P&O are doing to their workforce what Thatcherism empowered them to do

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

The Tories, neo-liberals in the Labour Party, and the media built a Britain which allowed P&O to treat their staff like serfs (EPA)

P&O Ferries have sacked 800 workers via Zoom and intend to replace them with lower paid agency workers. The owner of P&O is DP World, which made a profit of £2.9bn last year. P&O claimed almost £15m in government grants in 2020, including furlough payments relating to the coronavirus pandemic.

Tory politicians and the British mainstream media have expressed outrage at P&O’s behaviour. Yet these are the same forces that have supported 43 years of neo-liberal policies which empowered employers to put profits before their employees.

The Conservatives and their supporters in the media created anti-union laws that were specifically designed to stop workers being able to defend themselves against bad employers.

P&O are doing to their workforce what Thatcherism empowered them to do. The Conservative Party, the neo-liberals in the Labour Party, and the British mainstream media built a Britain that allows P&O to treat their staff like serfs.

It was the Thatcherites who insisted “there’s no such thing as society”. Only the organised labour movement can stop P&O.

The RMT union must fight P&O tooth and nail for every job. Ships must be occupied and the ports must be forcibly shut by pickets until P&O retreat from their folly.

Militancy must force the government to put P&O into public ownership without a penny in compensation to the grasping current owners. In the longer term, workers must build a fighting trade union movement which will make bosses scared of their workforce again.

Sasha Simic

London

A solution to the P&O situation

As someone who used to sail frequently on cross-Channel ferries, may I propose a solution to the regrettable P&O situation that may appeal to the post-Brexit fantasy elements in the “government”: reinstate the Grayling contract with Seaborne Freight from three years ago to operate with no ships.

No ships, no overheads, no fuel costs, no crew salaries or concerns, no freight paperwork there’s such a tiresome fuss about, and less unnecessary travel to visit or trade with our “European friends”.

Job done, have a drink.

Rick Biddulph

Surrey

Freedom in Russia

The largest problem about war on Ukraine is that it could happen again. Putin’s ludicrous demand for demilitarisation of Ukraine reflects a real need for the demilitarisation of Russian state media and their straitjacket of lies.

Most Russian people believe a fantasy world of Russia confronted by enemies waiting to strike. Russians do not need conquests. They need freedom to hear the truth. They would never elect a criminal like Putin again.

The keys to the future are a working democracy and freedom of expression in Russia. Russia would be on its way to integration in Europe, to the immense benefit of its people.

Tim Cox

Switzerland

British workers vs overseas agency staff

I clearly remember voters being told that once we left the EU, British workers could not be undercut by foreign workers. Also I am certain that our prime minister promised a high-wage, high-skill economy after Brexit. Last but not least I recall the RMT stating continued EU membership threatens workers rights and advising members to vote leave.

What I am not sure about is how, after many heeded the above advice, all British workers at P&O are now singularly unemployed, whereas overseas agency staff (reportedly lower paid) are taking their places onboard ship?

Robert Boston

Kent

UK government aid

Given India is undermining sanctions against Russia, should the UK government suspend aid it gives to any country which acts in this way?

J Longstaff

East Sussex

Long live Ukraine

Today’s edition raised the quandary that many young Russians find themselves in and Mary Dejevsky provides some explanation of what Russia might be seeking.

Whatever outcome arises, the failure of Russia’s expedition should be clear for all to see.

I struggle to accept that Ukraine must cede anything to Soviet brutality and any increase over their position prior to the invasion must be seen as a failure unless it carries clear advantages for Ukraine. Russia must pay for all the damage it has caused and the suffering borne by Ukrainians. Money cannot replace lives and families and treasured possessions, but adequate recompense is a salve.

If Russia refuses, then the west will undoubtedly step in and provide what Ukraine needs to re-build and recover. That being the case, the western sanctions against Russia must be long term and ensure equivalent pain to their economy – plus whatever our current plans are.

Any state offering succour to Russia in trade, arms, or other support should be subject to sanctions that make such support very costly. We are, I hope, entering a new paradigm where aggression is recognised as counterproductive and expensive.

Populations must understand that brutality in whatever form (military or trade sanctions) will cost the aggressor and result in isolation. Ukraine must also not be forced to be neutral – that sounds very safe, but it means that no support could be offered to Nato or other states in the event that Russia tries similar aggressions (history does repeat itself, as we are painfully learning).

Russia is showing itself to be a bully which cannot deliver what it threatened. Talk of strengthening the state and removing dissidents portrays only one principal aspect of their character – nasty aggression and dictatorship.

We must not bow down to such aggression and we must support Ukraine in every way short of direct military involvement. I am extremely frustrated by the passive support that Nato has adopted, but anything else would only play into Putin’s corrupt government’s hands and allow them to proclaim the existential threat that they imagine exists.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Nato being supportive but inactive is in the best interests of Ukraine and ourselves. It is a perfect demonstration of the stated defensive purpose that poses no direct threat to Russia. Only a UN resolution can justify an international force interceding.

Khai zhive Ukraine – long live Ukraine.

Michael Mann

Shrewsbury