Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

P&O Ferries sacks workers and docks ships

two sheds said:
You don't think people should point out hypocrisy? What question would you ask?
Click to expand...
What's the hypocrisy exactly?

I'd ask the questions about whether they knowingly ignored the rules, because if the situation is that it's more efficient for them to ignore the processes and accept fines, then it is important for this to be highlighted, because that's one of the things that would need to be changed.

I think it's more important for everyone to understand that, than for people to get off on an executive looking a bit uncomfortable for an hour or two.
 
teuchter said:
What's the hypocrisy exactly?
Click to expand...
As my dad used to say "if you don't know I can't tell you"
teuchter said:
I'd ask the questions about whether they knowingly ignored the rules, because if the situation is that it's more efficient for them to ignore the processes and accept fines, then it is important for this to be highlighted, because that's one of the things that would need to be changed.

I think it's more important for everyone to understand that, than for people to get off on an executive looking a bit uncomfortable for an hour or two.
Click to expand...
And why not ask him something that shows up his hypocrisy, as well? It's a five second question that gets a three second answer and then you move on to your questions having shown him up to be the heartless twat he is. You do seem to be making stupid, pointless, dimwitted waste-of-time points.
 
Their argument is that under maritime law they answer to the countries the ships are registered in. These ships have never visited these countries and they only sail in territorial waters of the UK, Ireland, France, Holland and Belgium. Surely to fuck there must be some rules out there for this kind of operation? What next, tube trains registered in Pyongyang so they don't need to comply with UK law?
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
Their argument is that under maritime law they answer to the countries the ships are registered in. These ships have never visited these countries and they only sail in territorial waters of the UK, Ireland, France, Holland and Belgium. Surely to fuck there must be some rules out there for this kind of operation? What next, tube trains registered in Pyongyang so they don't need to comply with UK law?
Click to expand...
I'll have you know that the Pyongyang Urban Transit Register is globally respected for its professionalism and probity.
 
two sheds said:
As my dad used to say "if you don't know I can't tell you"
Click to expand...

Yes you can. If you think there's hypocrisy, explain it.

He seemed to be being quite straightforward to me. He's not pretending he's acting in the workers' interests or anything like that. He's not evading the question of whether they followed the correct procedure.
 
two sheds said:
He's "saving the company money" by sacking a load of workers when he could save it a lot more by taking a pay cut. If he hasn't taken a pay cut himself it's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
If he was asking the workers to make voluntary personal sacrifices to save the company, but wasn't willing to do so himself, then that would be hypocrisy.

That's not what he's doing though is it. He is telling us that the workers have been subjected to the consequences of the economic and legislative environment that determines what they can be paid. He himself is also subject to an economic and legislative environment that determines what he can be paid. Of course he is much more fortunate than the workers, because the result is much better for him.

If he were trying to tell the workers that they shouldn't fight for the best deal they can get and shouldn't act in their own self interest in maintaining their pay and conditions, then that would also be hypocrisy. Is he is saying that?
 
Chris Grayling.

Having seemingly sabotaged seafarers' employment rights he stepped down as transport secretary. So where is he now? Well, for 7 hours a week he can be found taking £100,000.00 a year from Hutchinson Ports, owners of Harwich & Felixstowe, beneficiaries of £35,000,000.00 government cash since Brexit.
 
teuchter said:
Yes you can. If you think there's hypocrisy, explain it.

He seemed to be being quite straightforward to me. He's not pretending he's acting in the workers' interests or anything like that. He's not evading the question of whether they followed the correct procedure.
Click to expand...
I dunno why I'm engaging with this particular bout of windmill-tilting, but he is saying that he's acting in the interests of cutting costs and saving the company money, though. Him taking a pay cut would arguably also achieve the goal of saving the company money, on account of how the company would be paying less money out.
 
Also why did the MPs not probe why the company that he and his board were 'managing' was doing so badly? The ships' crews were doing their jobs well, so the people performing badly are the bosses, yet they stay and the workers doing well by the company have to go...
 
hitmouse said:
I dunno why I'm engaging with this particular bout of windmill-tilting, but he is saying that he's acting in the interests of cutting costs and saving the company money, though. Him taking a pay cut would arguably also achieve the goal of saving the company money, on account of how the company would be paying less money out.
Click to expand...
Him taking a pay cut would most likely result in him leaving the job, and P&O not being able to find a replacement willing to do it for that below-market rate. That's not fair or "good", it's just how things are. He would have to voluntarily make a personal sacrifice, which is not what he's asking anyone else to do.
 
You didn't answer my question as to why the question couldn't be asked as well as the ones you asked.

Another question that has puzzled me for a while. This is really just a difference of opinion. I'd like to see the question asked, you wouldn't. Why do you go off into the insults:
teuchter said:
stupid and pointless. ... delusional dimwitted and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Quite a few of your posts on the boards try to make people feel guilty for trivial things, or feel stupid over trivial matters. Why do you do this? What do you gain by making people feel guilty and stupid when a simple post pointing out why you disagree would do?
 
DaveCinzano said:
I'll have you know that the Pyongyang Urban Transit Register is globally respected for its professionalism and probity.
Click to expand...

The Fatherly Leader has ensured that the most advanced regulations and worker protections are entered into the ledger with pitliless exactitude. A Scoundrel he who breaks them!

(weirdly the first tweets I saw on the P&O scandal as it broke a week ago was from a "Juche4UK" type from Liverpool :/ )
 
teuchter said:
Something has to be done via legislation - or indeed by the unions using whatever economic power they have. Focusing on the morals or lifestyles of executives is dimwitted and a waste of time.
Click to expand...
On this bit, I can see teuchter's point to some extent, obviously change will only come from P&O being forced to behave differently, not from the P&O boss being shamed, taught the error of his ways, having his heart grow three sizes or whatever. But it is also true that what's possible, both in the legislative sphere and in terms of what disruptive actions unions are and aren't able to take, is influenced to some extent by how "the public" feel about an issue, which in turn can be affected by narratives around fairness, hypocrisy, etc. So this is kind of halfway to being a good and valid point, but sadly doesn't quite get over the line.
 
teuchter said:
Asking questions like that is stupid and pointless. Everyone knows the answer. This kind of thing is never going to be prevented by the good will of management. It also seems quite delusional to me that the "reputation" of P&O is going to be damaged in a way that has any commercial impact.

These decisions are simply taken in an economic context. They would be taken by whoever was in control. If competitors can massively cut their wage bills, how can it be anything other than inevitable that these actions will be taken, unless the environment the companies work in is changed? If the environment is such that accepting some fines is cheaper than going through the proper process, why would anyone be surprised that that route is taken?

Something has to be done via legislation - or indeed by the unions using whatever economic power they have. Focusing on the morals or lifestyles of executives is dimwitted and a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Are you planning to start a thread about Urban75's lack of empathy for ordinary chief executives of multi-national companies who just want to maintain their own life styles while sacking hundreds of staff without consultation?
 
hitmouse said:
On this bit, I can see teuchter's point to some extent, obviously change will only come from P&O being forced to behave differently, not from the P&O boss being shamed, taught the error of his ways, having his heart grow three sizes or whatever. But it is also true that what's possible, both in the legislative sphere and in terms of what disruptive actions unions are and aren't able to take, is influenced to some extent by how "the public" feel about an issue, which in turn can be affected by narratives around fairness, hypocrisy, etc. So this is kind of halfway to being a good and valid point, but sadly doesn't quite get over the line.
Click to expand...
Yes, and doesn't get over the "why not ask both questions" hurdle. I wouldn't have thought it was ever bad to point out the disparity in pay between bosses and the people who actually do the work.
 
teuchter said:
Yes you can. If you think there's hypocrisy, explain it.

He seemed to be being quite straightforward to me. He's not pretending he's acting in the workers' interests or anything like that. He's not evading the question of whether they followed the correct procedure.
Click to expand...
You plum! The hypocrisy that the questioning pointed out was his supposed exceptance of one set of laws (i.e. speed limits) but not others. Why you are trying yourself in knots trying to avoid this all too obvious fact is a bit weird and not very interesting.

Louis MacNeice
 
Have to say I think that asking him about the size of his "compensation' package (inc. bonuses) would have shed more light on the rewards that these psychopaths get for defending unearned income at all costs. Asking if he's gonna take a bonus is pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hitmouse
Therese Coffey, health workers, and the Oxford comma
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
DaveCinzano
JOBS THAT NEVER PREVIOUSLY EXISTED #892: Set Designer For Grifty Arseholes Who Get Sacked & Become Self-Facilitating Media Nodes In Their Garden Shed
Replies
27
Views
996
Cid
Cid
Jeremiah18.17
Truss & Rees-Mogg prepare for massive attack on workers rights?
Replies
3
Views
532
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
teuchter
The British countryside and the workers' return
Replies
8
Views
712
Funky_monks
F
NoXion
Deutsche Bank proposes tax on remote workers
Replies
20
Views
1K
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom