A P&O situation looming in the IOMSPCo?

[Banker]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Except that doesn’t make sense. That sailing took 10+ hours. They could have got into Heysham and waited until back in hours. 

And, in any event there was no second crew because it was on Mx so he’s not comparing like with like.

And it is very rare.

Anyway, this is what Nautilus are saying.

Welcome to your e-telegraph

Nautilus is fighting back on behalf of members after Isle of Man Steam Packet Co pulled out of negotiations on contractual changes.

The company is demanding that they spend a minimum of 76 extra days per year living onboard – representing weeks away from their families.

When our members refused to accept this the company threatened to fire and rehire crew, in a disturbing echo of P&O Ferries.

It has also refused to accept impartial arbitration on the issue, which the Union requested.

With an industrial dispute increasingly likely due to IOMSPCo's behaviour, Nautilus stands ready to fight on behalf our members and inform the public about the company's intransigence.

I guess there’s a middle ground, they offer the enhanced benefits, increased salary etc to those who accept new contracts & those who don’t are given reduced benefits etc . They then see if they get enough acceptance of new terms , but nautilus sound a bit like Mick Lynch etc they want a confrontation with company/ government & if passengers are massively affected then they don’t really care 

[Andy Onchan]

2 hours ago, The Listening Ear said:

 

I don’t work for either but I know a lot of people that will be affected by this change and I stand firmly with them in opposition to these bullying tactics by the on shore management. 

How many, exactly?

[The Listening Ear]

57 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

How many, exactly?

I’d say around 20

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Banker said:

I guess there’s a middle ground, they offer the enhanced benefits, increased salary etc to those who accept new contracts & those who don’t are given reduced benefits etc . They then see if they get enough acceptance of new terms , but nautilus sound a bit like Mick Lynch etc they want a confrontation with company/ government & if passengers are massively affected then they don’t really care 

If Nautilus is correct and it means 76 more nights on board and they average 183 days on rota ( less leave ) on a week on/off or two weeks on/off they’re actually only on rota for 150-160 days at present. So they’re currently required to live on board between 75/80 days. So it’s a 100% increase.

I don’t think Nautilus or Mick Lynch are extreme. Far from it. MSM may portray them as such. But not negotiating, refusing arbitration, not talking is extreme. And that’s the employer. And 86% of nautilus members with SPCo don’t agree the terms currently on offer.

The 14% - my guess - is recent recruits from the Baltic who joined on the new terms. Of course SPCo shouldn’t have offered those terms out of the scope of their agreement with the union.

And still no one is able to say what if any real benefit this brings

 

[WTF]

42 minutes ago, The Listening Ear said:

I’d say around 20

you're a bar worker then ?

[manxman1980]

10 hours ago, The Listening Ear said:

I’ve never heard of any sailings cancelled due to lack of crew. Only ever weather or technical related cancellations. 

Is it not possible that cancellations due to lack of crew were covered by stating technical issues (we haven't got enough people to run the vessel) or weather rather than assign 'blame' to the crew?

 

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Is it not possible that cancellations due to lack of crew were covered by stating technical issues (we haven't got enough people to run the vessel) or weather rather than assign 'blame' to the crew?

 

Might the SPCo lie about reasons for cancellation? Of course, they might.

Have the Steam Packet lied about reasons for cancellation? I think it’s very unlikely. And if they did it would have leaked very quickly.

[Mercenary]

15 hours ago, The Listening Ear said:

I’ve never heard of any sailings cancelled due to lack of crew. Only ever weather or technical related cancellations. 

Well is it not more that rather than a sailing being cancelled both ways they can possibly run one leg and stay in Heysham?

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

Well is it not more that rather than a sailing being cancelled both ways they can possibly run one leg and stay in Heysham?

Possibly. 

But, if you’re only running one boat, in winter, when it’s most likely to happen, that has a knock on effect on the next scheduled service(s). You don’t actually get any more sailings or better service, just extended disruption.

Of course, if you have a spare boat, like the Ben, but the crew are on the Mx, you can’t run the Ben. Unless you employ two full sets of crews all year round, just in case. And there’s a huge cost to that.

[woolley]

17 hours ago, The Listening Ear said:

I’ve never heard of any sailings cancelled due to lack of crew. Only ever weather or technical related cancellations. 

If you are as connected as you say you are, this is an extremely disingenuous comment.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, Mercenary said:

Well is it not more that rather than a sailing being cancelled both ways they can possibly run one leg and stay in Heysham?

Of course it is. Clearly, you cannot sail from Heysham if the necessary crew are in Douglas! If they are aboard the ship, then you can. Obvious.

[woolley]

9 hours ago, John Wright said:

 

I don’t think Nautilus or Mick Lynch are extreme. Far from it. 

 

Not much is Lynch extreme. He was advocating a general strike last year.

[Mercenary]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Possibly. 

But, if you’re only running one boat, in winter, when it’s most likely to happen, that has a knock on effect on the next scheduled service(s). You don’t actually get any more sailings or better service, just extended disruption.

Of course, if you have a spare boat, like the Ben, but the crew are on the Mx, you can’t run the Ben. Unless you employ two full sets of crews all year round, just in case. And there’s a huge cost to that.

I don't quite follow this one. Surely not losing one HEY-IOM sailing has reasonable benefits, particularly with freight which stacks up and is presumably heavier loaded on the inbound route (especially with food and other time sensitive deliveries prioritised, increasing the disruption for 'non priority' freight which may take several days to catch up). There is also greater flexibility to adjust timetable around weather events and move out of the harbour to run at least a one-way sailing. If you can retain one freight (perhaps even pax) run rather than lose two each time their would be a performance improvement.

 

Whether 'the juice is worth the squeeze' for a handful of sailings a year (10 maybe?), I'm not so sure. But Steam Packet clearly think so...

[woolley]

15 minutes ago, Mercenary said:

I don't quite follow this one. Surely not losing one HEY-IOM sailing has reasonable benefits, particularly with freight which stacks up and is presumably heavier loaded on the inbound route (especially with food and other time sensitive deliveries prioritised, increasing the disruption for 'non priority' freight which may take several days to catch up). There is also greater flexibility to adjust timetable around weather events and move out of the harbour to run at least a one-way sailing. If you can retain one freight (perhaps even pax) run rather than lose two each time their would be a performance improvement.

 

Whether 'the juice is worth the squeeze' for a handful of sailings a year (10 maybe?), I'm not so sure. But Steam Packet clearly think so...

Indeed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, it seems incomprehensible to me that people are saying they can't see what the issue is, and the enhanced flexibility that exists if the night and day crews are aboard ready to sign on wherever the ship happens to be.

[John Wright]

8 hours ago, Mercenary said:

I don't quite follow this one. Surely not losing one HEY-IOM sailing has reasonable benefits, particularly with freight which stacks up and is presumably heavier loaded on the inbound route (especially with food and other time sensitive deliveries prioritised, increasing the disruption for 'non priority' freight which may take several days to catch up). There is also greater flexibility to adjust timetable around weather events and move out of the harbour to run at least a one-way sailing. If you can retain one freight (perhaps even pax) run rather than lose two each time their would be a performance improvement.

 

Whether 'the juice is worth the squeeze' for a handful of sailings a year (10 maybe?), I'm not so sure. But Steam Packet clearly think so...

 

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Indeed. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the dispute, it seems incomprehensible to me that people are saying they can't see what the issue is, and the enhanced flexibility that exists if the night and day crews are aboard ready to sign on wherever the ship happens to be.

Except, that’s not practical.

Any benefit is illusory.

The boats run to a published timetable. You’d end up running it in reverse, which would cause mayhem, for passengers and freight.

The timetable doesn’t have margin for catch up and you’d have to drop a sailing at some stage to get back in synch.