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
Based on national polls? What about local factors? Such as the smart political bet is Labour make no progress at all in Barnet because it’s only just over two years ago they were a rabid anti Semitic party with all Labours current top team in that rabid anti Semitic leadership and not resigning from it. That has to be taken into account too doesn’t it, that it’s far too soon for Jewish voters to return on mass to Labour, especially when decent other options or sit on vote is available? When we are cock sure of future vote outcomes in these threadettes, we have to consider local factors not just polling numbers? One fact we do know about the coming election nights we have learnt from previous, results will be lumpy, huge step forwards there, perhaps by surprise, gone nowhere here, another surprise. This site is about taking that surprise out of it, such as no one on PB is shocked in future by Bristol’s Green Mayor, and 3 Green MPs from Bristol, because I have, via Snooks, told you it’s happening.
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
I don't know what will happen in London TBH, a funny result and where I think the value betting lies would be Tories holding Wandsworth due to local issues such as low council tax but Labour gaining Westminster. Although Labour should win the popular vote in both.
Barnet looks 50/50 to me even factoring in pro Labour boundary changes.
Generally speaking I would expect a 4% swing to Labour in London from 2018 but I don't know how things will play out in terms of local issues and in individual council seats.
P&O must be a bit miffed at the criticism they're getting from Grant Shapps etc. The government set the mood music by breaking international law with the shenanigans over the Internal Market Bill, yet we were told that this was just cheeky old Boris cutting a few corners to get results. Throw in Partygate, and it's no surprise that Boris is now the poster boy for rule breakers everywhere. Difficult to see how this culture can ever be reversed.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
I'd like us to return to local communities living closer to the land and off-grid. I only keep my car because of my son. Otherwise I'd walk everywhere or use public transport. A lot of people can work from home but companies like to control people and their thoughts.
We can grow our own food stuffs and power our homes through solar, wind and/or geothermal.
Money is a means of control: a way of subjugating the masses and enchaining them.
I recognise that most people on here will hoot with derision but it's a point of view I happen to believe in passionately which is why I often seem to left-field and alternative. (That of course is another example of control: if someone is that alternative they are ostracised and accused of being a troll. Anything to stop them challenging the status quo.)
The world has entered a dystopian nightmare but some of us are getting off the conveyor belt.
p.s. Well worth watching Ben Fogle's New Lives in the Wild. Lots of fabulous examples.
You are calling for a massive depopulation of the UK and other developed countries on the basis of an entertainment program. A poor one at that.
I met a crofter in a remote village on the west coast of Scotland. Every month, they made a trip to Fort Bill to fill up with groceries; every six months they would go to Inverness or Glasgow. They grew a lot of food, but nowhere near enough. And they *heavily* relied on public services - from memory a neighbour's kid went to state boarding school. 'off-the-grid' living is a lifestyle that often leeches off others, whilst pretending to be 'independent'.
We are a society, and we are all massively interdependent.
Your view of the world is the dystopian nightmare.
Bet all these people living off grid didn't make their own solar panels.
I've sometimes tried to think about how large a minimally viable society would need to be to maintain current technology levels - consider the idea of having a self-supporting population on Mars. How large would it need to be to be able to replace all its computer chips, produce all its medicines, etc.
Really damn large I reckon.
Things like computer chips will be imported for decades. The costs of making a fab are huge, including the resources required (heck, they require vast amounts of water). Yet the end-products are very small, so are easy to transport. The limited resources would be better spent elsewhere.
A chip we did was (from memory) made in China. The wafers were then flown to AMS in Austria for packaging (putting them into the case with connectors), sent to the US for testing, from where they were then sent to the UK and China.
You'd need a continental sized economy just to be able to be fully self sufficient - and even then it probably wouldn't be worth it. Planning in economic resilience is a different matter, and something we've more or less ignored for a couple of decades at least.
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?
For that you'd need a lawyer. I've not heard of anyone breaking the laws regarding redundancy in such a simple way before, myself.
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.
In a two horse race if one of the horses is lame the other one doesn't need to do particularly well. The unpalatable truth for Tories is that Johnson is a liar. It's irreversible. He can never become an un-liar.
If he was a product you could try a top to bottom rebrand but he's too recognisable for that. He could hope that voters might become more accepting of liars but there's ample evidence that not more than 35% will.
Starmer's best bet is to keep his head down. Every sighting of Johnson just reminds voters of what they don't like
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....
No, he could still have consulted. It's a 30 day process, so unless the company is already effectively insolvent, they should have done so. And by not doing so, they risk an unlimited fine, which the law in this case provides.
As he admitted in the select committee that the company did have this obligation, challenging any such penalty might be difficult.
Basically the management are scofflaws and idiots.
Yeah maybe but maybe also he had had discussions with the unions who indicated their terms. We don't know. To take that kind of a risk without, it appears, a great deal of regret and a pledge that they would do it again, indicates that this wasn't something they decided to do on the spur of the moment.
We do know, as he stated in terms, in front of a Parliamentary select committee, that they had decided to ignore the legal requirement to consult.
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
Based on national polls? What about local factors? Such as the smart political bet is Labour make no progress at all in Barnet because it’s only just over two years ago they were a rabid anti Semitic party with all Labours current top team in that rabid anti Semitic leadership and not resigning from it. That has to be taken into account too doesn’t it, that it’s far too soon for Jewish voters to return on mass to Labour, especially when decent other options or sit on vote is available? When we are cock sure of future vote outcomes in these threadettes, we have to consider local factors not just polling numbers? One fact we do know about the coming election nights we have learnt from previous, results will be lumpy, huge step forwards there, perhaps by surprise, gone nowhere here, another surprise. This site is about taking that surprise out of it, such as no one on PB is shocked in future by Bristol’s Green Mayor, and 3 Green MPs from Bristol, because I have, via Snooks, told you it’s happening.
Careful now! Implying a Jewish bloc vote might be thought a sign of antisemitism.
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.
The other thing a consultation period does is it provides time for reality to sink in and defuses opposition. If the company really can't survive without the job losses then that will become obvious and people will gradually come to accept it.
Doing it instantly is much more confrontational and it increases the chance of provoking a reaction, which is why the company used it's last remaining financial reserves to pay for taser-wielding security guards.
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.
I agree, except the last one because mid-term locals are meaningless in predicting the next general election.
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
Seems like the Tories are back up to 35% now, Labour seems to be where the changes are.
Only Boris is keeping the Tories so lo now - decent new leader....
Still a surprisingly poor rally round the flag bounce in this international crisis though?
That's the other way of looking at it.
Despite an international crisis where Johnson's role is right up his street, despite the Sun being out, despite life being basically OK for most Brits right now (certainly better than it looks like becoming), despite being up against a boring lefty lawyer, he's still not ahead. The pointer on the swingometer could go either way from here.
A decent new leader would help the Conservatives, but that means
1. Identifying one. (Hint: it's not Rishi.) 2. Making sure that Big Dog doesn't destroy a rival. 3. Getting rid of Big Dog.
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?
For that you'd need a lawyer. I've not heard of anyone breaking the laws regarding redundancy in such a simple way before, myself.
It is subject to civil penalties - in this case an unlimited fine.
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.
The other thing a consultation period does is it provides time for reality to sink in and defuses opposition. If the company really can't survive without the job losses then that will become obvious and people will gradually come to accept it.
Doing it instantly is much more confrontational and it increases the chance of provoking a reaction, which is why the company used it's last remaining financial reserves to pay for taser-wielding security guards.
There are loads of other examples of things like this where the appearance of being reasonable can be used to manufacture consent for things that aren't reasonable.
It's one of the ways in which a democratic society functions, by providing harmless outlets for people to express their frustration. Take those away from people and you leave them only with more destructive ways to react.
I can't believe any lawyer would advise P&O to deliberately break the law. The truth is the CEO has not considered the full potential impact of the courts.
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
Adding company director disqualification to that would focus some minds.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
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.
In a two horse race if one of the horses is lame the other one doesn't need to do particularly well. The unpalatable truth for Tories is that Johnson is a liar. It's irreversible. He can never become an un-liar.
If he was a product you could try a top to bottom rebrand but he's too recognisable for that. He could hope that voters might become more accepting of liars but there's ample evidence that not more than 35% will.
Starmer's best bet is to keep his head down. Every sighting of Johnson just reminds voters of what they don't like
A rather sad admission of the weakness of your own side. Despite a myriad of issues which would put a half competent opposition 10+ points ahead - no sign of completing the deal. Also a failure to understand the content of the post - pretty much like Starmer reeling out the prepared questions at PMQs..
A question: how important is P&O ferries to the nation? If they stopped operating permanently (they did for a few days when this mess was announced), how much would it harm the country? Or would another operator be easy to set up/move in, even if they charged a little more?
Or is it a marketplace that is saturated with operators and alternatives, which is why they're finding it hard to make money?
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
This is a clear case as any for the directors to be made an example of.
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
I don't know what will happen in London TBH, a funny result and where I think the value betting lies would be Tories holding Wandsworth due to local issues such as low council tax but Labour gaining Westminster. Although Labour should win the popular vote in both.
Barnet looks 50/50 to me even factoring in pro Labour boundary changes.
Generally speaking I would expect a 4% swing to Labour in London from 2018 but I don't know how things will play out in terms of local issues and in individual council seats.
Any realistic hopes for Conservative gains?
I'd rule out Havering- it really ought to be very safe Conservative, but there are just too many powerful Residents' Associations. The demographics haven't really started to drift against the Conservatives yet... that's still a smallish cloud on the horizon.
What about Croydon? Reaches out to the edge of London, and haven't the Labour council seriously bungled things?
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.
Thanks both! A colleague in Edinburgh is only starting to recover now after 2 weeks, whereas two relatives in Devon both tested positive and shrugged it off as "minor symptoms". It seems to present in a multitude of forms and severity. I'm about 70% and working intermittently.
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.
The other thing a consultation period does is it provides time for reality to sink in and defuses opposition. If the company really can't survive without the job losses then that will become obvious and people will gradually come to accept it.
Doing it instantly is much more confrontational and it increases the chance of provoking a reaction, which is why the company used it's last remaining financial reserves to pay for taser-wielding security guards.
On the occasion I was made redundant (company consolidating operations and closing an office) the consultation period was used to
- Suggest to HR to change the structure of the payments, so that the tax owed on them was reduced. - Get jobs - the HR rep (who I knew on a drinking basis) told me that she had been given the directive to make sure that everyone had a new job before the end date. - Negotiate some other stuff. We all ended up getting our work computers (high end MacBook Pros) for peanuts, for example.
It was certainly the most pleasant redundancy I've heard of. I occasionally speak to the people, years later, and everyone has a good word for the company! Mind you, they were paying out ion the scale, that if you'd been there 4 years, you got pretty much 9 months salary. And much of that was untaxed. I ended up with over a years pay (post tax) in the bank.
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.
Thanks both! A colleague in Edinburgh is only starting to recover now after 2 weeks, whereas two relatives in Devon both tested positive and shrugged it off as "minor symptoms". It seems to present in a multitude of forms and severity. I'm about 70% and working intermittently.
The worst symptom for me was tiredness - ended up sleeping about 15 hours a day.
It seemed to help with the recovery - when I tried to press on, I felt worse.
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
This is a clear case as any for the directors to be made an example of.
It seems yet again that PB has concluded that this is as clear a case as it possibly could be of a breach of the law and we now only need to sit back to await prosecutions, fines and disqualifications.
Seems like the Tories are back up to 35% now, Labour seems to be where the changes are.
Only Boris is keeping the Tories so lo now - decent new leader....
Still a surprisingly poor rally round the flag bounce in this international crisis though?
That's the other way of looking at it.
Despite an international crisis where Johnson's role is right up his street, despite the Sun being out, despite life being basically OK for most Brits right now (certainly better than it looks like becoming), despite being up against a boring lefty lawyer, he's still not ahead. The pointer on the swingometer could go either way from here.
A decent new leader would help the Conservatives, but that means
1. Identifying one. (Hint: it's not Rishi.) 2. Making sure that Big Dog doesn't destroy a rival. 3. Getting rid of Big Dog.
Not impossible, but not easy.
Johnson will cause absolute mayhem for his successor from the backbenches. The certainty of thus outcome among tory MPs is possibly one of the things keeping him in place.
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?
Big Westminster animal welfare reception on the "Terrace" but as it turned out mostly indoors. I should have walked straight out when I discovered 80 people crowded into a room, but having come up from Surrey for it that seemed a bit spineless.
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
I don't know what will happen in London TBH, a funny result and where I think the value betting lies would be Tories holding Wandsworth due to local issues such as low council tax but Labour gaining Westminster. Although Labour should win the popular vote in both.
Barnet looks 50/50 to me even factoring in pro Labour boundary changes.
Generally speaking I would expect a 4% swing to Labour in London from 2018 but I don't know how things will play out in terms of local issues and in individual council seats.
The latest London only poll gives a 7.5% swing to Labour from 2018, clearly above the national swing (much as in 2019 London was the only UK region apart from the South East and Scotland the Tory voteshare fell since 2017).
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
IIRC the Soviet thing was to blame the pre-War Polish government for not agreeing to free passage for Russia troops into Poland. Yes, they wanted carte blanche to invade.....
And not acknowledge that the Polish government refused terms to Hitler and refused to join his planned anti-Soviet pact.
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
This is a clear case as any for the directors to be made an example of.
It seems yet again that PB has concluded that this is as clear a case as it possibly could be of a breach of the law and we now only need to sit back to await prosecutions, fines and disqualifications.
Well, listening to the director's own testimony yesterday, it seemed clear that *he* felt he had broken the law. Now, it might be that he was mistaken, and the company did everything correctly; or that there is a loophole that gets them off.
But if you go into a parliamentary select committee and essentially say: "we broke the law," then it is probably fair enough for us to agree with him.
A heartbreaking image of two little girls separated from loved ones in Mariupol on the front page of the Guardian today. In a strange way I find it the most directly affecting image I've seen throughout the whole of this miserable conflict.
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
Question for the legal eagles. Just reading about new law about mobile usage while driving. I notice there is an exemption for using a phone as a sat-nav if it is in a cradle. That obviously refers to the fact you have Waze on and it is showing you the route, but are you technically allowed to touch the phone if Waze say pops up something that requires tapping? Or is it simply referring to passive action of observing the route?
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
Please get one. It saved the lives of a number of relatives in Peru - telling them when to go for the hospitals. Which were in a very difficult state. It also helped several friends here.
With thanks to @Foxy for his recommendations, the things I got were
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.
I agree, except the last one because mid-term locals are meaningless in predicting the next general election.
They aren't to the extent that the opposition party needs to be at least 10% ahead in the NEV in the locals to be sure of winning the next general election, or at least most seats. Blair's Labour won the 1996 locals by 14% over Major's Tories for example and Cameron's Tories won the 2009 locals by 15% over Brown's Labour
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
You should definitely get one. Mostly prior to vaccinations, there have been numerous reports of people feeling absolutely fine, but actually their blood sats are really low (silent hypoxia), such that they have ended up in serious condition as left it very late.
Maybe someone who knows UK employment law will clear this up.
As far as I can tell the P&O staff weren’t employed by P&O UK.
“ 786 seafarers were dismissed from three Jersey companies: 587 from P&O Ferries (Jersey) Limited, 83 from P&O North Sea (Jersey) Limited and 116 from P&O Irish Sea (Jersey) Limited.”
I am assuming that P&O UK as operator had a service agreement with the three above companies to provide staff.
If that’s the case then surely P&O uK has not sacked these staff as they don’t work for P&O uK but instead the staff were sacked by the Jersey companies.
Again if that’s the case then how would P&O be breaking the employment law in the UK if staff who don’t work for them are sacked by three non UK companies?
Would be interesting if someone knows if UK employment law covers people working for non UK companies doing business in the UK.
Also what is the tax situation for these employees? If they effectively lived on board and were paid by non UK entities were they paying UK income tax?
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
You should definitely get one. Mostly prior to vaccinations, there have been numerous reports of people feeling absolutely fine, but actually their blood sats are really low (silent hypoxia), such that they have ended up in serious condition as left it very late.
That's the exact situation several of my Peruvian relatives got to - they were telling themselves they were fine, since the hospitals were such a mess, Then the oximeter gave them the truth.
Question for the legal eagles. Just reading about new law about mobile usage while driving. I notice there is an exemption for using a phone as a sat-nav if it is in a cradle. That obviously refers to the fact you have Waze on and it is showing you the route, but are you technically allowed to touch the phone if Waze say pops up something that requires tapping? Or is it simply referring to passive action of observing the route?
You can't interact with it for:
illuminating the screen checking the time checking notifications unlocking the device making, receiving, or rejecting a telephone or internet based call sending, receiving or uploading oral or written content sending, receiving or uploading a photo or video utilising camera, video, or sound recording drafting any text accessing any stored data such as documents, books, audio files, photos, videos, films, playlists, notes or messages accessing an app accessing the internet
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.
The statutory requirement to consult in cases where more than 100 employees are being made redundant carries a potential unlimited fine if ignored.
This is a clear case as any for the directors to be made an example of.
It seems yet again that PB has concluded that this is as clear a case as it possibly could be of a breach of the law and we now only need to sit back to await prosecutions, fines and disqualifications.
Having now seen Hebblethwaite's answers to McDonald's questions in the Commons, I think we can expect precisely that.
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.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
Well, he's obviously rubbish at his job then and should be fired. £325k for that performance? Get rid.
How many travel firms made a profit in a year most of which was in lockdown? About zero. However it will take years for them to restore their balance sheets and some will go bust in the meantime, same with the hospitality industry and non essential shops
Question for the legal eagles. Just reading about new law about mobile usage while driving. I notice there is an exemption for using a phone as a sat-nav if it is in a cradle. That obviously refers to the fact you have Waze on and it is showing you the route, but are you technically allowed to touch the phone if Waze say pops up something that requires tapping? Or is it simply referring to passive action of observing the route?
You can't interact with it for:
illuminating the screen checking the time checking notifications unlocking the device making, receiving, or rejecting a telephone or internet based call sending, receiving or uploading oral or written content sending, receiving or uploading a photo or video utilising camera, video, or sound recording drafting any text accessing any stored data such as documents, books, audio files, photos, videos, films, playlists, notes or messages accessing an app accessing the internet
When does Waze require you to tap?
e.g. from time to time Waze can glitch for me, forgets you are already "on-route" and pops up the same button you get when you first enter a route and confirm yes take me there now.
A heartbreaking image of two little girls separated from loved ones in Mariupol on the front page of the Guardian today. In a strange way I find it the most directly affecting image I've seen throughout the whole of this miserable conflict.
All of this tweet, but the last 2 lines particularly.
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.
In a two horse race if one of the horses is lame the other one doesn't need to do particularly well. The unpalatable truth for Tories is that Johnson is a liar. It's irreversible. He can never become an un-liar.
If he was a product you could try a top to bottom rebrand but he's too recognisable for that. He could hope that voters might become more accepting of liars but there's ample evidence that not more than 35% will.
Starmer's best bet is to keep his head down. Every sighting of Johnson just reminds voters of what they don't like
A rather sad admission of the weakness of your own side. Despite a myriad of issues which would put a half competent opposition 10+ points ahead - no sign of completing the deal. Also a failure to understand the content of the post - pretty much like Starmer reeling out the prepared questions at PMQs..
People form their opinions over a period of time. There's little advantage is scoring points here and there because there's no one to tally them. It's taken nearly three years for voters to come to a fixed view on Johnson. He can do what he likes from here on in and it'll make almost no difference.
If Starmer can look competent and honest that should do it.
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
You wouldn't necessarily notice; it can be insidious. While vaccination has greatly reduced the risks, probably best to check.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
Please get one. It saved the lives of a number of relatives in Peru - telling them when to go for the hospitals. Which were in a very difficult state. It also helped several friends here.
With thanks to @Foxy for his recommendations, the things I got were
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
Please get one. It saved the lives of a number of relatives in Peru - telling them when to go for the hospitals. Which were in a very difficult state. It also helped several friends here.
With thanks to @Foxy for his recommendations, the things I got were
Wildly off topic, but I wonder if the educated and worldly wise inhabitants of this forum can identify the structure pictured below.
There’s four of them spaced seemingly randomly in a field I walk the dogs in. They’re solid concrete boxes, standing just under six feet high, on a solid metal pole. One side is angled and pressed into that face is a concave pyramidal mirror.
No idea how long they’ve been there but at least six years, that’s how long I’ve lived near them. They all face due west. They don’t seem to be maintained in any way.
They’re a few hundred metres south west from the old Kellingley Colliery site, so I wondered if they’re anything to do with monitoring subsidence, but that’s just a wild guess. Are they for the alignment of something?
Any ideas?
Edit: Not sure why some of the images have spun round.
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
Please get one. It saved the lives of a number of relatives in Peru - telling them when to go for the hospitals. Which were in a very difficult state. It also helped several friends here.
With thanks to @Foxy for his recommendations, the things I got were
The government could and should have sent one out to every household free of charge. Better value than all the testing.
I think they did setup a scheme for remote monitoring more vulnerable people and one component of that was to give them an oximeter.
However in terms of the wider public, it is another piece of easy advice the government could and should have pushed relentlessly. Put together a "COVID kit" with these things, check your stats every x hours, if below y, go straight to A&E.
Question for the legal eagles. Just reading about new law about mobile usage while driving. I notice there is an exemption for using a phone as a sat-nav if it is in a cradle. That obviously refers to the fact you have Waze on and it is showing you the route, but are you technically allowed to touch the phone if Waze say pops up something that requires tapping? Or is it simply referring to passive action of observing the route?
You can't interact with it for:
illuminating the screen checking the time checking notifications unlocking the device making, receiving, or rejecting a telephone or internet based call sending, receiving or uploading oral or written content sending, receiving or uploading a photo or video utilising camera, video, or sound recording drafting any text accessing any stored data such as documents, books, audio files, photos, videos, films, playlists, notes or messages accessing an app accessing the internet
When does Waze require you to tap?
e.g. from time to time Waze can glitch for me, forgets you are already "on-route" and pops up the same button you get when you first enter a route and confirm yes take me there now.
I wonder what the police enforcement will be like? I think someone would be fairly unlucky to be fined if they click one pop up on a phone whilst using it as a satnav.
Not really sure what the difference is between that and someone changing the channel on the radio to be honest.
I would prefer more regular enforcement of those actually talking on the phone, especially whilst moving, than more poorly enforced laws covering a wider range of offences.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
IIRC the Soviet thing was to blame the pre-War Polish government for not agreeing to free passage for Russia troops into Poland. Yes, they wanted carte blanche to invade.....
And not acknowledge that the Polish government refused terms to Hitler and refused to join his planned anti-Soviet pact.
Note the publication date of that article - 5th Jan 2020. The whole thing is well worth reading. ...Academic defenses of the Hitler-Stalin alliance began appearing again in Russia in 2009, timed to the 70th anniversary of 1939; one collection of essays published at the time even included an approving introduction written by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister....
Also note there was no comment at all from the White House at the time.
I can't believe any lawyer would advise P&O to deliberately break the law. The truth is the CEO has not considered the full potential impact of the courts.
A proper lawyer can't advise you to break the law, but can of course advise you on what the consequences are of doing so in any particular set of facts. In the P+O case that advice should come expensive, as there are a whole set of areas of law and jurisdictions to consider.
One nice example is the risk of being sued by P+O cruises for reputational damage to them (they are a wholly separate outfit) as customers understandably might go elsewhere in protest, not realising that they are distinct entities.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
IIRC the Soviet thing was to blame the pre-War Polish government for not agreeing to free passage for Russia troops into Poland. Yes, they wanted carte blanche to invade.....
And not acknowledge that the Polish government refused terms to Hitler and refused to join his planned anti-Soviet pact.
Note the publication date of that article - 5th Jan 2020. The whole thing is well worth reading. ...Academic defenses of the Hitler-Stalin alliance began appearing again in Russia in 2009, timed to the 70th anniversary of 1939; one collection of essays published at the time even included an approving introduction written by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister....
Also note there was no comment at all from the White House at the time.
The occupant was busy planning his own alliance with the extreme right at that point.
Edit: ha, of course that was a year later! How time flies when you're enjoying yourself.
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
According to that article, DP World had no choice as it was "legally obliged" to pay out the £270m in dividends. Funny that - I thought they were comfortable with breaking the law.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
Maybe someone who knows UK employment law will clear this up.
As far as I can tell the P&O staff weren’t employed by P&O UK.
“ 786 seafarers were dismissed from three Jersey companies: 587 from P&O Ferries (Jersey) Limited, 83 from P&O North Sea (Jersey) Limited and 116 from P&O Irish Sea (Jersey) Limited.”
I am assuming that P&O UK as operator had a service agreement with the three above companies to provide staff.
If that’s the case then surely P&O uK has not sacked these staff as they don’t work for P&O uK but instead the staff were sacked by the Jersey companies.
Again if that’s the case then how would P&O be breaking the employment law in the UK if staff who don’t work for them are sacked by three non UK companies?
Would be interesting if someone knows if UK employment law covers people working for non UK companies doing business in the UK.
Also what is the tax situation for these employees? If they effectively lived on board and were paid by non UK entities were they paying UK income tax?
Another question for people who understand UK employment and tax law.
If the P&O staff were working for one of the three Jersey companies would they have to pay UK NI contributions and would P&O?
A joke from Moscow: "According to Putin the special military operation is really a conflict btw Russia and NATO about World dominance. Whats the situation now?" "Russia has lost 15000 troops, 6 generals, 500 tanks, 3 ships, 100 planes and 1000 trucks. NATO hasn't arrived yet."
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
Kill himself? It *would have been* a good idea if he'd done it twenty years earlier...
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.
Best of luck. What does the oximeter say?
thanks! Good question - maybe I should get one. But not having any breathing trouble.
You should definitely get one. Mostly prior to vaccinations, there have been numerous reports of people feeling absolutely fine, but actually their blood sats are really low (silent hypoxia), such that they have ended up in serious condition as left it very late.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
Kill himself? It *would have been* a good idea if he'd done it twenty years earlier...
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
The only thing I can think of would be disapproved of by the Christians on the site.
I don't think he expressed an opinion on pineapple on pizza, and Radiohead hadn't been formed... What can you be thinking of?
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
According to that article, DP World had no choice as it was "legally obliged" to pay out the £270m in dividends. Funny that - I thought they were comfortable with breaking the law.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
The only thing I can think of would be disapproved of by the Christians on the site.
I don't think he expressed an opinion on pineapple on pizza, and Radiohead hadn't been formed... What can you be thinking of?
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
The only thing I can think of would be disapproved of by the Christians on the site.
I don't think he expressed an opinion on pineapple on pizza, and Radiohead hadn't been formed... What can you be thinking of?
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
Well we all got used to breaking laws during covid so I think that's partly it
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
I try to live in the manner of Gibbons' description of the barbarian. My liberty is to act on the whim of the moment. My courage is to live with the consequences.
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
This, I think, is an exaggeration hiding an interesting question or two. Most people most of the time are broadly law abiding over things that matter morally and are capable of being understood by normal people.
However there are some problems. here are three.
1) The weight of law has become impossibly complex, so you have no idea what is lawful and what is not
2) Enforcement is patchy. More or less every day I receive either fraudulent emails or fraudulent phone calls. The amount of card/bank account fraud is immense, and it is obvious there is no intention to do anything about any of it. So you just ignore, evade and take maximum care.
3) Courts now exist only for the very poor and the very rich or well funded.
Law is not at all dead. Look at the number of lawyers.
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Quoting that MLK line against the left is usually trolling. Anybody who habitually does it - you can pretty much write them off as having anything of value to say about racism.
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
Well we all got used to breaking laws during covid so I think that's partly it
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
I try to live in the manner of Gibbons' description of the barbarian. My liberty is to act on the whim of the moment. My courage is to live with the consequences.
Didn't you mention in the past re speeding that you had a lawyer who you used to find loopholes to allow you to avoid the consequences?
For those wondering what other bits of history Putin has been rewriting in his head...I have just been reminded of this, from January 2020: Putin has been blaming Poland for the start of the Second World War https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Was that in the same Putin speech that @Leon was cheerleading for?
Tsk. Remember liking Putin for quoting Martin Luther King is exactly the same as liking Wagner's music.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Putin is murderous thug but he does have some valid points about woke and the decadence of western society...
Hmmm, hard to tell if that is a joke or not, but in case it isn't:
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Hitler and his love of animals....
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
The only thing I can think of would be disapproved of by the Christians on the site.
I don't think he expressed an opinion on pineapple on pizza, and Radiohead hadn't been formed... What can you be thinking of?
Hitler had a little known fasciation with computing machinery (hence all the IBM machines and the Z3)
In his papers, the Soviets found the the outlines for a scripting language to be used for carrying out computations...... named after his fascination with South American snakes...... But he decided that it was a vile idea and should never be implemented.
I am not a Labour supporter, but I'll give it a go if no "SKS fans" are available: He (Starmer) is still ahead in spite of a global situation where you would expect any half decent Tory leader (who was not a clown) to be about a dozen percentage points ahead.
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.
It's not a surprise they lost money in 2020 because the flipping pandemic meant everyone stayed at home. It says nothing about whether they need to cut staff costs to make a profit in 2023.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
They also took well over £100m from Rishi in pandemic money.
DP World paid out dividends. P&O Ferries is a modest fraction of DP World.
Yep, the owner. Nice dividend there.
I don't see the sense in profitable parts of a business endlessly cross-subsidising unprofitable parts (though I've disputed how unprofitable P&O were).
The Left has got itself in an awful mess reflexively opposing any company that wants to improve its efficiency and profitability. But looking at it from a Utopian point of view, doing the things we need and want to do more efficiently makes it possible for us to work less and be richer - is only we can make sure that everyone benefits from improved productivity, and not just the owners.
Keeping everything in stasis stops us from ever making things better.
Amazing the number of people who think the law is something to be followed only when it is convenient for you to do so.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
Well we all got used to breaking laws during covid so I think that's partly it
You are Boris Johnson and I claim my five pounds.
Good news: Rishi has an aspiration to give you that five pounds in 2024.
Comments
Barnet looks 50/50 to me even factoring in pro Labour boundary changes.
Generally speaking I would expect a 4% swing to Labour in London from 2018 but I don't know how things will play out in terms of local issues and in individual council seats.
They did make an operating profit in 2019 though, so looks like the argument the company had to cut staff costs to survive as a going concern is cobblers. Never waste a good crisis, though.
Net result is that the British economy has fewer well-paid jobs and higher profits being remitted to foreign owners. Is that the direction of travel we are aiming for?
Planning in economic resilience is a different matter, and something we've more or less ignored for a couple of decades at least.
If he was a product you could try a top to bottom rebrand but he's too recognisable for that. He could hope that voters might become more accepting of liars but there's ample evidence that not more than 35% will.
Starmer's best bet is to keep his head down. Every sighting of Johnson just reminds voters of what they don't like
Doing it instantly is much more confrontational and it increases the chance of provoking a reaction, which is why the company used it's last remaining financial reserves to pay for taser-wielding security guards.
Despite an international crisis where Johnson's role is right up his street, despite the Sun being out, despite life being basically OK for most Brits right now (certainly better than it looks like becoming), despite being up against a boring lefty lawyer, he's still not ahead. The pointer on the swingometer could go either way from here.
A decent new leader would help the Conservatives, but that means
1. Identifying one. (Hint: it's not Rishi.)
2. Making sure that Big Dog doesn't destroy a rival.
3. Getting rid of Big Dog.
Not impossible, but not easy.
It's one of the ways in which a democratic society functions, by providing harmless outlets for people to express their frustration. Take those away from people and you leave them only with more destructive ways to react.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1507314856676020225
Or is it a marketplace that is saturated with operators and alternatives, which is why they're finding it hard to make money?
https://news.sky.com/story/the-reasons-why-p-o-ferries-has-taken-the-axe-to-its-workforce-again-12568561
Seems the industry is in secular decline.
I'd rule out Havering- it really ought to be very safe Conservative, but there are just too many powerful Residents' Associations. The demographics haven't really started to drift against the Conservatives yet... that's still a smallish cloud on the horizon.
What about Croydon? Reaches out to the edge of London, and haven't the Labour council seriously bungled things?
- Suggest to HR to change the structure of the payments, so that the tax owed on them was reduced.
- Get jobs - the HR rep (who I knew on a drinking basis) told me that she had been given the directive to make sure that everyone had a new job before the end date.
- Negotiate some other stuff. We all ended up getting our work computers (high end MacBook Pros) for peanuts, for example.
It was certainly the most pleasant redundancy I've heard of. I occasionally speak to the people, years later, and everyone has a good word for the company! Mind you, they were paying out ion the scale, that if you'd been there 4 years, you got pretty much 9 months salary. And much of that was untaxed. I ended up with over a years pay (post tax) in the bank.
It seemed to help with the recovery - when I tried to press on, I felt worse.
https://www.londoncommunications.co.uk/insights/ldn-london-in-short/ldn-weekly-issue-212-16-march-2022-poll-position/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_London_local_elections
A 7.5% swing would see Barnet, Wandsworth and Westminster all go Labour
And not acknowledge that the Polish government refused terms to Hitler and refused to join his planned anti-Soviet pact.
But if you go into a parliamentary select committee and essentially say: "we broke the law," then it is probably fair enough for us to agree with him.
With thanks to @Foxy for his recommendations, the things I got were
Blood Pressure Measuring Device - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00KJ8FB1Q/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Pulse Oximeter - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B002MEUFKW/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Thermometer - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00NVMIO02/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Flow Meter (lung function) - https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002ZGZ5AM/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_XVNTBQJ9N82RNHMPTJ48?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
Silent hypoxia: a frequently overlooked clinical entity in patients with COVID-19
https://casereports.bmj.com/content/13/9/e237207
As far as I can tell the P&O staff weren’t employed by P&O UK.
“ 786 seafarers were dismissed from three Jersey companies: 587 from P&O Ferries (Jersey) Limited, 83 from P&O North Sea (Jersey) Limited and 116 from P&O Irish Sea (Jersey) Limited.”
I am assuming that P&O UK as operator had a service agreement with the three above companies to provide staff.
If that’s the case then surely P&O uK has not sacked these staff as they don’t work for P&O uK but instead the staff were sacked by the Jersey companies.
Again if that’s the case then how would P&O be breaking the employment law in the UK if staff who don’t work for them are sacked by three non UK companies?
Would be interesting if someone knows if UK employment law covers people working for non UK companies doing business in the UK.
Also what is the tax situation for these employees? If they effectively lived on board and were paid by non UK entities were they paying UK income tax?
illuminating the screen
checking the time
checking notifications
unlocking the device
making, receiving, or rejecting a telephone or internet based call
sending, receiving or uploading oral or written content
sending, receiving or uploading a photo or video
utilising camera, video, or sound recording
drafting any text
accessing any stored data such as documents, books, audio files, photos, videos, films, playlists, notes or messages
accessing an app
accessing the internet
When does Waze require you to tap?
If Starmer can look competent and honest that should do it.
While vaccination has greatly reduced the risks, probably best to check.
You are, after all, a much valued poster.
This makes perfect sense because Wagner is chiefly known for his racism, but he did do some composing on the side. And Putin is famous for his "brilliant" thoughts on equality, but not lot of people know that he is also a murderous dictator and war criminal.
Thanks @Foxy
There’s four of them spaced seemingly randomly in a field I walk the dogs in. They’re solid concrete boxes, standing just under six feet high, on a solid metal pole. One side is angled and pressed into that face is a concave pyramidal mirror.
No idea how long they’ve been there but at least six years, that’s how long I’ve lived near them. They all face due west. They don’t seem to be maintained in any way.
They’re a few hundred metres south west from the old Kellingley Colliery site, so I wondered if they’re anything to do with monitoring subsidence, but that’s just a wild guess. Are they for the alignment of something?
Any ideas?
Edit: Not sure why some of the images have spun round.
However in terms of the wider public, it is another piece of easy advice the government could and should have pushed relentlessly. Put together a "COVID kit" with these things, check your stats every x hours, if below y, go straight to A&E.
Not really sure what the difference is between that and someone changing the channel on the radio to be honest.
I would prefer more regular enforcement of those actually talking on the phone, especially whilst moving, than more poorly enforced laws covering a wider range of offences.
The whole thing is well worth reading.
...Academic defenses of the Hitler-Stalin alliance began appearing again in Russia in 2009, timed to the 70th anniversary of 1939; one collection of essays published at the time even included an approving introduction written by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister....
Also note there was no comment at all from the White House at the time.
YouGov
Latest Westminster voting intention (23-24 Mar)
Lab: 37% (+1 from 22-23 Mar)
Con: 35% (n/c)
Lib Dem: 10% (+1)
Green: 7% (-1)
Reform UK: 4% (-1)
SNP: 4% (n/c)
One nice example is the risk of being sued by P+O cruises for reputational damage to them (they are a wholly separate outfit) as customers understandably might go elsewhere in protest, not realising that they are distinct entities.
Edit: ha, of course that was a year later! How time flies when you're enjoying yourself.
We truly are becoming more Italian by the day.
Anyway it is a gorgeous sunny day here so I'm off to enjoy it.
PS Breach of employment law is not a criminal offence. Breaches of Companies Act provisions can be. But all this seems entirely hypothetical these days. Law will end up like Latin - a dead language used for a few empty rituals - but otherwise totally ignored by the great, the good and everyone else.
No he doesn't, or do you think the Putin regime has good policies that the rest of the world should follow in terms of race or gender equality or "decadence" or anything much else? Any gangster can mention Martin Luther King in a speech full of lies, it doesn't make them suddenly genius moral philosophers.
Mind you, Hitler did do *one thing* we can all agree was a good idea.
If the P&O staff were working for one of the three Jersey companies would they have to pay UK NI contributions and would P&O?
https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1507080906334425089
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=35&LAB=37&LIB=10&Reform=4&Green=7&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=18.3&SCOTLAB=20.2&SCOTLIB=6.6&SCOTReform=0.9&SCOTGreen=3&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=48&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
Nonetheless for the price of £15 or so a useful bit of a any home first aid kit.
I don't think he expressed an opinion on pineapple on pizza, and Radiohead hadn't been formed... What can you be thinking of?
Woman, 40, found stabbed to death at east London home
Woman’s death in Bethnal Green home being treated as ‘suspicious’, say police
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bethnal-green-stabbing-globe-road-london-police-wembley-tooting-b990397.html
However there are some problems. here are three.
1) The weight of law has become impossibly complex, so you have no idea what is lawful and what is not
2) Enforcement is patchy. More or less every day I receive either fraudulent emails or fraudulent phone calls. The amount of card/bank account fraud is immense, and it is obvious there is no intention to do anything about any of it. So you just ignore, evade and take maximum care.
3) Courts now exist only for the very poor and the very rich or well funded.
Law is not at all dead. Look at the number of lawyers.
In his papers, the Soviets found the the outlines for a scripting language to be used for carrying out computations...... named after his fascination with South American snakes...... But he decided that it was a vile idea and should never be implemented.
The Left has got itself in an awful mess reflexively opposing any company that wants to improve its efficiency and profitability. But looking at it from a Utopian point of view, doing the things we need and want to do more efficiently makes it possible for us to work less and be richer - is only we can make sure that everyone benefits from improved productivity, and not just the owners.
Keeping everything in stasis stops us from ever making things better.