P&O Ferries Scandal

[SteveS1]

UK employment law (which has not changed since we left the EU) mandates notice periods, consultation and so on, but it all sounds much weaker than the hoops employers in France have to jump through. The legacy of Thatcher and New Labour.

In any case, P&O rode roughshod over UK employment law in this case.

I've learned a lot reading this thread, especially from @Richard Lines. I had no idea that seafarers' terms and conditions could be so appalling. The comments about some hourly rates being a fraction of the minumum wage are especially shocking.

I agree with that but to ignore the biggest move outside of a GE toward ensuring more workers end up in that situation is delusional. The fact that some of the people voting for it will now find themselves on the sh1t end of it can't be glossed over. Just like the farmers and fishermen. Because more and more people will. Solidarity and support are about common interests, not just those of groups as and when it bites them.

Of course we should all support them, but the divisions caused by people ignoring the evidence and voting for self harm didn't help solidarity, quite the reverse.

 

[Brian]

I don't agree and in your book solidarity only works one way. If you think Brexit wasn't designed to help move more people toward this kind of ease of fire culture, you're deluding yourself.

Except I didn’t say that, I’m not the one bringing brexit into it. I said this situation with P&O is nothing to do with brexit.

I’ve no idea what your comment about solidarity means. Got any examples of it ‘working only one way’ in my book?

 

[SteveS1]

Except I didn’t say that, I’m not the one bringing brexit into it. I said this situation with P&O is nothing to do with brexit.

I’ve no idea what your comment about solidarity means. Got any examples of it ‘working only one way’ in my book?

You will find people feel every bit as strongly about colleagues voting for Brexit as you do about those who voted Tory. Most remainers didn't of course, although you never fail to run that tired old line.

 

[Brian]

You will find people feel every bit as strongly about colleagues voting for Brexit as you do about those who voted Tory. Most remainers didn't of course, although you never fail to run that tired old line.

Can you reply to what I wrote rather than something I didn’t?

Explain what this situation with P&O has to do with brexit?

 

[Brian]

Nice way a) to sell your union, and b) to misread my posts. If I were you I’d try and get the rest of society on side with you by making coherent arguments as, make no mistake, you need far wider public support. The trade union movement in the UK is way too weak to achieve anything without it.

PS This doesn’t impact my support for those who have lost their jobs. I still support both them and pretty much any mass action against this government, as I have stated many times upthread. I have little respect for the RMT (or any ‘Lexit’ idiots), but I’ll happily stand by anyone in the situation these workers find themselves. I am not your enemy no matter how you choose to frame things.

It is impossible to sell the benefits of Unions to those who take it all for granted.

There have been many important and beneficial changes to employment law brought about by Unions, examples such as not dismissing women on marriage, paid holiday, sick pay, a contract of employment, maternity pay, severance pay on redundancy, none of these have been offered by employers willingly, Unions and Union members have had to fight for these. In addition, there is a long list of improvements to general working conditions brought about by Unions and the sacrifice of Union members, those same Unions and people you deride and detest so much. There is no excuse for such ignorance of the role of Unions. You say you support xyz, but the reality is what you write about Unions and Union members has a very strong tory whiff to it.

Anyone with any grasp at all of UK employment law and working conditions will see those alone are a coherent argument for Unions and they don’t need anything else.

 

[ks.234]

I agree with that but to ignore the biggest move outside of a GE toward ensuring more workers end up in that situation is delusional. The fact that some of the people voting for it will now find themselves on the sh1t end of it can't be glossed over. Just like the farmers and fishermen. Because more and more people will. Solidarity and support are about common interests, not just those of groups as and when it bites them.

Of course we should all support them, but the divisions caused by people ignoring the evidence and voting for self harm didn't help solidarity, quite the reverse.

Nobody is arguing that Brexit was not about further weakening worker rights and protections, but in the specific case of P&O, the same protections as exist in the EU, already existed in UK law and still exist today. The problem is that P&O have found a way around that law.

The fact that P&O have found a way around that law in the U.K., rather than the EU, has a history that is much longer than Brexit and has more to do with an ability and a willingness for workers in, say France, to go strike. Such an ability and a willingness does not exist in the U.K. due to a prevailing current that is strongly anti union and strongly anti strike and has been getting stronger since 1979.

Brexit might be a part of that current, but it is not the cause.

The cause is the prevailing current. We’ve got what we voted for for over 40 years

 

[Brian]

Nobody is arguing that Brexit was not about further weakening worker rights and protections, but in the specific case of P&O, the same protections as exist in the EU, already existed in UK law and still exist today. The problem is that P&O have found a way around that law.

The fact that P&O have found a way around that law in the U.K., rather than the EU, has a history that is much longer than Brexit and has more to do with an ability and a willingness for workers in, say France, to go strike. Such an ability and a willingness does not exist in the U.K. due to a prevailing current that is strongly anti union and strongly anti strike and has been getting stronger since 1979.

Brexit might be a part of that current, but it is not the cause.

The cause is the prevailing current. We’ve got what we voted for

Exactly.

 

[Finnegan]

Not convinced.

It looks like it's more about the relative strength of national employment law (the Code du Travail in France):

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

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/staff-replacing-sacked-po-ferries-workers-face-poverty-pay-union-claims

UK employment law (which has not changed since we left the EU) mandates notice periods, consultation and so on, but it all sounds much weaker than the hoops employers in France have to jump through. The legacy of Thatcher and New Labour.

In any case, P&O rode roughshod over UK employment law in this case.

I've learned a lot reading this thread, especially from @Richard Lines. I had no idea that seafarers' terms and conditions could be so appalling. The comments about some hourly rates being a fraction of the minumum wage are especially shocking.

Maybe that's where we should direct our anger. Like the TU rep said, solidarity.

This. As far as I too can ascertain, the law remains unchanged since the U.K. left the EU. As I’ve said before, I’ve seen posts on social media using the tragedy of 800 families being destroyed to push an agenda.

Those who are convinced, or to whom it corresponds to their narrative, that this was a result of leaving the EU must answer two questions. Why did P&O fire and rehire Irish seafarers in 2004 when Ireland is an EU member? And to what extent did the European Court of Justice ruling in the Leval/ Viking Line dispute that enshrined the right of shipping companies to impose reduced terms and conditions on its employees act as a precedent in this dispute?

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/article/2005/irish-ferries-dispute-finally-resolved-after-bitter-stand-off?fbclid=IwAR3IeRTzlaoZ5rA92vy7VvVRNeC7xa29hHxOlBq9iLtJEZUG5GM--1hvyUc
[URL='https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike']
https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike[/URL]

 

[tones]

This. As far as I too can ascertain, the law remains unchanged since the U.K. left the EU. As I’ve said before, I’ve seen posts on social media using the tragedy of 800 families being destroyed to push an agenda.

Those who are convinced, or to whom it corresponds to their narrative, that this was a result of leaving the EU must answer two questions. Why did P&O fire and rehire Irish seafarers in 2004 when Ireland is an EU member? And to what extent did the European Court of Justice ruling in the Leval/ Viking Line dispute that enshrined the right of shipping companies to impose reduced terms and conditions on its employees act as a precedent in this dispute?

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pub...A92vy7VvVRNeC7xa29hHxOlBq9iLtJEZUG5GM--1hvyUc
https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike
https://www.elaweb.org.uk/resources/ela-briefing/laval-viking-line-and-limited-right-strike
https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pub...A92vy7VvVRNeC7xa29hHxOlBq9iLtJEZUG5GM--1hvyUc

I don't know much about the dispute, but one has to be careful about applying UK common law ideas of precedent to EU law. Put simply, they don't work. UK courts will differ from decided case law only in exceptional cases, whereas EU courts do it all the time. To quote this review:

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/12/3/832/763797

According to conventional wisdom, precedents are, in general, not legally binding, and therefore do not have any specific normative significance, at least outside of common law legal systems. In civil law systems, judgments are meant to be binding only with regard to the decided case and only for the parties to the judicial proceedings ... Outside of the common law world, there is no doctrine of stare decisis. Accordingly, courts are, at least in principle, free to depart from interpretations and legal pronouncements made by other courts and by themselves in earlier cases.

 

[Cesare]

Just to clarify, there is a Brexit angle on this scandal, but not the one that Tony has suggested (that workers rights have been eroded). I believe the Brexit angle is that the working class were told that workers rights would be *strengthened* if we had Brexit, as this would allow the government to enact restrictive working practices within the UK, effectively blocking the ability of companies to bring in cheap European workers.

I believe this is the reason the unions supported Brexit with the belief that this would protect UK employment. Of course the other side of the coin is that it would drive away foreign investment in the country, but that's longer term, and the unions typically get a bit bogged down in the here and now (or at least, that's how it appears to me).

 

[Finnegan]

I don't know much about the dispute, but one has to be careful about applying UK common law ideas of precedent to EU law. Put simply, they don't work. UK courts will differ from decided case law only in exceptional cases, whereas EU courts do it all the time. To quote this review:

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/12/3/832/763797

According to conventional wisdom, precedents are, in general, not legally binding, and therefore do not have any specific normative significance, at least outside of common law legal systems. In civil law systems, judgments are meant to be binding only with regard to the decided case and only for the parties to the judicial proceedings ... Outside of the common law world, there is no doctrine of stare decisis. Accordingly, courts are, at least in principle, free to depart from interpretations and legal pronouncements made by other courts and by themselves in earlier cases.

Yes agreed, ‘precedent’ was a bad choice of word in that it is frequently employed in a legal context. The point I was making is that this particular dispute established a “right of establishment” that favoured the employer rather than the employee. I was using it as an example to counter the narrative that simply being an EU member state confers stronger and more preferential terms and conditions of employment on its citizens.

 

[droodzilla]

I agree with that but to ignore the biggest move outside of a GE toward ensuring more workers end up in that situation is delusional. The fact that some of the people voting for it will now find themselves on the sh1t end of it can't be glossed over. Just like the farmers and fishermen. Because more and more people will. Solidarity and support are about common interests, not just those of groups as and when it bites them.

Of course we should all support them, but the divisions caused by people ignoring the evidence and voting for self harm didn't help solidarity, quite the reverse.

If it helps, I'm happy to concede that many of the groups and individuals pushing Brexit did not have the interests of workers at heart (putting it mildly).

Still, the logical connection between EU membership and strong employment law seems quite weak to me. You can have weak employment law while remaining an EU member (e.g. the UK, when it was a member) and strong employment law outside the EU (maybe Norway - though I know that's in the EEA). It seems to me that the EU guarantees at best a minimum standard of employment protetcion, and it looks like quite a low bar. This is what we would expect, given the EU's broad commitment to neo-liberal economics.

But all of that is irrelevant. Your post clearly implied that the P&O could not have sacked 800 employees if the UK were still in the EU. That's false.

The general trend here - one that disturbs me - is to attribute all calamities that befall us to leaving the EU, and to ignore the broader historical currents that @ks.234 refers to above*. This is debilitating because it confounds clear analysis of the huge problems facing the UK, the causes of which lie very close to home, and it undermines solidarity between broadly progressive forces that need to work together. If this carries on, the delicate coalition of liberals, social-democrats, socialists and other progressives will be wrecked for at least a decade and probably two.

*This is even worse when combined with "Putin made us do Brexit". But wait... hang on... I just noticed that if you take the letter M out of RMT, you get RT, Putin's propaganda channel. That can't be a coincidence, can it?

 

[Tony L]

Just to clarify, there is a Brexit angle on this scandal, but not the one that Tony has suggested (that workers rights have been eroded). I believe the Brexit angle is that the working class were told that workers rights would be *strengthened* if we had Brexit, as this would allow the government to enact restrictive working practices within the UK, effectively blocking the ability of companies to bring in cheap European workers.

It is a very broad subject, but I personally have no respect for so called leftists who actively encouraged members to vote along with Farage, Banks, the ERG, EDL, Putin etc and IMHO so clearly against their members long-term interests. If even random outsiders and geeks such as me could see what was happening it should have been beyond blindingly obvious to those actually being paid to stand up for workers rights. They need placing under scrutiny and holding to account IMHO.

As ever, have a look at exactly who paid for the Brexit campaign, and ask what were they buying? It isn’t rocket science and I’m not going to forgive the likes of the RMT for their decision even if I have huge, huge sympathy for the plight of their members caught up in the utterly disgraceful P&O sackings. I would very happily march in solidarity with these workers on a day of mass protest, but no way in hell would I ever hold a RMT, Unite or whatever banner. I file them along with George Galloway, Kate Hoey and the rest of that shower.

 

[Enfield boy]

Well, that's brought a new perspective to the topic

 

[Brian]

What has happened with P&O is nothing to do with brexit, as many members have now pointed out. Why is it some people can simply not admit when they are wrong?

 

[lagavullin10y]

Because it is. Its not a direct relation though, but they are both children of the same political climate. Its up to you to go to Westminster and demand change.

 

[SteveS1]

The general trend here - one that disturbs me - is to attribute all calamities that befall us to leaving the EU, and to ignore the broader historical currents that @ks.234 refers to above*. This is debilitating because it confounds the clear analysis of the massive problems facing the UK, most of which lie very close to home, and it undermines solidarity between broadly progressive forces that need to work together. If this carries on, the delicate coalition of liberals, social-democrats, socialist and other progressives will be wrecked for at least a decade and probably two.

The wrecking of this delicate coalition is not helped by the denial of where Brexit places these actions, the whole campaign was littered with references to UK workers being replaced by immigrants type nonsense and how workers voting for Brexit would help protect them.

Of course Brexit is connected. Too many people who should know better bought the idea that the UK would be 'taking back control' of employment and that EU immigration was the problem, not their own government. There needs to be some kind of acknowledgement of where the drivers for both come from. As for the pleas for solidarity - those of us who voted Labour as the only realistic alternative, irrespective of our personal views of the leadership now have to endure many of our left wing colleagues telling us they can't possibly vote for Starmer and so on. We have to break this kind of loop or I agree, it will take decades.

 

[Tony L]

Why is it some people can simply not admit when they are wrong?

That is a very interesting question coming from someone who has spent five years and about 8GB of server space tediously and evasively apologising for Brexit.

PS If you actually read my posts you would grasp I wasn’t saying that at all. It is a factor, certainly not the whole cause, but I guess nuance just isn’t something Brexiters do.

 

[Brian]

Because it is. Its not a direct relation though, but they are both children of the same political climate. Its up to you to go to Westminster and demand change.

No, it isn't. Not even indirectly. It is entirely down to UK govt and those who refuse to see a benefit in Unions, take what is achieved by Unions while supporting attacks on Unions and working people, bleating at the slightest suggestion of industrial action. It is this bleating that gives govt the mandate to attack Unions and workers.

Can I assume you aren't from the UK and are unaware of how the tories have behaved since 1979?

I vote for realistic change at every GE when the govt of the day is tory. That is all I can do. It's very straightforward but some can't even manage that.

 

[Brian]

That is a very interesting question coming from someone who has spent five years and about 8GB of server space tediously and evasively apologising for Brexit.

PS If you actually read my posts you would grasp I wasn’t saying that at all. It is a factor, certainly not the whole cause, but I guess nuance just isn’t something Brexiters do.

8gb apologising for brexit? You must be able to quote just one such post then?

I read your posts. If you read mine you would not be spreading a lie I apologise for brexit. I have not even got close to saying brexit is a good thing and have clearly said I do not support brexit. There are plenty of posts expressing frustration at a group that support democracy only when a vote goes their way, but that is obvs not apologising for brexit.