Venal scumbags running P&O still venal scumbags...
Discussion
LimaDelta said:
oyster said:
I didn't think Electro1980 was mentioning slavery in direct reference to the P&O Ferries article. I thought it was a more generic point to counter your (very oblique and weak) whataboutism.
It wasn't whataboutism at all, why should anyone care more about ferry crew welfare than containership crew welfare? If they are making a moral stand over one, then why not the other? The fact is that both operate under the same MLC rules.
You are right, we should care more about the conditions on board container ships, but the fact that we don't doesn't mean we should not care about low standards of crew welfare closer to home. It isn't an "all or nothing" process.
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
John145 said:
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Nobody needs protecting here! These people are making an absolute fortune and live better in their own countries than many of us do on here. Go google the average hourly wage in India, the Philippines, etc and see how it compares to P&O salaries, and maybe then you would understand why these are highly sought after jobs by crew from those countries. It's just a typical Guardian grrr capitalism, grr Tories article.Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
LimaDelta said:
John145 said:
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Nobody needs protecting here! These people are making an absolute fortune and live better in their own countries than many of us do on here. Go google the average hourly wage in India, the Philippines, etc and see how it compares to P&O salaries, and maybe then you would understand why these are highly sought after jobs by crew from those countries. It's just a typical Guardian grrr capitalism, grr Tories article.Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Should we remove seasonal workers from needing to pay NMW on the mainland because they'll go home to somewhere and be rich? Or how about any jobs here where the worker is from a cheap country and they're likely to go back to it after a couple of years having lined their pockets?
John145 said:
LimaDelta said:
John145 said:
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Nobody needs protecting here! These people are making an absolute fortune and live better in their own countries than many of us do on here. Go google the average hourly wage in India, the Philippines, etc and see how it compares to P&O salaries, and maybe then you would understand why these are highly sought after jobs by crew from those countries. It's just a typical Guardian grrr capitalism, grr Tories article.Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Should we remove seasonal workers from needing to pay NMW on the mainland because they'll go home to somewhere and be rich? Or how about any jobs here where the worker is from a cheap country and they're likely to go back to it after a couple of years having lined their pockets?
LimaDelta said:
John145 said:
LimaDelta said:
John145 said:
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism.
Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Nobody needs protecting here! These people are making an absolute fortune and live better in their own countries than many of us do on here. Go google the average hourly wage in India, the Philippines, etc and see how it compares to P&O salaries, and maybe then you would understand why these are highly sought after jobs by crew from those countries. It's just a typical Guardian grrr capitalism, grr Tories article.Quite a lot of comments on here basically saying "tough titties", then there are the groups saying "if enough people are willing to participate (whether as a consumer or as a worker) then it's all good dude".
Personally speaking, I think they should be on NMW if they're in British waters or operating from British ports.
Should we remove seasonal workers from needing to pay NMW on the mainland because they'll go home to somewhere and be rich? Or how about any jobs here where the worker is from a cheap country and they're likely to go back to it after a couple of years having lined their pockets?
You seem to think incentivising a local work force is a bad thing. Are you aware of the massive workless British population? But then I suppose your next opinion would be "burn their benefits".
LimaDelta said:
S600BSB said:
Always avoid P&O.
Do you avoid buying goods which are imported via ships employing crew in exactly the same way under the same maritime laws?Rusty Old-Banger said:
Stick Legs said:
SlimJim16v said:
12hr days, 7 days a week for months at a time with no days off.
That’s ships.My company we work scheduled hours of 12/day but regularly exceed that, providing we stay with in the hours of rest regulations it’s okay.
Now we work 3 weeks on 3 weeks off, but when I used to work with Phillipines crew they wanted 10 month contracts with 4 months off so they could get more money quicker. We offered 6 months on 3 months off
A lot of seafarers are not in it for the long haul & want 2-5 years to set themselves up at home.
Hours of rest requires:
6 hours minimum continuous rest in any 24 hours.
10 hours minimum rest in any 24, may be broken into 2 periods, one must be 6 hours as above.
77 hours total rest per week.
Maximum period on board must not exceed 12 months.
Edited by Stick Legs on Tuesday 19th March 12:42
There's indignation to be had and high horses to be sat upon.
John145 said:
Not really, these jobs aren't applicable for a UK workforce because they are so poorly paid.
I think many object to low wages if the burden of the difference falls on the taxpayer. I.E. private profit and public cost. If the workers concerned are not entitled to in-work benefits, and do not consume public services, then it seems much less of an issue to me, particularly if the costs of using UK workers are such that the service would not be available at a price most can afford, and particularly if the workers themselves are happy with the situation and are building up savings to take home.
To me it seems a similar situation to importing most of our clothing, as clothes would be too expensive if made by UK workers.
poo at Paul's said:
John145 said:
This is the purpose of government, to product vulnerable groups from aggressive capitalism....
No, its not the purpose of Govt!! Some may argue its one small purpose of many but if theyre not British subjects its debateable..JagLover said:
I think many object to low wages if the burden of the difference falls on the taxpayer. I.E. private profit and public cost.
If the workers concerned are not entitled to in-work benefits, and do not consume public services, then it seems much less of an issue to me, particularly if the costs of using UK workers are such that the service would not be available at a price most can afford, and particularly if the workers themselves are happy with the situation and are building up savings to take home.
To me it seems a similar situation to importing most of our clothing, as clothes would be too expensive if made by UK workers.
The key difference being these workers are operating within Britain, or at least our territory. If the workers concerned are not entitled to in-work benefits, and do not consume public services, then it seems much less of an issue to me, particularly if the costs of using UK workers are such that the service would not be available at a price most can afford, and particularly if the workers themselves are happy with the situation and are building up savings to take home.
To me it seems a similar situation to importing most of our clothing, as clothes would be too expensive if made by UK workers.
What troubles me about your post is that the logical conclusion is a labouring under class. Come to Britain, you aren’t entitled to anything but we get our services slightly cheaper.
Not something that would get my vote at the ballot box.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff