congratulating herself on this status, even as her husband went down with the lurgy for the Nth time.... and then she caught it, and now she is feeling shite
We will all get it, barring a few genuinely lucky immunological weirdoes
I have a relative who throughout the pandemic wasn't exactly very careful and only got double jabbed, but weirdly became a test-aholic. They dodged it until last week.
I have a load of in personal meetings lined up over the coming months through out the country, so I shall be awaiting my call...
Right now my older daughter, my niece, my niece's husband, my stepmother, and one of my best male friends: all have it (and all of them for the first time)
This wave is mopping up everyone who has avoided it until now, or so it feels. But much better they get it now, when we have mollifying vaccines and when the variant is mild, than some other time
There is no need whatsoever for this complacent approach.
We should continue to be cautious, mitigate its spread and protect the vulnerable.
Otherwise we will continue to cause needless deaths, which doesn't bother capitalists but does concern those of us with a heart and soul.
“Capitalists”? What is this, 1950s Moscow?
What an utterly ridiculous last sentence @Heathener
Ridiculous you say? Ridiculous is a human race raping the earth: directly causing climate change, plastic to fill our oceans, wars, pandemics through appalling health food standards, flying pieces of fruit half way around the world, belching out fumes from cars driven on depleting natural resources. I could go on and on but if you want to see ridiculous hold a mirror up to the modern world.
Many of us have had enough and we are taking action for ourselves against it. I don't expect you to get it, but your grandchildren are.
You readily attack capitalism, but not a word about communism which is waging a criminal war in Ukraine and China, the world's largest polluter
I’m loving this weeks new spiky sort of Barty G attack dog chimera character, but is it an account hack? 🙂
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
I'm really not sure what you expect the consultation to achieve.
Union: We what a pay rise. Company: Sorry mate, but no we are firing you all and employing much cheaper Filipinos. Union: You cant do that Company: Yes we can Union: OK, we will work for less Company: They are working for £5.50 an hour you cant beet that, even if your members agreed its below UK NMW Union: well we what a big redundancy package then. Company you well have the legal amount we must pay. Union: if you don't give us more we will stick! Company: fine go on strike, you repellents will be there in an hour, but you wont get any more.
If somebody can give me another more credible sinareo, then do so, but I don't see it.
Maybe it was the law, I am not an employment layer, with a specialisation in Maritime issues. but in that clip where he 'admits to knowingly not obeying the law', he did start to enplane more but was cut off, while the MP question him went on his rant, then the P and O boss asked if he could explain and was again cut off. I don't know what his explanation is, but sometimes the people not given an opportunity to explain might have an explanation. what might that be. perhaps, Yes we know what we did brakes UK law but.......... because of our contact we come under ..... law which overrides that bit of UK law, for example. Now this might just not be the case, but I wish he had been given the change to explain rather than cut off.
The consultation period exists in law. It doesn't say "only when useful" or "when you feel like it".
Among other things, it gives people time to start looking for another job.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
There is enough wiggle room here: 1. Rule of Law no longer applies. See Rees-Mogg, Patel, Johnson, Lewis et al 2. Failing Grayling did a whoopsie and made it legal not to tell HMG 3. Not consulting the Unions leaves them open to being slapped hard for compensation at tribunal which they are more than covering up front.
They acted with impunity knowing they will get away with it. This government are not going to decisively act to reinforce the rights of unionised labour to enforce stricter employment laws. That is precisely why Baker, Rees-Mogg etc voted for Brexit, to have less communism.
There is such a thing as an electoral cycle (except in S Africa and Scotland) and sooner or later it will catch up with the Tories. The question really is whether it will be minor landslip in 2024 with Starmer scraping in or - if BoJo wings it - a 1997-style damburst five years later.
I really can't tell as everything seems so febrile and changeable. You do get the feeling that the greased piglet might just wriggle through somehow.
With the economy doing well the Tories still lost in 1997 on account of "sleaze".
Not sure about now because Johnson's sleaze is part of the package, a feature not a bug, and hence is priced in. But this kind of thing might contribute to the narrative with one proviso - whereas a cash for questions/expenses is a consumer-neutral activity and hence consumers can get rightly outrages, cheap channel crossings are very much a consumer-affecting issue. People might not be so keen to vote out a government seen as helping day trippers, booze cruises and stag parties.
Which also has a story "Is it too late to save the Commonwealth after 'patronising and outdated' tour?", they'll be merging with the Morning Star soon. I think the big picture plan is to put Baldy n Deathshead front and centre to underline that the crumblies due to inherit from London Bridge won't be there for ever. Not working on this showing.
The next cab on the rank and his second wife are in Ireland today (and yesterday). Apparently they've made lots of visits in recent years in a fairly low-key way.
It looks a bit like a desensitization strategy, where eventually the Irish won't notice so much that they're around, and they'll find themselves members of the Commonwealth as though they always had been.
I've suggested before that Irish membership of the Commonwealth would be one of the steps the Republic could take to help ease the process of Unification, and it looks like the Windsors have been ordered to do their bit.
On P&O, it's really complicated, isn't it? Far too hard to solve.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
If he knew the discussions with the unions would be met by a refusal of the terms and that the only acceptable terms would be ones that put the company out of business or running at a loss then despite the hoo-hah he did what he could. The unions can't force a business to run at a loss, better to cease operations.
As for minimum wage requirements, ports, filipinos, etc - that is one for the government to unpick. Enforce the laws that are relevant and create new laws if it so wishes to force the behaviour it wants.
Consultation is not just about the company's plans and whether they go ahead. It can also include the level of compensation payable, offering help to find other jobs or, indeed, giving some of those sacked the opportunity to be rehired on worse terms if they want this. From what I have read the redundancy payments are not at all generous and barely, if at all, above the legal minimum. The employees have been deprived of the opportunity to discuss this.
I am the Chair of Trustees of a school and we have just gone through a consultation re pensions. We did an informal one first, revised our plans then went through a formal one and made some further changes and have now got agreement from everyone on those. It was very time-consuming and involved a lot of hard work, meetings, explanations etc., and I hope earned us some credit with the staff in how we approached it. One of the questions was about firing and rehiring because some other local schools have got themselves into trouble. (One is facing a teachers' strike.) I was heavily involved as Chair. All of us trustees are volunteers and we managed to get this done properly. And we too face the same financial storms as everyone else in this difficult economic environment.
If volunteers can make the effort to follow the law then senior executives paid a shedload can bloody well do so as well.
In reality we have the law for the little people and 2 fingers to it from the so-called high and mighty.
I am getting hugely pissed off with this. We're going to need our own revolution at this rate to teach those who are taking the piss a lesson they won't forget for a very long time.
You have answered your own question, despite weasel words such as "barely, if at all, above the legal minimum". It is either legal and at or above the legal minimum or it is not. If they have broken the law then let them feel the full force of that law to hold them to account.
If they have just behaved like dicks then people will make up their own minds as to how much they want to travel with P&O (my guess - if the price is right then a lot).
Unions are vital in protecting the workers' interests and I have no idea what informal consultations were conducted prior to this action. However, P&O have been making losses since pre-pandemic so I can't believe there was much wiggle room. Perhaps the bosses thought they had nothing to lose; do this and see if they can stay afloat (boom boom) or continue as is and go out of business.
Which would be better for the Unions? No idea.
You are missing the point. I have been through a number of restructuring and in all cases compensation was well above the legal minimum. That is one thing that can be discussed in a consultation. So the company gets its plan through but the employees get more than the legal minimum of compensation. So, no, they are not weasel words. The company deprived the employees of their chance to argue for and get better compensation terms. That is why a consultation period exists.
Not sure this makes sense. Of course the unions want more than the legal minimum but that doesn't mean the company would be prepared or obligated to pay it either with consultations or without. It is the legal minimum.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
You are arguing for not bothering having any sort of consultation at all.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
I'm really not sure what you expect the consultation to achieve.
Union: We what a pay rise. Company: Sorry mate, but no we are firing you all and employing much cheaper Filipinos. Union: You cant do that Company: Yes we can Union: OK, we will work for less Company: They are working for £5.50 an hour you cant beet that, even if your members agreed its below UK NMW Union: well we what a big redundancy package then. Company you well have the legal amount we must pay. Union: if you don't give us more we will stick! Company: fine go on strike, you repellents will be there in an hour, but you wont get any more.
If somebody can give me another more credible sinareo, then do so, but I don't see it.
Maybe it was the law, I am not an employment layer, with a specialisation in Maritime issues. but in that clip where he 'admits to knowingly not obeying the law', he did start to enplane more but was cut off, while the MP question him went on his rant, then the P and O boss asked if he could explain and was again cut off. I don't know what his explanation is, but sometimes the people not given an opportunity to explain might have an explanation. what might that be. perhaps, Yes we know what we did brakes UK law but.......... because of our contact we come under ..... law which overrides that bit of UK law, for example. Now this might just not be the case, but I wish he had been given the change to explain rather than cut off.
The consultation period exists in law. It doesn't say "only when useful" or "when you feel like it".
Among other things, it gives people time to start looking for another job.
Above someone said it was civil not criminal law. Is the requirement to hold a consultation period subject to criminal law?
Interesting to see the current process with Covid. When I reported the positive test I got an automated reply saying although it was no longer mandatory I should not meet anyone for 11 days (presumably including not going for walks. A Track and Trace form to list everyone I've met recently is being sent, and as I'm over 60 I've been offered a place in a randomised trial for a Covid treatment.
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
Get well soon, Nick. Nearly 2 weeks now for me - better but still can't smell anything and still very tired. A bit of a sniffle if you're vaxed? - nope, not really. I'd recommend just not getting it.
Sorry to hear you two have been so badly hit. Mum, Dad, wife and youngest daughter have all had it in the past fortnight. Mum and Dad (both in 70s) diligently didn't do anything for the allotted period but really suffered no more than they would expect to with a cold in any given year; youngest daughter (7) had entirely different symptoms: a day's vomiting, and then a couple of days with low energy, but was back in circulation on day 6. Wife has been hit hardest, and spent four or five days mostly in bed. She's back at work now, although she still has a pain in her chest. She's asthmatic, and tends to be hit hard by respiratory illnesses, and I was quite worried about the prospect of her getting it before vaccines came along. But even so, covid aside, she'd normally expect to get an illness like this one year in three. There is a lot of it about around here but very little of it serious. I wonder if there is a different strain down south? Or maybe you two have just been unlucky; or maybe my contacts have just been lucky. We have had covid in the house three times now and oldest daughter (11, so still not yet vaxxed) has still never tested positive.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
They were p*ss poor until Autumn last year. Since then they've been mixed. The Northumberland result wasn't great for Labour (even if the Labour drop can partly be explained by the Greens and LDs standing).
The result in Ramsgate last night was also actually really strong for Labour and warrants more analysis.
I'm a bit of a Starmer sceptic personally TBH but I try to present things as they are.
Despite everyone around me (literally) going down with it, I am so far officially free of it (as in, consistently tested negative).
In the real world, I’ve had it twice. Wasn’t especially ill on either occasion, but on the second it was bad enough to keep me off school for three days even after a negative test - more days than I’ve had off ill in the whole of the rest of my career.
Our Little 'un got it at the beginning of February. A tiny sniffle was the only symptom (the day before he tested positive, he got his fastest time on Junior Parkrun, which shows how ill he was).
So we were exposed to Covid. Three days later, I felt really bad. The next day, Mrs J did. We had three or four days of feeling a little ill - headaches, sore throats - but we tested negative throughout.
I've no doubt it was Covid, but am curious as to why we both tested negative. Or was it just Covanoia?
It's possible to get it and continue to test negative if one has immunity from vaccination.
As I understand it, the symptoms are caused by the immune system fighting it off. They're often worse if you're immunologically naive, because the innate immune system has to hold the line alone for a while whilst the acquired immune system is being trained up, and more damage gets done to the body by the virus, which spreads further. And therefore a stronger and more unpleasant response is needed to get rid of it.
There are two things we're looking at: symptoms (immune response) and viral spread (which, when it gets to a certain point, will trigger an LFT. This point is typically very close to that where you become infectious)
When you've got immunity already, the acquired immune system jumps off the line immediately and starts fighting (symptoms begin). The virus continues to try to spread. It has to get to a certain point before the LFT can be triggered. Unlike with the immune-naive, the symptoms start first because you're fighting it off instantly. It's very plausible that you can then fight it off before it manages to spread inside you to the point where it could trigger an LFT.
It also explains how some people can catch it, come down with symptoms, and not spread it - the virus was so busy struggling with the immune system that it never got to the point of being able to spread beyond you, or if it did, it was only for a very limited period at minimal infectivity.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
They were p*ss poor until Autumn last year. Since then they've been mixed. The Northumberland result wasn't great for Labour (even if the Labour drop can partly be explained by the Greens and LDs standing).
The result in Ramsgate last night was also actually really strong for Labour and warrants more analysis.
I'm a bit of a Starmer sceptic personally TBH but I try to present things as they are.
Labours vote has gone down in the vast majority of Local By Election results in the last year. It should be going up in all of them.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
No. Johnson has damaged his and the party brand with 'partygate'. Labour have reaped the reward - not the same as them doing well.
oh, and latest YouGov (taken after Spring Statement) has Labour's lead cut to 2%
Lab 37 Cons 35 LD 10
Those looking for a Tory lead might still win their bet.
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
Labour 2% ahead after apparently the worst spring statement ever, Partygate , 12 years of tory power etc etc.
Bearing in mind that a year ago Starmer was apparently due to resign, Johnson was plotting a decade in power and the Tories looked unable to drop below 40%, I think you'll agree they've done well since.
The Local By- Election results for Labour over the past year have been awful for an opposition party who have been in opposition for 12 years. They have not done well at all. Polls win you nothing.
Labour expectometer...
Lab fail to gain Wandsworth - Piss poor night Lab Gain Wandsworth - Expected. Lab gain Barnet - Good night Lab gain Westminster - Starmer on his way to No 10 probably.
No I'm not from London, but they're 1-2, Evens and 2-1 shots at the bookies for Labour whereas not sure of competitive odds for elsewhere.
Not sure you can project a national outcome from London - unless you reverse it
Comments
This is not a big deal for me as I tend to operate from home anyway but I was surprised and quite impressed how forceful the instructions were.
Symptoms for me come down to violent shivering (presumably a high temperature) - no respiratory problems so far, unlike a close friend who can barely sleep lying down. It's a strikingly flexible beast.
P&O is loss-making and has been for years. They presumably worked out what the minimum amount they needed to pay was in order for them to continue operations somehow (and within the law, as is the subject of debate on PB). Would a meeting with beer and sandwiches have lead to an increase in the payout? Who knows but P&O presumably made the calculation that they didn't want to find out which suggests no.
'The group were armed with hunting rifles plus a small number of Russian army Kalashnikovs that had come into their possession,'
' that had come into their possession' Hmmm,
It seems he was part of a team in East Germany whose job was to destroy all Stasi and spying records before reunification.
They started burning the papers but the furnace broke down then had to use crappy East German shredding machines which were slow and not great.
In the end they ran out of time and so left huge bags of poorly shredded documents which have been put back together by a team of 40 since and so unveiling the truth.
It seemed quite apt that Putin was involved in an attempt to change history that was ultimately unsuccessful due to a combination of poor equipment and poor planning. History repeating and all that….
The number of people qualified to comment holistically on this is vanishingly small, and quite well paid, and don't give free advice.
But that is not the existing law. And directors of companies operating here have a duty to follow the law. If they cannot operate legally without going bust they are insolvent and laws apply there too. What they cannot do is say that because they are loss-making they can simply disregard the law.
From Techne UK
Lab 40 +1
Cons 35
LD 10
Green 5 -1
Just like most village parish councillors most Corporation of London councillors stand as independents
Lab 37
Cons 35
LD 10
also, read Candide. It's quite short, and will tell you what Panglossian really means.
They inherited massive amounts of Soviet-standard 5.45×39mm rounds, plus other stuff, that were incompatible with NATO guns. So how do you get rid of them? They built a massive reinforced furnace (I think it rotated), put rounds in, then heated it up. The rounds would go off within the furnace, then scrap metal would come out at the end.
I'd love it if someone has a video of that...
I don’t think this will last though, cost of living is going to bite especially as we go into April.
This may or may not be related to the Icelandic plates I got off eBay.
So we get to the same place in the end but P&O have decided that it was cost effective to break that law and suffer whatever consequences that entailed. Much as you say the government did. I don't think that the two are related, that said, just a business decision in the latter case.
Didn't seem to make a lot of difference. Anyway, most of the 'new' councillors resigned during their terms of office.
I'm not sure about the 'national' political opinions of most of the present lot. Up until recently they were either for or against charging for the main car park.
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/1/33407.pdf
https://stroyenergo.by/en/ammunition-disposal/lines-with-rotor-armoured-furnance/
At the end of the day the Unions might declare "victory" over a company which has gone bust with no one getting any jobs.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/300/30006.htm#:~:text=Exemplary damages,-151.&text=[160] The two categories are,compensation payable to the claimant.
Exemplary damages
151. Exemplary damages developed under the common law. A court can only award exemplary damages where the facts fall into one of the two "categories" of wrongful act where they are available, unless exemplary damages are provided for by statute.[160] The two categories are:
oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by a public servant, or
where the defendant's wrongful conduct was calculated to make a profit which might well exceed the compensation payable to the claimant.
Russia's spokesman should be aware that The Hustle was a TV show; rarely in life do things appear to go catastrophically badly before turning out to actually have gone to plan.
You have a CEO who has a salary of £325,000. He admits to knowingly breaking the law. Why? Because the company can't afford to pay a decent wage, and wants to pay its employees £5.50 an hour. By my calculations, the CEO earns £156 an hour (based on a 40-hour week). My heart bleeds.
But hey, that's just how the system works, and there's nothing we can do. Makes me wonder what the point of having a government is.
For the Putin is a Commie lads.
'In 1999, Putin described communism as "a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization"'
Wise of Labour to keep their powder dry.
Past experience suggests that it will show up 1-2 weeks from now, in the polls.
Of course governments and their criminal billionaire fossil fuel friends already knew all about climate change (and chose to do nothing - just imagine how much better the world would be in every way if they had done everything possible to reduce burning fossil fuels from the time the IPCC was founded in 1988), but many of us were still living in blissful ignorance.
This is one to hand over to the lawyers and see where we end up. We saw earlier in the schooling session conducted by @Ishmael_Z that the situation that people want is not always the situation that actually exists wrt law and so forth.
.
1. Rule of Law no longer applies. See Rees-Mogg, Patel, Johnson, Lewis et al
2. Failing Grayling did a whoopsie and made it legal not to tell HMG
3. Not consulting the Unions leaves them open to being slapped hard for compensation at tribunal which they are more than covering up front.
They acted with impunity knowing they will get away with it. This government are not going to decisively act to reinforce the rights of unionised labour to enforce stricter employment laws. That is precisely why Baker, Rees-Mogg etc voted for Brexit, to have less communism.
It’s really easy to solve.
Maybe the govt should just nationalise the ferry co, doesn’t matter that they aren’t registered in the UK it’s easy.
Maybe ban P&O from accessing UK ports, so easy and no need to worry about who will pick up the slack in freight deliveries.
Luckily we have a government because we all know that whatever solution the government puts forward everyone will rejoice and accept that as the best and only solution.
And at least the government don’t have to abide by any international laws, agreements etc - they can do anything they want as that’s how the system works.
https://twitter.com/nknewsorg/status/1507242223343001600?s=20&t=Mxgr1HGNZVszvmyCWhwmww
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/03/24/rishi-forecourt-jester-isnt-fooling-anyone/
Which also has a story "Is it too late to save the Commonwealth after 'patronising and outdated' tour?", they'll be merging with the Morning Star soon. I think the big picture plan is to put Baldy n Deathshead front and centre to underline that the crumblies due to inherit from London Bridge won't be there for ever. Not working on this showing.
Starmer is an unprincipled, uncharismatic mediocrity with a poor record and a difficult party to lead.
It MAY be enough if the electorate are sick enough of the Conservatives, but I think he's more Gordon Brown than Tony Blair.
And legislation is needed to make it a criminal offence for directors to do similar in future.
Lab fail to gain Wandsworth - Piss poor night
Lab Gain Wandsworth - Expected.
Lab gain Barnet - Good night
Lab gain Westminster - Starmer on his way to No 10 probably.
No I'm not from London, but they're 1-2, Evens and 2-1 shots at the bookies for Labour whereas not sure of competitive odds for elsewhere.
Breaking the law for profit is something the courts take an incredibly dim view of iirc too. They're going to get their clocks cleaned.
Union: We what a pay rise.
Company: Sorry mate, but no we are firing you all and employing much cheaper Filipinos.
Union: You cant do that
Company: Yes we can
Union: OK, we will work for less
Company: They are working for £5.50 an hour you cant beet that, even if your members agreed its below UK NMW
Union: well we what a big redundancy package then.
Company you well have the legal amount we must pay.
Union: if you don't give us more we will stick!
Company: fine go on strike, you repellents will be there in an hour, but you wont get any more.
If somebody can give me another more credible sinareo, then do so, but I don't see it.
Maybe it was the law, I am not an employment layer, with a specialisation in Maritime issues. but in that clip where he 'admits to knowingly not obeying the law', he did start to enplane more but was cut off, while the MP question him went on his rant, then the P and O boss asked if he could explain and was again cut off. I don't know what his explanation is, but sometimes the people not given an opportunity to explain might have an explanation. what might that be. perhaps, Yes we know what we did brakes UK law but.......... because of our contact we come under ..... law which overrides that bit of UK law, for example. Now this might just not be the case, but I wish he had been given the change to explain rather than cut off.
I really can't tell as everything seems so febrile and changeable. You do get the feeling that the greased piglet might just wriggle through somehow.
If Labour fail to gain Barnet and Westminster, then given 2 out of 3 Barnet seats are in the top 50 Labour target seats and Cities of London and Westminster is in the top 100 Labour target seats then the Tories will likely at least keep most seats. That would be a bad night for Labour.
If Labour fail to even gain Wandsworth then Labour could even be going backwards as all 3 Wandsworth MPs after Labour gained Putney in 2019 are now Labour
Among other things, it gives people time to start looking for another job.
Not sure about now because Johnson's sleaze is part of the package, a feature not a bug, and hence is priced in. But this kind of thing might contribute to the narrative with one proviso - whereas a cash for questions/expenses is a consumer-neutral activity and hence consumers can get rightly outrages, cheap channel crossings are very much a consumer-affecting issue. People might not be so keen to vote out a government seen as helping day trippers, booze cruises and stag parties.
It looks a bit like a desensitization strategy, where eventually the Irish won't notice so much that they're around, and they'll find themselves members of the Commonwealth as though they always had been.
I've suggested before that Irish membership of the Commonwealth would be one of the steps the Republic could take to help ease the process of Unification, and it looks like the Windsors have been ordered to do their bit.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/20002174.p-o-sacks-800-staff-receiving-15m-public-money-support-year/#:~:text=The P&O land and sea,after tax profit in 2020.
Mum, Dad, wife and youngest daughter have all had it in the past fortnight. Mum and Dad (both in 70s) diligently didn't do anything for the allotted period but really suffered no more than they would expect to with a cold in any given year; youngest daughter (7) had entirely different symptoms: a day's vomiting, and then a couple of days with low energy, but was back in circulation on day 6. Wife has been hit hardest, and spent four or five days mostly in bed. She's back at work now, although she still has a pain in her chest. She's asthmatic, and tends to be hit hard by respiratory illnesses, and I was quite worried about the prospect of her getting it before vaccines came along. But even so, covid aside, she'd normally expect to get an illness like this one year in three.
There is a lot of it about around here but very little of it serious.
I wonder if there is a different strain down south? Or maybe you two have just been unlucky; or maybe my contacts have just been lucky.
We have had covid in the house three times now and oldest daughter (11, so still not yet vaxxed) has still never tested positive.
The result in Ramsgate last night was also actually really strong for Labour and warrants more analysis.
I'm a bit of a Starmer sceptic personally TBH but I try to present things as they are.
As I understand it, the symptoms are caused by the immune system fighting it off. They're often worse if you're immunologically naive, because the innate immune system has to hold the line alone for a while whilst the acquired immune system is being trained up, and more damage gets done to the body by the virus, which spreads further. And therefore a stronger and more unpleasant response is needed to get rid of it.
There are two things we're looking at: symptoms (immune response) and viral spread (which, when it gets to a certain point, will trigger an LFT. This point is typically very close to that where you become infectious)
When you've got immunity already, the acquired immune system jumps off the line immediately and starts fighting (symptoms begin). The virus continues to try to spread. It has to get to a certain point before the LFT can be triggered. Unlike with the immune-naive, the symptoms start first because you're fighting it off instantly. It's very plausible that you can then fight it off before it manages to spread inside you to the point where it could trigger an LFT.
It also explains how some people can catch it, come down with symptoms, and not spread it - the virus was so busy struggling with the immune system that it never got to the point of being able to spread beyond you, or if it did, it was only for a very limited period at minimal infectivity.