dp world, nice people! sack 800 workers with no notice..

[milesgiles]

https://inews.co.uk/news/p-and-o-ferries-who-owns-dp-world-cruises-unaffected-job-cuts-announcement-1523257

 

to replace them with temporary workers

 

*no politics

 

what does the dp/euro tour have to say about this? what do its best paid players think? 

[wcbjr]

"no politics"?  Good luck with that...

[rukahs]

Its best paid players will still get paid millions to play golf in the sun so quite frankly doubt they care.

[mat562]

In line with the no politics edict:

 

I think it's a shameful act, both in terms of the way the staff were treated and the underlying motives which underpin it.

 

Sadly, due to the fact that more and more UK-based businesses have been sold off to overseas entities, seemingly without any forethought for the long term consequences, and the normalisation of utilising cheap, foreign labour rather than an ongoing investment in British workers over the last couple of decades, it's neither the first, nor likely the last time we'll see this sort of thing.

 

The level of input into P&O Ferries' actions and decision-making by DP World is unclear, but it's certainly disappointing that the European Tour have an association with a company which is in any way linked to these events. DP World is legitimate business, not a state-funded front like the backer of that 'other tour,' but it's still dismaying. The likelihood is the tour will make no comment, politely deflect any questions and, sadly for the workers involved, that these events end up as next week's chip paper.

Edited March 18, 2022 by mat562

[iBanesto]

53 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/p-and-o-ferries-who-owns-dp-world-cruises-unaffected-job-cuts-announcement-1523257

 

to replace them with temporary workers

 

*no politics

 

what does the dp/euro tour have to say about this? what do its best paid players think? 

 

What can the players do? Nothing.

 

I guess they can join LIV Golf then.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by iBanesto

[MattyO1984]

Grim, really really grim. Horrendous PR move from P&O Ferries and DP given they are the parent company.

 

I can’t think that it will have too much of an impact on the European Tour although pretty hard to hide a sponsorship when the title of the Tour is the sold off the way it has been here. Nice work Keith Pelley, nice work indeed!

[ChillyDipper]

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by ChillyDipper

[getitdaily]

I bet the players don't give a rat's bottom. Nor should they. 

 

The tour...why would it meddle in that business decision, about which they have zero understanding of the why the decision was made.

[milesgiles]

I would think the players commitee, of which Henrik was on, would have a view?

 

must be careful who you get into bed with 

[golfandfishing]

What do the players think? Nothing. Most are so far removed from the real world that they would be stunned at just about anything about any of these employee’s lives. Show them a paycheck for $1,694.56 and they would have zero idea what it was for. Take them to a grocery store, give them $100 and tell them to feed a family of 4 for a week on it and they would buy the biggest tub of protein powder they can find, 3 avocados and bottled water. Most players on the DP Tour have zero idea what anything in that article means, and the ones that do don’t care in the least. 

[golfortennis]

16 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

I would think the players commitee, of which Henrik was on, would have a view?

 

must be careful who you get into bed with 

 

Cause this is the first company in the history of the world to do something like this.

 

RBC had a scandal a few years ago about using temporary foreign workers instead of Canadians.  Should the PGA Tour remove them as sponsors of the two events?  3M is currently facing lawsuits regarding chemicals.  Have to get rid of them.

 

The problem when you start moralizing over actions beyond the matter of business you are doing with a company, you both a)lead yourself down a rabbit hole of then having to decide what is "good" and what is "bad", and b)open yourself up to a degree of hypocrisy by clutching pearls over one company's actions, and turning a blind eye to another's.  Sort of like a lot of the moralizing about the other subject drawing a lot of attention currently.  

 

Companies exist to earn returns for their shareholders.  In the process of earning those returns, they open up employment opportunities.  Companies do not exist for the purpose of being jobs farms.  Due to the forum rules, I won't go beyond this following statement, but maybe what needs to be looked at is the conditions within which companies are expected to operate, and perhaps ask why they make a certain decision.

 

It's certainly easy to spend other people's money.  What skin in the game does everyone have here?  I assume everyone can support the contributions they have made to help cover the $100 million the company has been losing per year on this operation?

[milesgiles]

12 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

Cause this is the first company in the history of the world to do something like this.

 

RBC had a scandal a few years ago about using temporary foreign workers instead of Canadians.  Should the PGA Tour remove them as sponsors of the two events?  3M is currently facing lawsuits regarding chemicals.  Have to get rid of them.

 

The problem when you start moralizing over actions beyond the matter of business you are doing with a company, you both a)lead yourself down a rabbit hole of then having to decide what is "good" and what is "bad", and b)open yourself up to a degree of hypocrisy by clutching pearls over one company's actions, and turning a blind eye to another's.  Sort of like a lot of the moralizing about the other subject drawing a lot of attention currently.  

 

Companies exist to earn returns for their shareholders.  In the process of earning those returns, they open up employment opportunities.  Companies do not exist for the purpose of being jobs farms.  Due to the forum rules, I won't go beyond this following statement, but maybe what needs to be looked at is the conditions within which companies are expected to operate, and perhaps ask why they make a certain decision.

 

It's certainly easy to spend other people's money.  What skin in the game does everyone have here?  I assume everyone can support the contributions they have made to help cover the $100 million the company has been losing per year on this operation?

 

slight difference between a tournament sponsor and the sponsor of the entire tour. Its the equivalent of fedex doing this.

 

if the company is insolvent it shouldnt have claimed several million in government support in the last two years. Its also just basic decency not to sack people over a prerecorded zoom call.

 

 

[golfortennis]

9 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

slight difference between a tournament sponsor and the sponsor of the entire tour. Its the equivalent of fedex doing this.

 

if the company is insolvent it shouldnt have claimed several million in government support in the last two years. Its also just basic decency not to sack people over a prerecorded zoom call.

 

 

 

First of all, it's a difference of degree, not kind.  They're all in bed together to some extent.  

 

I can agree on the method of the dismissal.  Although even there, you have to be careful you don't set up for angry employees to start destroying property.

 

As far as the support..... given the decisions taken that caused a lot of companies' hardships, we'll have to disagree on that one.

[milesgiles]

7 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

First of all, it's a difference of degree, not kind.  They're all in bed together to some extent.  

 

I can agree on the method of the dismissal.  Although even there, you have to be careful you don't set up for angry employees to start destroying property.

 

As far as the support..... given the decisions taken that caused a lot of companies' hardships, we'll have to disagree on that one.

 

Ill look later but this company was a basket case long before covid 

[golfortennis]

10 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

Ill look later but this company was a basket case long before covid 

 

If that is true, then haven't they been floating these workers far longer than they should have?

[milesgiles]

5 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

If that is true, then haven't they been floating these workers far longer than they should have?

 

Hardly lol.. I’ll look later 

[jholz]

You can thank Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago for that one.

 

Some day, someone will burn that campus to the ground and the world will be a better place. 

[golfortennis]

21 minutes ago, jholz said:

You can thank Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago for that one.

 

Some day, someone will burn that campus to the ground and the world will be a better place. 

 

For which one?  

[jholz]

23 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

For which one?  

 

Milton Friedman is almost singularly responsible for the general modus operandi of business these days. In short, his work in economics and corporate governance absolved businesses and corporations from responsibility to anyone but their shareholders.

 

Since the late 1970's his theories have been used as the basis for the off-shoring of jobs and the estrangement of corporations from workers and the communities in which they operate. It's one of the most most socially and economically destructive schools of thought in modern human history. 

 

Somewhere in hell, there is a special room reserved for Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan. I'm sure they are having a nice discussion together. 

 

As far as the University of Chicago as a whole is concerned, it would be way too long of a discussion to get into here.  

Edited March 18, 2022 by jholz

[golfortennis]

6 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

Milton Friedman is almost singularly responsible for the general modus operandi of business these days. In short, his work in economics and corporate governance absolved businesses and corporations from responsibility to anyone but their shareholders.

 

Since the late 1970's his theories have been used as the basis for the off-shoring of jobs and the estrangement of corporations from workers and the communities in which they operate. It's one of the most most socially and economically destructive schools of thought in modern human history. 

 

Somewhere in hell, there is a special room reserved for Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan. I'm sure they are having a nice discussion together. 

 

As far as the University of Chicago as a whole is concerned, it would be way too long of a discussion to get into here.  

 

Ok.  I don't necessarily agree with you, but glad to see you actually had a cogent argument rather than a hit and run post.  I respect that.

 

As for Uof C overall, I can probably agree on that one.

 

[jholz]

4 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Ok.  I don't necessarily agree with you, but glad to see you actually had a cogent argument rather than a hit and run post.  I respect that.

 

As for Uof C overall, I can probably agree on that one.

 

 

Right on. No need to agree with me. My opinion is obviously an extreme one - and I'll talk your ear off about it if given the chance. 

 

But, at the end of the day, respect is a wonderful thing to receive. I appreciate that and give it to you in return, mon ami. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by jholz

[milesgiles]

6 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

If that is true, then haven't they been floating these workers far longer than they should have?

 

put it like this.. 

 

the sacked workers were likely employed under maritime law, as opposed to uk employment law, which means legally dp could do what tney want (and did)

 

the replacement agency workers will be cheaper.. but by how much? I very much doubt the sacked workers were earning more than about 35k gbp (uk average is 28k). Minimum wage is about 18k.. but you then have to pay the agency as well. The fees for that used to be almost as much as the salary itself, Im sure its a lot less now, but for the sake of argument lets say they are saving £10k per person. Thats only £8million quid, so very little to do with losing £100 million a year.

 

Thats completely ignoring the damage to the brand and the presumed fall in staffing standards. Its a lead item in the news despite all that is going on in the world.

[MtlJeff]

I tend to always fall in the middle of these debates. I know that companies need to exist, be profitable and make money for shareholders--but as @jholz says i just see so much stuff that doesn't need to happen in the name of business

 

I used to work with a company some years ago, they were a good public midsize company and their shares were doing OK, modest growth nothing special. They were profitable. Their largest shareholder decides he wants to get out, and get out with a bang. Pursuades the board to fire the CEO, and replace him with a specialist to get the company sold. They fired ~half the employees on day one and refused to pay them any negotiated benefits, told them "see you in court". When a lawyer agreed to take on the workers case they paid the lawyer to go away rather than pay the employees LOL. They cut R&D and anything long term. Shares went up, company got sold. ~1000 lost their jobs so one guy could add a few million to his billion

 

I'm a capitalist at the end of the day....But i get it. You know....I get it

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by MtlJeff

[golfortennis]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

Right on. No need to agree with me. My position is obviously a strong one - and I'll talk your ear off about it if given the chance. 

 

But, at the end of the day, respect is a wonderful thing to receive. I appreciate that and give it to you in return, mon ami. 

 

I always respect an opinion that has been thought out rather than just a flavor of the month quick get a laugh post.  Reasonable people can disagree reasonably.  

 

I will admit there have been times I haven't held to that as much as I should, but I try.

[golfortennis]

49 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

 

put it like this.. 

 

the sacked workers were likely employed under maritime law, as opposed to uk employment law, which means legally dp could do what tney want (and did)

 

the replacement agency workers will be cheaper.. but by how much? I very much doubt the sacked workers were earning more than about 35k gbp (uk average is 28k). Minimum wage is about 18k.. but you then have to pay the agency as well. The fees for that used to be almost as much as the salary itself, Im sure its a lot less now, but for the sake of argument lets say they are saving £10k per person. Thats only £8million quid, so very little to do with losing £100 million a year.

 

Thats completely ignoring the damage to the brand and the presumed fall in staffing standards. Its a lead item in the news despite all that is going on in the world.

 

Again, another thought out post.  I don't know enough to dispute your math, so I'll go with it. I would be real interested to see how the $100 million is arrived at.  Maybe they are receiving an outsized portion of overhead?  It is possible that number is arrived at in questionable methods.  Is it a public company?  Could be some grounds for charges if the $100 million loss isn't legitimate.  

 

What I would also be curious about is who owns this agency?  I used to work for a company whose ultimate parent also owned a consultancy that provided IT staffers.  Care to guess which company was contracted to bring in IT staffers?  And while some were good, some.... well, they seemed like good people at least.  

 

Tough to go further without getting into politics, but one thing is BoDs need to be held much more accountable than they are now.  Non management shareholders are not always the people whose interested are being looked after.

 

[golfortennis]

15 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

I tend to always fall in the middle of these debates. I know that companies need to exist, be profitable and make money for shareholders--but as @jholz says i just see so much stuff that doesn't need to happen in the name of business

 

I used to work with a company some years ago, they were a good public midsize company and their shares were doing OK, modest growth nothing special. They were profitable. Their largest shareholder decides he wants to get out, and get out with a bang. Pursuades the board to fire the CEO, and replace him with a specialist to get the company sold. They fired ~half the employees on day one and refused to pay them any negotiated benefits, told them "see you in court". When a lawyer agreed to take on the workers case they paid the lawyer to go away rather than pay the employees LOL. They cut R&D and anything long term. Shares went up, company got sold. ~1000 lost their jobs so one guy could add a few million to his billion

 

I'm a capitalist at the end of the day....But i get it. You know....I get it

 

 

I think one of the things that needs to happen is to have some form of poison pill clause that doesn't enable greater than 10% ownership of a company.  I hope that employees held shares to cash in there.

 

Not defending what this company did, but there are some ways to help soften the blow.

 

[MtlJeff]

7 minutes ago, golfortennis said:

 

I think one of the things that needs to happen is to have some form of poison pill clause that doesn't enable greater than 10% ownership of a company.  I hope that employees held shares to cash in there.

 

Not defending what this company did, but there are some ways to help soften the blow.

 

 

I had a lot of friends there, some of them did OK at least on the shares, so yes softened it a bit for them before they found new jobs, these were more the manager types. Some of the entry level people i worked with got hit harder obviously, however they were also younger so hopefully had less financial obligations.

 

It was pretty crappy. I'm sure everyone has a story like this. Whenever i hear alternatives they always sound worse LOL. Probably as far as i can go on that topic.

 

There's a saying, something like "this is the worst way to do things except all of the other ways"

[hammersia]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

 

put it like this.. 

 

the sacked workers were likely employed under maritime law, as opposed to uk employment law, which means legally dp could do what tney want (and did)

 

the replacement agency workers will be cheaper.. but by how much? I very much doubt the sacked workers were earning more than about 35k gbp (uk average is 28k). Minimum wage is about 18k.. but you then have to pay the agency as well. The fees for that used to be almost as much as the salary itself, Im sure its a lot less now, but for the sake of argument lets say they are saving £10k per person. Thats only £8million quid, so very little to do with losing £100 million a year.

 

Thats completely ignoring the damage to the brand and the presumed fall in staffing standards. Its a lead item in the news despite all that is going on in the world.

That’s not quite right

 

The new staff are Latvians believed to be being paid 3 to 4 dollars per hour, so the annual savings could be 30 million or so which is quite a dent.

 

The sacked staff were not employed “under maritime law” that’s nothing to do with employment law, the employment law applicable is the flag the ships are registered under.

 

In terms of brand, DP World doesn’t care, it’s not a retail brand at all. The ferry company is a monopoly on many routes so almost all their current customers, public and trade, will have to carry on using them. 

[milesgiles]

4 minutes ago, hammersia said:

That’s not quite right

 

The new staff are Latvians believed to be being paid 3 to 4 dollars per hour, so the annual savings could be 30 million or so which is quite a dent.

 

The sacked staff were not employed “under maritime law” that’s nothing to do with employment law, the employment law applicable is the flag the ships are registered under.

 

In terms of brand, DP World doesn’t care, it’s not a retail brand at all. The ferry company is a monopoly on many routes so almost all their current customers, public and trade, will have to carry on using them. 

 

nah

 

source? No chance of any eastern europeans working for that sort of wage these days. And maritime law does cover employment. Again, source?

[bladehunter]

2 hours ago, MtlJeff said:

I tend to always fall in the middle of these debates. I know that companies need to exist, be profitable and make money for shareholders--but as @jholz says i just see so much stuff that doesn't need to happen in the name of business

 

I used to work with a company some years ago, they were a good public midsize company and their shares were doing OK, modest growth nothing special. They were profitable. Their largest shareholder decides he wants to get out, and get out with a bang. Pursuades the board to fire the CEO, and replace him with a specialist to get the company sold. They fired ~half the employees on day one and refused to pay them any negotiated benefits, told them "see you in court". When a lawyer agreed to take on the workers case they paid the lawyer to go away rather than pay the employees LOL. They cut R&D and anything long term. Shares went up, company got sold. ~1000 lost their jobs so one guy could add a few million to his billion

 

I'm a capitalist at the end of the day....But i get it. You know....I get it

 

Well. As a wise man once said. Actions like that can be fought one of 3 ways.  Meditation  and passivity , with lawyers , or that 3rd way that nobody ever speaks of.      Folks who do things like that should  beware of things that go bump in the night.  

Edited March 19, 2022 by bladehunter