P&O Ferries

[Loco]

yes they do sailing from heysham to ireland 4 weeks on 4 weeks off they are classed as at sea for the 4 weeks at a time that was my brother in laws job for many years after deep sea travelling around the world

Well that surprises me. I used to claim my tax back as worked at sea for many years and it wasn't easy to keep the qualification days going. And that's really working at sea (often with no port calls) for 5 weeks at a time in foreign waters.

 

[Cuthbert]

The reasons are not plausible. The business knows it’s costs exceed its revenue so it needs to cut its operations accordingly. It’s inept management that regards a skilled workforce as the problem. It’s a company driving itself onto the lowest rung. I won’t be using P&O until it changes ownership.

 

[Johnno]

I read earlier that a lot of the agency staff walked out once they’d realised what was happening, they’d arrived at the ships without knowing the original crews were being sacked.
I know it probably won’t change things alone, but every credit to them, especially in the current economic situation.

 

[seasiderjohn]

Well that surprises me. I used to claim my tax back as worked at sea for many years and it wasn't easy to keep the qualification days going. And that's really working at sea (often with no port calls) for 5 weeks at a time in foreign waters.

you needed a good accountant then hope you remembered to count your holidays abroad.

 

[Loco]

you needed a good accountant then hope you remembered to count your holidays abroad.

Seafarers are always first to get their tax returns in.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Just seen the reports that the CEO admitted to a parliamentary select commitee that they did break the law and that they knew they were breaking the law but took the opportunity to just make the payoffs. This kind of thing really bugs me. A listed company CEO and the rest of the board make the decision to deliberately break the law because they know that the law is either so weak that nothing will actually happen, or that the punishments are so small in comparison to their obligations that they just dont have to abide by any rules.

Imagine you're a delivery driver late for a job where there is a penalty for being late. you make the decsion to just drive recklessly at very high speed becuase the fine is only a fraction of the earnings of the delivery. The courts would throw the book at the driver, increased fines, probably a lengthy ban (more than normal), but if you are a ceo with a million quid package, he will probably be given additional bonus packages.

He needs to be fined personally, along with the rest of the board. and the company put into an emergency administration where all profits are channelled away from the shareholders for while (eg five years) and passed and ring fenced to employee payouts and pension funds, maybe under the control of a third party.

Something has to be done about this type of corporate excess. particularly when these companies go to government every time they run into trouble for a bail out.

 

[Chunkylad]

They’re on my black list of scummy companies which I avoid even if they’re the best option.

It’s ever widening…… anything Branson related is right up there.
Snivelling weasel came cap in hand demanding cash from Govt during covid whilst flying Lear jet from his private island and spunking millions on a space jolly trip.

 

[seasideone]

Just seen the reports that the CEO admitted to a parliamentary select commitee that they did break the law and that they knew they were breaking the law but took the opportunity to just make the payoffs. This kind of thing really bugs me. A listed company CEO and the rest of the board make the decision to deliberately break the law because they know that the law is either so weak that nothing will actually happen, or that the punishments are so small in comparison to their obligations that they just dont have to abide by any rules.

Imagine you're a delivery driver late for a job where there is a penalty for being late. you make the decsion to just drive recklessly at very high speed becuase the fine is only a fraction of the earnings of the delivery. The courts would throw the book at the driver, increased fines, probably a lengthy ban (more than normal), but if you are a ceo with a million quid package, he will probably be given additional bonus packages.

He needs to be fined personally, along with the rest of the board. and the company put into an emergency administration where all profits are channelled away from the shareholders for while (eg five years) and passed and ring fenced to employee payouts and pension funds, maybe under the control of a third party.

Something has to be done about this type of corporate excess. particularly when these companies go to government every time they run into trouble for a bail out.

Tim hat on.

A bit of a reality check here and I do not condone what they did in any way shape or form.

1 People are saying boycott P&O for changing their employment model to the same as pretty much everyone else at sea. So by using a different operator who hires staff the same way is surely supporting how it works.

2 Having sat in many boardrooms over the years, sometimes fines and costs for skirting the law are built in to costs as 'the cost of doing business'. If every law was followed very few companies could do anything.

3 The P&O CEO is now finished in my opinion for admitting it.

4 In general - If you have a company that is going bust very quickly, sometimes you HAVE to make difficult decisions to save the business and the rest of the jobs.

Personally, I am getting a bit tired of select committees and how they treat people, if they had spoken to me like that I would have walked out!!

I agree the law needs tightening regarding bail outs and I actually think unless it's in the nations interest then it shouldn't happen.

...and when it does, the company needs to be taken into national ownership similar to how RBS was done all those years ago.

 

[Wizaard]

Just seen the reports that the CEO admitted to a parliamentary select commitee that they did break the law and that they knew they were breaking the law but took the opportunity to just make the payoffs. This kind of thing really bugs me. A listed company CEO and the rest of the board make the decision to deliberately break the law because they know that the law is either so weak that nothing will actually happen, or that the punishments are so small in comparison to their obligations that they just dont have to abide by any rules.

Imagine you're a delivery driver late for a job where there is a penalty for being late. you make the decsion to just drive recklessly at very high speed becuase the fine is only a fraction of the earnings of the delivery. The courts would throw the book at the driver, increased fines, probably a lengthy ban (more than normal), but if you are a ceo with a million quid package, he will probably be given additional bonus packages.

He needs to be fined personally, along with the rest of the board. and the company put into an emergency administration where all profits are channelled away from the shareholders for while (eg five years) and passed and ring fenced to employee payouts and pension funds, maybe under the control of a third party.

Something has to be done about this type of corporate excess. particularly when these companies go to government every time they run into trouble for a bail out.

A direct consequence of over a decade of Tory laissez faire attitude. You just know that the likes of Rees-Mogg will be quite happy that they flouted the rules on consultation because it is a poke in the eye for the pesky unions.

As you say, a slap on the wrist as nothing compared to the savings made.

 

[basilrobbie3]

A direct consequence of over a decade of Tory laissez faire attitude. You just know that the likes of Rees-Mogg will be quite happy that they flouted the rules on consultation because it is a poke in the eye for the pesky unions.

As you say, a slap on the wrist as nothing compared to the savings made.

I watched some of his performance this morning. Talk about a tin ear.

I thought the Select Committee were far too bloody polite to him, myself.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Tim hat on.

A bit of a reality check here and I do not condone what they did in any way shape or form.

1 People are saying boycott P&O for changing their employment model to the same as pretty much everyone else at sea. So by using a different operator who hires staff the same way is surely supporting how it works.

2 Having sat in many boardrooms over the years, sometimes fines and costs for skirting the law are built in to costs as 'the cost of doing business'. If every law was followed very few companies could do anything.

3 The P&O CEO is now finished in my opinion for admitting it.

4 In general - If you have a company that is going bust very quickly, sometimes you HAVE to make difficult decisions to save the business and the rest of the jobs.

Personally, I am getting a bit tired of select committees and how they treat people, if they had spoken to me like that I would have walked out!!

I agree the law needs tightening regarding bail outs and I actually think unless it's in the nations interest then it shouldn't happen.

...and when it does, the company needs to be taken into national ownership similar to how RBS was done all those years ago.

Not every company has blatently broken the law and admitted it, in order basically for the CEO to pad out his own bonus.

When companies build breaking the law costs into their business model then the non execs and the oversight committee need to stamp down, but they don't because it's a club where CEOs are each others oversight scratching each others back. It's not just an unethical operational model it's actually bad for wider business practice and long term shareholder value.

Taking business into government ownership isn't a good idea at any time, but shareholders and particularly fund managers and the like need to start understanding the implications of their short term profit driven decisions.

Holding board members to account, through either financial penalties or disqualification including oversight boards.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

A direct consequence of over a decade of Tory laissez faire attitude. You just know that the likes of Rees-Mogg will be quite happy that they flouted the rules on consultation because it is a poke in the eye for the pesky unions.

As you say, a slap on the wrist as nothing compared to the savings made.

It's not just a Tory thing. The Blair government was just as bad

 

[seasideone]

Not every company has blatently broken the law and admitted it, in order basically for the CEO to pad out his own bonus.

When companies build breaking the law costs into their business model then the non execs and the oversight committee need to stamp down, but they don't because it's a club where CEOs are each others oversight scratching each others back. It's not just an unethical operational model it's actually bad for wider business practice and long term shareholder value.

Taking business into government ownership isn't a good idea at any time, but shareholders and particularly fund managers and the like need to start understanding the implications of their short term profit driven decisions.

Holding board members to account, through either financial penalties or disqualification including oversight boards.

The biggest mistake he made was admitting it, as it shows in this case he had know reasoned argument.

Many laws are down to interpretation - if something was wooly, we used to generally take an interpretation that suited us BUT it had to stand up to a robust argument, ie not blatantly obviously taking the Michael and most importantly having a reasoned defence.

Just to add, the majority of legislation is so poorly written, you have to interpret it!

I agree about taking businesses into government ownership is bad, but occasionally it has to happen.

For example: RBS had to be done, as that would have screwed many many normal people and businesses, whereas the steel industry or P&O or similar shouldn't be in my opinion.

As someone who knows many CEOs and directors - pretty much all are good people who care - obviously you get the odd bad egg.

I also usually find the better CEOs are ones who have a lot of long term skin in the game, whereas ones who are paid on next weeks share price are generally poor.

That said, if you pay someone on next weeks share price - don't be surprised if the CEOs decision making process reflects that.

Although in P&Os case, losing 100m a year needed drastic action.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

The biggest mistake he made was admitting it, as it shows in this case he had know reasoned argument.

Many laws are down to interpretation - if something was wooly, we used to generally take an interpretation that suited us BUT it had to stand up to a robust argument, ie not blatantly obviously taking the Michael and most importantly having a reasoned defence.

Just to add, the majority of legislation is so poorly written, you have to interpret it!

I agree about taking businesses into government ownership is bad, but occasionally it has to happen.

For example: RBS had to be done, as that would have screwed many many normal people and businesses, whereas the steel industry or P&O or similar shouldn't be in my opinion.

As someone who knows many CEOs and directors - pretty much all are good people who care - obviously you get the odd bad egg.

I also usually find the better CEOs are ones who have a lot of long term skin in the game, whereas ones who are paid on next weeks share price are generally poor.

That said, if you pay someone on next weeks share price - don't be surprised if the CEOs decision making process reflects that.

Although in P&Os case, losing 100m a year needed drastic action.

I'd agree with you about legislation being badly written and there is no need for it, it is often written badly as a compromise to vested interests.
We obviously have very different experiences with CEOs and directors, because the majority I've encountered particularly listed companies have been either completely self serving, and / or barely competent. One of the reasons I no longer work with big public companies is it's almost impossible to get anything done at board level.
One of the biggest criticisms in economics is the corporate leaders are way too focused on short term profits, and even too focused on their own short term bonuses. Very few corporate leaders have real skin in the game.
I'm going to make a prediction that despite cutting it's wage bill by 70% p&o will still continue to lose a shed load of money for another five years or so before it's handed off to a friendly equity fund or similar for peanuts. At which point the equity fund will get it looking all spic and span on the surface sell it off for a few hundred million to a company that will be looking for bailouts within a few years.

 

[seasideone]

I'd agree with you about legislation being badly written and there is no need for it, it is often written badly as a compromise to vested interests.
We obviously have very different experiences with CEOs and directors, because the majority I've encountered particularly listed companies have been either completely self serving, and / or barely competent. One of the reasons I no longer work with big public companies is it's almost impossible to get anything done at board level.
One of the biggest criticisms in economics is the corporate leaders are way too focused on short term profits, and even too focused on their own short term bonuses. Very few corporate leaders have real skin in the game.
I'm going to make a prediction that despite cutting it's wage bill by 70% p&o will still continue to lose a shed load of money for another five years or so before it's handed off to a friendly equity fund or similar for peanuts. At which point the equity fund will get it looking all spic and span on the surface sell it off for a few hundred million to a company that will be looking for bailouts within a few years.

In fairness I tended to deal with CEOs and directors outside the FTSE 100 who have grown the businesses from early on or started it - which is probably why our experiences differ.

The problem is the way some CEOs are remunerated, it's too short term., hence their decision making process.

Generally when I am looking to invest in a company I prefer owner CEOs or CEOs who take smaller base salaries BUT will earn much more if the company does well medium to long term.

Whether your prediction about P&O is correct we will have to wait and see - but I certainly will not be betting against it!

 

[1966_and_all_that]

I'd agree with you about legislation being badly written and there is no need for it, it is often written badly as a compromise to vested interests.
We obviously have very different experiences with CEOs and directors, because the majority I've encountered particularly listed companies have been either completely self serving, and / or barely competent. One of the reasons I no longer work with big public companies is it's almost impossible to get anything done at board level.
One of the biggest criticisms in economics is the corporate leaders are way too focused on short term profits, and even too focused on their own short term bonuses. Very few corporate leaders have real skin in the game.
I'm going to make a prediction that despite cutting it's wage bill by 70% p&o will still continue to lose a shed load of money for another five years or so before it's handed off to a friendly equity fund or similar for peanuts. At which point the equity fund will get it looking all spic and span on the surface sell it off for a few hundred million to a company that will be looking for bailouts within a few years.

With the very largest companies politics plays a part. I'm only surmising here but do you think that HMG will not take an interest before that happens?

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Tim hat on.

A bit of a reality check here and I do not condone what they did in any way shape or form.

1 People are saying boycott P&O for changing their employment model to the same as pretty much everyone else at sea. So by using a different operator who hires staff the same way is surely supporting how it works.

2 Having sat in many boardrooms over the years, sometimes fines and costs for skirting the law are built in to costs as 'the cost of doing business'. If every law was followed very few companies could do anything.

3 The P&O CEO is now finished in my opinion for admitting it.

4 In general - If you have a company that is going bust very quickly, sometimes you HAVE to make difficult decisions to save the business and the rest of the jobs.

Personally, I am getting a bit tired of select committees and how they treat people, if they had spoken to me like that I would have walked out!!

I agree the law needs tightening regarding bail outs and I actually think unless it's in the nations interest then it shouldn't happen.

...and when it does, the company needs to be taken into national ownership similar to how RBS was done all those years ago.

Hear bloody hear! Strike me if I don't suddenly become fond of this fellow.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

Just seen the reports that the CEO admitted to a parliamentary select commitee that they did break the law and that they knew they were breaking the law but took the opportunity to just make the payoffs. This kind of thing really bugs me. A listed company CEO and the rest of the board make the decision to deliberately break the law because they know that the law is either so weak that nothing will actually happen, or that the punishments are so small in comparison to their obligations that they just dont have to abide by any rules.

Imagine you're a delivery driver late for a job where there is a penalty for being late. you make the decsion to just drive recklessly at very high speed becuase the fine is only a fraction of the earnings of the delivery. The courts would throw the book at the driver, increased fines, probably a lengthy ban (more than normal), but if you are a ceo with a million quid package, he will probably be given additional bonus packages.

He needs to be fined personally, along with the rest of the board. and the company put into an emergency administration where all profits are channelled away from the shareholders for while (eg five years) and passed and ring fenced to employee payouts and pension funds, maybe under the control of a third party.

Something has to be done about this type of corporate excess. particularly when these companies go to government every time they run into trouble for a bail out.

The guy has to resign plain and simple.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

With the very largest companies politics plays a part. I'm only surmising here but do you think that HMG will not take an interest before that happens?

Possibly, Im assuming you're referring to my prediction, the only reason it would take interest though imo is to approve a takeover by some other entity. Unless of course there are a few MPs or mates of MPs who have a personal interest, then of course expect the government to offer up all kinds of sweetners.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

The guy has to resign plain and simple.

He shouldn't be allowed to resign, he should be prosecuted, and disqualified from being a director. In fact HMG through companies house should be taking the measures as we speak to disqualify him, based on director rules alone. If he's left to resign, he probably works out a golden handshake, he keeps all his pension entitlements and probably walks into a similar sort of role after a brief period of gardening leave to let the dust settle, and most people will have forgotten about it.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Possibly, Im assuming you're referring to my prediction, the only reason it would take interest though imo is to approve a takeover by some other entity. Unless of course there are a few MPs or mates of MPs who have a personal interest, then of course expect the government to offer up all kinds of sweetners.

Shapps talking tough on the radio, making the sorts of points that you made above (i.e. that the law is not something that should be gamed by companies for profit).
They have said that they will change the law specifically for this case. This is a dangerous path IMO, legislating on the hoof, in reactive mode and for the specific and not the general. What could possibly go wrong?

Law will be changed to ‘undo’ P&O’s mass sacking of its workers, government vows

The law will be changed to “undo” P&O’s mass sacking of its workers, the government is vowing – just hours after a minister warned that would harm the economy.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[seasideone]

Reality is the CEO was stupid to admit it, but not stupid to do it.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Shapps talking tough on the radio, making the sorts of points that you made above (i.e. that the law is not something that should be gamed by companies for profit).
They have said that they will change the law specifically for this case. This is a dangerous path IMO, legislating on the hoof, in reactive mode and for the specific and not the general. What could possibly go wrong?

Law will be changed to ‘undo’ P&O’s mass sacking of its workers, government vows

The law will be changed to “undo” P&O’s mass sacking of its workers, the government is vowing – just hours after a minister warned that would harm the economy.

www.independent.co.uk

Almost all legislation that matters is done on the hoof, in reaction to an incident. its another of the reasons its so badly written and full of holes that are exploitable. I would say the law doesnt actually need changing it just needs enforcing, the law is relatively clear, on his actions being unlawful. He has no defence whatsoever and if any of the board plead innocence you have the board meeting minutes. The only issue i suppose is what the penalties are. Being a high level exec, most judges wouldn't apply particularly harsh penalties, a largish fine which would be maybe 4 or 5% of his termination payoff if he is even forced out. But as i said before the penalties for directors with disqualification are there within Companies house rules on directors.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Reality is the CEO was stupid to admit it, but not stupid to do it.

stupid to do it really as well. even if discussion with unions would not have been successful, the british media would generally come down on the side of the company. they could have gone through the process and still retained support in government, whilst probably getting 95% of what they needed.

 

[seasideone]

stupid to do it really as well. even if discussion with unions would not have been successful, the british media would generally come down on the side of the company. they could have gone through the process and still retained support in government, whilst probably getting 95% of what they needed.

The carnage the RMT would have probably (looking at their record) would have possibly brought the company down - or caused serious damage.

As much as people hate it, the CEO was correct - as the damage to the business was likely to be less by going ahead.

Time will tell, but we all know the British public will go on P&O if it's cheaper!

Stupid to admit it though!

 

[Costero Poderoso]

The carnage the RMT would have probably (looking at their record) would have possibly brought the company down - or caused serious damage.

As much as people hate it, the CEO was correct - as the damage to the business was likely to be less by going ahead.

Time will tell, but we all know the British public will go on P&O if it's cheaper!

Stupid to admit it though!

imagine you're the CEO, you have a massive issue in that you need to reduce the wage bill or the company goes down, a quiet word with a friendly MP, who has a quiet word with a friendly member of cabinet, at the same time you're running a subtle PR campaign with the Tory press and doing a back handed hatchet job on the Union just in case. it takes a couple of months longer but they would get 95% of what they want, they always do, AND - the government would probably inject cash into the business in support of a "british" company, funds of course which all go to propping up the shareprice.

when you have this much leeway in running a PLC i really dont understand the depths of stupidity that many corporate boards exhibit.

 

[seasideone]

imagine you're the CEO, you have a massive issue in that you need to reduce the wage bill or the company goes down, a quiet word with a friendly MP, who has a quiet word with a friendly member of cabinet, at the same time you're running a subtle PR campaign with the Tory press and doing a back handed hatchet job on the Union just in case. it takes a couple of months longer but they would get 95% of what they want, they always do, AND - the government would probably inject cash into the business in support of a "british" company, funds of course which all go to propping up the shareprice.

when you have this much leeway in running a PLC i really dont understand the depths of stupidity that many corporate boards exhibit.

It doesn't work like that - as much as you would like it to.

P&O is a small company in reality!

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

The carnage the RMT would have probably (looking at their record) would have possibly brought the company down - or caused serious damage.

As much as people hate it, the CEO was correct - as the damage to the business was likely to be less by going ahead.

Time will tell, but we all know the British public will go on P&O if it's cheaper!

Stupid to admit it though!

All sounds a bit Michael Douglas in Wall Street to me.
There isn't a justification for this, there is no moral argument for this action.
The law of the land is not optional regardless of your circumstances and that includes businesses.

To extend your argument and for instance, I am sure restaurants and fast food outlets could make more money if they ignored legal hygiene requirements, should they do this?
Building firms could make more money if health and safety regulations were not adhered to - should they ignore these regulations so that they can secure more contracts?

 

[Wizaard]

All sounds a bit Michael Douglas in Wall Street to me.
There isn't a justification for this, there is no moral argument for this action.
The law of the land is not optional regardless of your circumstances and that includes businesses.

To extend your argument and for instance, I am sure restaurants and fast food outlets could make more money if they ignored legal hygiene requirements, should they do this?
Building firms could make more money if health and safety regulations were not adhered to - should they ignore these regulations so that they can secure more contracts?

Exactly. Lax standards of enforcement have made it a business opportunity to break the law. That can't be right.

 

[seasideone]

All sounds a bit Michael Douglas in Wall Street to me.
There isn't a justification for this, there is no moral argument for this action.
The law of the land is not optional regardless of your circumstances and that includes businesses.

To extend your argument and for instance, I am sure restaurants and fast food outlets could make more money if they ignored legal hygiene requirements, should they do this?
Building firms could make more money if health and safety regulations were not adhered to - should they ignore these regulations so that they can secure more contracts?

Your arguments do not stack up - the law he broke keeps him within the laws of safety.

All the things you quote are safety / health issues.

They have hired people with the correct legal qualifications.

He is only copying his competitors.

You make it sound black or white - he made a decision he believed to save the company that did not compromise safety.

The RMT have form for being awkward and not seeing the reality of a companies balance sheet.

I admit this not a popular view - but that's life!!!

....and in reality he made the best decision - but he made the mistake of admiring it.

 

[Lost Seasider]

Your arguments do not stack up - the law he broke keeps him within the laws of safety.

Despite what was said in committee, it now appears that their actions were within the law anyway.

 

[seasideone]

Despite what was said in committee, it now appears that their actions were within the law anyway.

The CEO is not the brightened then - however this pans out!

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Your arguments do not stack up - the law he broke keeps him within the laws of safety.

All the things you quote are safety / health issues.

They have hired people with the correct legal qualifications.

He is only copying his competitors.

You make it sound black or white - he made a decision he believed to save the company that did not compromise safety.

The RMT have form for being awkward and not seeing the reality of a companies balance sheet.

I admit this not a popular view - but that's life!!!

....and in reality he made the best decision - but he made the mistake of admiring it.

So it's okay to break certain employment laws but not others?
The trouble with thinking like this is where it inevitably leads to.

 

[seasideone]

So it's okay to break certain employment laws but not others?
The trouble with thinking like this is where it inevitably leads to.

Not at all - safety law is one thing, employment is another.

This from you is typical response of woke - where everything in life has to be perfect.

Real life does not work like that.

I once sacked a guy who I knew was stealing from the business, but under the law I couldn't do it.

I asked the lawyers what would the consequences would be if I did it.

I sacked him and would do it again.

You have obviously never been in a scenario where the law is an ass.

 

[Scaramanga]

Really surprised to see you posting something firstly from GB news and secondly from Paul Embury. This guy should be Labour leader, read his book Mex. Despised, cracking read.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Your arguments do not stack up - the law he broke keeps him within the laws of safety.

All the things you quote are safety / health issues.

They have hired people with the correct legal qualifications.

He is only copying his competitors.

You make it sound black or white - he made a decision he believed to save the company that did not compromise safety.

The RMT have form for being awkward and not seeing the reality of a companies balance sheet.

I admit this not a popular view - but that's life!!!

....and in reality he made the best decision - but he made the mistake of admiring it.

It matters not what laws he broke, and he / they broke them with full knowledge that they were actually breaking the law. with that attitude you could expect if you were doing oversight that they will probably cutting corners there as well to save money.

He is only copying his competitors, and that is one of the biggest problems in business with crappy Management teams that all they do is copy their competitors, and they end up in a downward sprial towards bankruptcy.

The fact that he had numerous options and a massive amount of leeway legally and in more grey influence to have handled this issue 50,000 times better than he has simply points to him and the rest of the board at P&O seemingly being absolutely useless. It wasnt the best decision, it wasnt even close to being a good decsion, everything about it is / was wrong, not just that what he did was ethically wrong but from a corporate standpoint it was always going to be wrong. Admitting it the way he did in a public forum points to his arrogance and i would guess how much he thinks he is protected by the ultimate owners of the company.

What is the reality in the companies balance sheet. They can pay out 360 million in dividends.

The problem to me is that what you say IS the popular view amongst Tory (and many freemarket labour) supporters, that corporations, investors and dividends have to be the first line of protection in any sticky situation, fuck the employees. I find it really difficult to accept that someone who deals with corporate boards can say that this is just life.

P&O is not a small company, bearing in mind the owners are the dubai royal family you dont think they can pull some global political and media influence. It is the gateway company for post brexit britain, if that doesnt give you political influence i really dont know what would.

On every single level this points to a CEO and a board that is incompetent beyond words.

the thing that makes me angry is that people who claim to understand business and finance just accept this shit as normal practice that is beneficial in the long run because it isnt in ways that i think you just cannot grasp.

My apologies for the rant.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

The Tories need to bring in the TUC...(yes, I know). They have huge experience in dealing with employers and are experts in the relevant Labour laws. Only by working together can the Government wisely react to this situation.

 

[Wizaard]

Not at all - safety law is one thing, employment is another.

This from you is typical response of woke - where everything in life has to be perfect.

Real life does not work like that.

I once sacked a guy who I knew was stealing from the business, but under the law I couldn't do it.

I asked the lawyers what would the consequences would be if I did it.

I sacked him and would do it again.

You have obviously never been in a scenario where the law is an ass.

So breaking the law deliberately for the benefit of the company is fine and pointing it out is 'woke'.

Utter, Utter nonsense. Grant Shapps is the diametric opposite of woke for starters.

The law in this case is not an ass. Sacking the workforce with no notice is simply crass and going back to the 19th century.

Disgrace.

 

[seasideone]

So breaking the law deliberately for the benefit of the company is fine and pointing it out is 'woke'.

Utter, Utter nonsense. Grant Shapps is the diametric opposite of woke for starters.

The law in this case is not an ass. Sacking the workforce with no notice is simply crass and going back to the 19th century.

Disgrace.

Was I wrong to sack the guy who was stealing from the business?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Really surprised to see you posting something firstly from GB news and secondly from Paul Embury. This guy should be Labour leader, read his book Mex. Despised, cracking read.

You may be surprised to hear I’ve read Despised. Has some interesting bits and valid points but degenerates into a bit of a moan fest tbh and Embury is in danger of turning into a professional victim.

I posted the link because in Despised PE makes comments similar to rockontommy made on another thread but obviously Tommy is alt right whereas PE is hard left. Just thought it was interesting that people with such diametrically opposed political positions had similar views about the current Labour leadership.

I’m also surprised that PE can’t make the link between P&O and the comments in Britannia Unchained. Read that book and you’ll see that the direction of travel is undeniable and actions like that of the P&O CEO become inevitable.

 

[rockontommy]

You may be surprised to hear I’ve read Despised. Has some interesting bits and valid points but degenerates into a bit of a moan fest tbh and Embury is in danger of turning into a professional victim.

I posted the link because in Despised PE makes comments similar to rockontommy made on another thread but obviously Tommy is alt right whereas PE is hard left. Just thought it was interesting that people with such diametrically opposed political positions had similar views about the current Labour leadership.

I’m also surprised that PE can’t make the link between P&O and the comments in Britannia Unchained. Read that book and you’ll see that the direction of travel is undeniable and actions like that of the P&O CEO become inevitable.

"obviously" lol
You could just disagree without having to incorrectly pigeonhole. That would be fine.

Agree about PE. Think his bitterness has swallowed him a bit which is understandable.