The Listening Ear Posted September 27, 2023 Author Share Posted September 27, 2023 18 minutes ago, Happier diner said: Commercial pressures? Lack of native staff? Up to Manxman being ordered there was the biggest proportion of Manx crew they’ve had and then people began leaving or retiring (if of retirement age) as they didn’t want to live on board the new ship. The SPC board/shore management knew well before the keel was laid that there was massive opposition to this proposed change of terms and conditions and at that point they had the opportunity to change the design but it has been their sole goal to have all crews live aboard regardless of the crews personal situations. There have been a number of Manx seafarers that have enquired with the SPC in recent months for positions only to be told there are none, yet the company continues to advertise vacancies in Riga for all officer levels via Clyde Marine employment agency. So there are local people who want to work for the SPC and can’t because their face doesn’t fit!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 3 hours ago, Happier diner said: P&O were in a desperate situation. Not great but at least they had some excuse. SPCo are not in a desperate situation. Also, aren't staff at sea not protected by normal employment law? It's complicated is the simple answer... As I understand it the legislation that applies depends on a number of factors including where the vessel spends the majority of its time, and how much of that time is in coastal waters versus international waters and where the vessel is registered. A lot of vessels will have a senior crew employed directly by the operating company whilst all the junior crew will be via a host of other arrangements. I am by no means an expert in this particular area but have spent time around people who are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 2 hours ago, The Listening Ear said: Up to Manxman being ordered there was the biggest proportion of Manx crew they’ve had and then people began leaving or retiring (if of retirement age) as they didn’t want to live on board the new ship. The SPC board/shore management knew well before the keel was laid that there was massive opposition to this proposed change of terms and conditions and at that point they had the opportunity to change the design but it has been their sole goal to have all crews live aboard regardless of the crews personal situations. There have been a number of Manx seafarers that have enquired with the SPC in recent months for positions only to be told there are none, yet the company continues to advertise vacancies in Riga for all officer levels via Clyde Marine employment agency. So there are local people who want to work for the SPC and can’t because their face doesn’t fit!! Still you claim not to work for them… 😂😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Listening Ear Posted September 28, 2023 Author Share Posted September 28, 2023 3 hours ago, Passing Time said: Still you claim not to work for them… 😂😂😂 100% don’t. Just know quite a few that do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newaccount Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/steam-packet-issues-30-day-warning-to-staff-who-refuse-companys-live-on-board-terms-641294 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 On 9/27/2023 at 5:50 PM, Happier diner said: Also, aren't staff at sea not protected by normal employment law? Fire-and-rehire is perfectly legal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 4 hours ago, newaccount said: https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/business/steam-packet-issues-30-day-warning-to-staff-who-refuse-companys-live-on-board-terms-641294 I rather think that the writer has got over excited about this... 30 day consultation is fairly standard practice for consulting employees over a change to terms and conditions of employment. Consulting is standard practice where a change to terms and conditions is required especially where there is no contractual right to vary the T&C's. It is not uncommon for an employer and Trade Union to disagree on what is a "generous offer". I would be more concerned if both parties said it was! Employers can choose to terminate a contract of employment for "some other substantial reason" (it is a great catch all!) and then offer re-engagement on new terms and conditions. Commonly refereed to as fire and rehire it is used by employers throughout the UK on a daily basis to push through changes. NOW... whether you agree or not with the proposals from the SPCo and the offer they have made is a separate matter. What is clearly happening is the SPCo is behaving within the law and therefore cannot be compared to the behaviour of P&O. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 Sounds like this was a really bad design for the Manxman, assumed patterns of working. Probably cost an extra £15m to no avail on the build. I back the staff. No need for this on-board bollox, with proper shift arrangements. Most of them got jobs here simply because they didn't need to go to sea to that extent. Typical stupid Manx Government thinking and consequences. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 Just now, Albert Tatlock said: Typical stupid Manx Government thinking and consequences. Depends what you want as an outcome. It’s a good way of cutting the staff bill and those flats in Douglas don’t come cheap. If Manx seafarers don’t want the shifts then the rest of the world is full of merchant seamen who will want the shifts, and will be happier with lower wages too. It’s a hard-headed business decision. Which is precisely what so many people want as they demand the government behaves more like the private sector. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 13 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: Depends what you want as an outcome. It’s a good way of cutting the staff bill and those flats in Douglas don’t come cheap. If Manx seafarers don’t want the shifts then the rest of the world is full of merchant seamen who will want the shifts, and will be happier with lower wages too. It’s a hard-headed business decision. Which is precisely what so many people want as they demand the government behaves more like the private sector. Though no benefit to the poor bastard consumer though. He/she pays whoever gets the profit...dividends going to government pensions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 44 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said: Though no benefit to the poor bastard consumer though. He/she pays whoever gets the profit...dividends going to government pensions. Or to reduce our taxes on the other hand 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueey Lewis And The News Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Ringy Rose said: It’s a hard-headed business decision. Which is precisely what so many people want as they demand the government behaves more like the private sector. Yes company that’s just spent £80M on a new boat paid for by us wants to see how cheap it can get people to work for it for. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 50 minutes ago, Banker said: Or to reduce our taxes on the other hand Which is all about countering the mistakes of elected idiot's. Better people running it spending wisely and a Steam Racket that actually adds value by: decreasing imports charges, subsiding visitors and acting on behalf of the island... Rather than a take all...suck the money out government sponsor....paying pensions...with no benefit to anyone else on the island. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: Yes company that’s just spent £80M on a new boat paid for by us wants to see how cheap it can get people to work for it for. Not forgetting the long hours the staff will be both on duty, and living on ship. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted September 29, 2023 Share Posted September 29, 2023 8 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said: Which is all about countering the mistakes of elected idiot's. Better people running it spending wisely and a Steam Racket that actually adds value by: decreasing imports charges, subsiding visitors and acting on behalf of the island... Rather than a take all...suck the money out government sponsor....paying pensions...with no benefit to anyone else on the island. Indeed...their priority can clearly be seen to be cutting the T&Cs of the Steamie seafarers rather than cutting their own cloth; as ever. How many new CS jobs appeared on the job listing in the last month? How many people, including elected, are flagging up concern about unchecked growth in Govt numbers and the costs of it? This is all one-way self-preservation thinking. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.