Steam Packet Warns Of Disruption To Sailings

[woolley]

3 hours ago, CrazyDave said:

The implications of this are already starting to hit businesses.

Parts and supplies coming in late.  Staff sitting around in the morning doing nothing. Customers waiting.

It’s bad news all round.  Sack them and employ people who want to work.

(cue confused reactions form cuey and fool and his money - have they ever been seen in the same room? )

Shouldn't be if Arrow is maintaining a freight run overnight.

[Kopek]

Wooley, you're quite entitled to your right wing tory view of happenings, even though the English Tory party are trying distance theirselves from this stigma of dogmatism or the Thatchorist  era.

It cannot go unnoticed that there is a deal of support for the striking workers, the rail unions, the NHS the the  etc.....

This alone should show a dissatisfaction with general well being of the majority of the British public? Lessons to be learnt???

I don't trhink it matters to majority of Manx wanting to go back and forth to England whether this is via live on board or just, ''get us there'' as we have done for a hundred years!!

You have to drop the 'them and Us' argument to gain traction in this dispute?

[woolley]

37 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Wooley, you're quite entitled to your right wing tory view of happenings, even though the English Tory party are trying distance theirselves from this stigma of dogmatism or the Thatchorist  era.

It cannot go unnoticed that there is a deal of support for the striking workers, the rail unions, the NHS the the  etc.....

This alone should show a dissatisfaction with general well being of the majority of the British public? Lessons to be learnt???

I don't trhink it matters to majority of Manx wanting to go back and forth to England whether this is via live on board or just, ''get us there'' as we have done for a hundred years!!

You have to drop the 'them and Us' argument to gain traction in this dispute?

Not Tory. Never have been. Just stating the facts. They are so far down the line on this LOB model that they have to make it work. £78m says so.

[Kopek]

You can't say that the LOB mdel is correct if it turns out not to be so? It may well have beeen a model that the SP were pursuing but was it correct??

No one knows!

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, woolley said:

The main issue though, and the reason it cannot possibly go to arbitration, is that the business model is now settled by the fact of having purchased a £78m vessel designed to operate in this mode. This is a fact of life, so they simply cannot afford to back down. It'll have to be settled by monetary means.

Yes we can't admit that civil servants have spent large amounts of taxpayers' money making the wrong decision to satisfy their egos.  We must spend more taxpayers' money instead!

[Non-Believer]

The quickest way to settle this is sack them all and employ a SE Asian crew being paid a bowl of rice a week each. That will increase profits and make much more money available to service non-contributory and other Govt pensions.

A little further ahead in the race to the bottom.

[Banker]

20 minutes ago, WTF said:

when there's a mirror perhaps ??

Cuuey seems to be confused about everything including who he is 😂

[CrazyDave]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Shouldn't be if Arrow is maintaining a freight run overnight.

Arrow can’t dock until after Manxman leaves in the morning.

So stuff is much later getting u loaded.  Hence the impact to businesses and hence my post.

Edited January 4 by CrazyDave

[P.K.]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Not Tory. Never have been. Just stating the facts. They are so far down the line on this LOB model that they have to make it work. £78m says so.

Ahhh but you don't have to be a tory to be very right wing. Is that not so @woolley ?

The IOM boats have been plodding across the Irish Sea for more years than I care to remember and during all that time LOB was never an issue. So to now label LOB as "business critical" is a bit naughty really. Because years and years of real data with a voyage turnaround of less than twelve hours has shown that it's not.

Now the government of the day has a duty of care towards ALL of their citizens. However on this issue they seem to be hiding behind the "arm's length policy" and letting the management team do what they like. A very poor show IMHO. The exception being a moan by Haywood on the timing of the termination notices.

I suspect that the "business critical" part of the management's case in truth could be "bottom line critical" or similar. Of course, the more profitable the SPCO is the more wonga that flows into the government's coffers. Hence the deafening silence from Tynwald.

However I once worked in a "24/7 we never shut down" IT environment and to legally cover it took 5 shift teams doing 12 hour shifts alternating between days and nights. So it's tricky to say the least...

[Andy Onchan]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Ahhh but you don't have to be a tory to be very right wing. Is that not so @woolley ?

The IOM boats have been plodding across the Irish Sea for more years than I care to remember and during all that time LOB was never an issue. So to now label LOB as "business critical" is a bit naughty really. Because years and years of real data with a voyage turnaround of less than twelve hours has shown that it's not.

Now the government of the day has a duty of care towards ALL of their citizens. However on this issue they seem to be hiding behind the "arm's length policy" and letting the management team do what they like. A very poor show IMHO. The exception being a moan by Haywood on the timing of the termination notices.

I suspect that the "business critical" part of the management's case in truth could be "bottom line critical" or similar. Of course, the more profitable the SPCO is the more wonga that flows into the government's coffers. Hence the deafening silence from Tynwald.

However I once worked in a "24/7 we never shut down" IT environment and to legally cover it took 5 shift teams doing 12 hour shifts alternating between days and nights. So it's tricky to say the least...

2 years for the union to realise that LOB wasn't a joke and that it's going to happen.  

[Frances]

I did raise this many pages back but as far as I can see it is the emergency evacuation mode selected that is the key point that requires a double crew - otherwise given that some speed up in loading/unloading would allow the 2 rotations a day that the Ben has done for near 25 years without LOB requirement

[Happier diner]

2 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

The quickest way to settle this is sack them all and employ a SE Asian crew being paid a bowl of rice a week each. That will increase profits and make much more money available to service non-contributory and other Govt pensions.

A little further ahead in the race to the bottom.

I think they already know this.

[Non-Believer]

22 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I suspect that the "business critical" part of the management's case in truth could be "bottom line critical" or similar. Of course, the more profitable the SPCO is the more wonga that flows into the government's coffers. Hence the deafening silence from Tynwald.

+1, this is what it's all about. IoMG might well have bought the Steamie to secure the service from the clutches of assorted vultures but big part of the appeal was revenue to pay Govt's own cast-iron entitlements to itself.

Unfortunately, so far they are turning what was a very profitable operation into a shambles. We can see similar with Cube and the TT merchandise - The Reverse Midas Touch, driven by greed.

[John Wright]

14 hours ago, woolley said:

It's not realistically going to happen, is it?

For one thing you can't give the impression to the union that all they have to do is kick up an unholy stink and the government will come racing in and tell the management to settle. The political dimension is always the danger with nationalised or pseudo-nationalised industries.

The main issue though, and the reason it cannot possibly go to arbitration, is that the business model is now settled by the fact of having purchased a £78m vessel designed to operate in this mode. This is a fact of life, so they simply cannot afford to back down. It'll have to be settled by monetary means.

That’s an intransigent attitude. 

I’ve not suggested binding arbitration. Just arbitration to get them in the room and talking.

Going to arbitration isn’t government racing in and telling anyone to settle. It’s the responsible thing for government to encourage between employer and employee when a nationally vital service is endangered. The legislation actually provides for it.

There has to be a solution, I’ve suggested an obvious one, several times.

Going to arbitration won’t change the business model, agreement through arbitration might.

The boat isn’t designed to operate just that model. Its configuration allows for LoB. But LoB needn’t be all the time, or all the crew, or all circumstances. It’s an option that wasn’t available before.

Those cabins, or at least some of them,  could be reconfigured as free day cabins for exec club members, or freight drivers or cheaper paying cabins.

No one is talking about “backing down” apart from you. It’s all about finding a workable liveable accommodation. There’s lots of unexplored middle ground. Middle ground that isn’t being explored whilst the two sides aren’t talking. Arbitration gets them talking.

And, let’s not forget, the reasons the MD has given for not going to arbitration have been very odd.

1. There isn’t a MIRS arbitrator available. Government made it clear that in fact there was.

2. That as the arbitrator wasn’t “Manx” he wouldn’t understand the issues. It’s up to the parties to explain the issues to a judge, tribunal chair, arbitrator. Does that mean SPCo management don’t feel competent to explain?

[Fred the shred]

The Board of the IOM Steam Packet has a duty to the public to provide a secure and viable service.   Viable means making a profit at best and not making a loss at worse, breaking even would be acceptable.    If this means that some crew members lose some privileges that they have previously enjoyed that is the tough decision that has to be taken.   If you choose to go to sea as a career surely going home at night is not a given.    I do feel for the crew that are affected it is hard to get the conditions you work under changed but they , like the Unions, have known about it for two years now it was hardly a surprise move like some of the public seem to think.    As for the Government getting involved I really do not think that would help matters.    Of course the usual attention seeking MHK s are band standing as per usual, pathetic.