If it is how this is done in the UAE then I’m quite sure they can’t see what the fuss is about.
I once worked for a medium-sized American company in the UK who (due to internal politics) decided to close the UK lab operation. It was a shock for them to discover that it wasn’t possible to simply fire staff on a Friday afternoon, which was what they would normally have done.
I do also wonder sometimes if over-protective employment regulations contribute to the poor customer service that gets frequently mentioned on SF.
UK employment law has not yet changed significantly from EU law, but there is certainly a mystery in the fact that the 250 French P&O staff based at Calais and on the ferries are not affected.
Maybe it’s the fearsome reputation of the French trade unions?
This is not a good thing for freight costs nor passenger costs. Taking out the P&O capacity which was massive, is going to put huge pressure on every other route. Not good for businesses, and not for passengers
France has its own maritime worker legislation, which “may” (I haven’t checked) be stronger than the basic protections provided by EU regulations.
I would add that the UK apparently did not transpose Directive 2015/1794 into UK law, which brought in extra protection for seafarers, so maybe the transposition of this directive into national law is what has made the difference for the continental workers.
No - but, as several observers have pointed out, the Brexit promise was that wages would be higher and that working conditions and protections would be improved.
However, as we have seen - the Tories blocking the Labour bill which would have prevented “fire and rehire” as well as the views espoused in the dreadful (presumably, I haven’t read it and based on the quotes I’ve seen probably don’t want to) “Britannia Unchained” book by Raab et al. this is precisely what they want.
It literally could not have happened if we were still members if the EU.
“Red tape” they called it.
"Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
Article 4
Projected collective redundancies notified to the competent public authority shall take effect not earlier than 30 days after the notification referred to in Article 3(1) without prejudice to any provisions governing individual rights with regard to notice of dismissal.
Member States may grant the competent public authority the power to reduce the period provided for in the preceding subparagraph.
The period provided for in paragraph 1 shall be used by the competent public authority to seek solutions to the problems raised by the projected collective redundancies."
P&O didn’t sack EU workers.
Also going back to my time running my own business, if you made staff redundant, you have to undergo a proceedure justifying why you made certain emp,oyees redundant.
Once made redundant you were not allowed to recruit for their positions for a period of, I believe, 3 months
Unless things have changed radically this action fails on many fronts.
RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said that the government had given a commitment in 2020 “on the need to introduce legislation to stop shipping companies paying below the minimum wage… It is scandalous that, over two years ago, the government knew there was a problem with the legislation but failed to act. Its failure has now led to today’s crisis.”
I think it is more correct to say that it could not have happened if the employment contracts were governed by EU law.
Or, indeed, UK law as even our government of questionable competence and morality has not had time to rescind the employment protections.
It seems the contracts were under Jersey maritime law and/or a loophole was used.
It is also not entirely clear whether the specific workers brought in to replace the sacked workers were Indians on low wages or that P&O ferries generally had such workers on other vessels (for instance there were previous reports claiming that the agency workers were British).
Flags of convenience are a well recognised problem (or feature, depending on your point of view) in the shipping industry. I am sure that they are used to circumvent minimum wage legislation as well as safety legislation.
They can be registered where they like but each country should surely be able to specify requirenents for any boat entering their territorial waters? Or are they worried M. might remove racehorses or stop sponsoring motorsport or something
Is that really Cyprus or Turkish occupied North Cyprus? We seem to have completely forgotten Turkey’s illegal invasion of Cyprus. Unless of course you were a relatively rich Brit who lost their villa in Cyprus.