RMT Not Happy with Hull KR

[Damien]

Still terrible for Hull KR to make this deal in the first place but fair play to them for now rectifying that.

Edited May 4 by Damien

[moorside roughyed]

Common sense has eventually prevailed at Hull KR.

[Forever Trinity]

As an ex Merchant Seaman I was disgusted at this deal by HKR thankfully they have binned it. I will never use P&O again and if the sponsor anything or anyone then I would refuse to be part on personal principles. Not that it matters this season as Wakefield are in the Championship but had HKR been in the same league then I wouldn't have attended games with them on principles. Without getting political that company is an utter disgrace and should be hounded out of business in UK waters rant over!

[Ullman]

20 hours ago, moorside roughyed said:

Common sense has eventually prevailed at Hull KR.

The backlash left them with no other option.

[Ullman]

8 hours ago, Forever Trinity said:

As an ex Merchant Seaman I was disgusted at this deal by HKR thankfully they have binned it. I will never use P&O again and if the sponsor anything or anyone then I would refuse to be part on personal principles. Not that it matters this season as Wakefield are in the Championship but had HKR been in the same league then I wouldn't have attended games with them on principles. Without getting political that company is an utter disgrace and should be hounded out of business in UK waters rant over!

There was an article in the Hull Daily Mail a while back about the terms and conditions that the crews now work under on the Hull to Rotterdam crossing.

They're little more than modern day slavery.

[moorside roughyed]

2 hours ago, Ullman said:

The backlash left them with no other option.

Indeed. The backlash was quite ferocious and rightly so.

Edited May 5 by moorside roughyed

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, Ullman said:

The backlash left them with no other option.

Hull KR had plenty of options. It would have been tomorrow’s fish paper soon enough, and everyone would have moved on. 

Instead, the club did the right thing.

 

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Hull KR had plenty of options. It would have been tomorrow’s fish paper soon enough, and everyone would have moved on. 

Instead, the club did the right thing.

The right thing would have been not doing the deal in the first place. They were forced to go back on that because of the backlash.

[Gooleboy]

14 minutes ago, Damien said:

The right thing would have been not doing the deal in the first place. They were forced to go back on that because of the backlash.

Well said.

[Dave T]

It's a weird take to criticise RL fans here. The story here is that RMT were criticising the deal, this wasn't just RL fans having a moan. 

[Worzel]

10 hours ago, Damien said:

The right thing would have been not doing the deal in the first place. They were forced to go back on that because of the backlash.

They weren’t forced to do anything. It would have been simple to ride it out, at most there would have been a week of noise. The P&O events weren’t even that horrendous by the standards of many modern companies.

But instead, the club listened to its fans and corrected their mistake.

I’m glad I have a club like that. 

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Worzel said:

They weren’t forced to do anything. It would have been simple to ride it out, at most there would have been a week of noise. The P&O events weren’t even that horrendous by the standards of many modern companies.

But instead, the club listened to its fans and corrected their mistake.

I’m glad I have a club like that. 

This isn't an interview for a major political party spin doctor mate

[Old Frightful]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This isn't an interview for a major political party spin doctor mate

Oh, that's very good!

Bravo Sir.

[Old Frightful]

Hull KR PR Manager :

"Calm down everyone, it was a genuine mistake. We had no idea that P&O sacked employees from Hull. It's not as though you can even see the ferry terminal from our home ground."

[Damien]

59 minutes ago, Worzel said:

They weren’t forced to do anything. It would have been simple to ride it out, at most there would have been a week of noise. The P&O events weren’t even that horrendous by the standards of many modern companies.

But instead, the club listened to its fans and corrected their mistake.

I’m glad I have a club like that. 

You can criticise your club, no one will think worse of you for it. Quite the opposite.

I'd prefer my club to be more in tune with local sensitivities so as to not accept such a deal in the first place. For a club that prides itself on its role within the community, and an owner who prides himself as a defender of the little person, it was a spectacular own goal and showed themselves very much out of touch.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

They weren’t forced to do anything. It would have been simple to ride it out, at most there would have been a week of noise. The P&O events weren’t even that horrendous by the standards of many modern companies.

But instead, the club listened to its fans and corrected their mistake.

I’m glad I have a club like that. 

I feel like you have missed an excellent opportunity to get the word 'values' I here.

[up the robins]

I'm pleased the club have listened to the fans and ended the deal that shouldn't really have ever got to the negotiation table.

The club made a mistake and corrected it.

A lot of people compared this to no different to ethics of beer companies,betting or vape sponsorship of clubs, for me this was different because, people have a choice if they want to use those products. Nobody chose to be made redundant so the company can effectively use a legal loophole to employ a foreign workforce on far reduced wages.

[Worzel]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

This isn't an interview for a major political party spin doctor mate

It's possible to criticise the club for taking the sponsorship in the first place, and also to recognise that they've done a good job in recognising their mistake and correcting it. Life isn't black & white.

I criticised them at the time, and also emailed people I know there in the back office team directly. I'm pleased that they reviewed their thinking around this, and chose values and the preferences of fans and small-scale commercial partners like me over the money. What would you prefer? For me, I respect that. 

There are lots of organisations with questionable ethics who sponsor sports teams, including many rugby league ones. My issue with P&O was one localised to East Hull community, and I'm glad the club listened. 

 

 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I feel like you have missed an excellent opportunity to get the word 'values' I here.

See my later response ^^ 

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Damien said:

You can criticise your club, no one will think worse of you for it. Quite the opposite.

I'd prefer my club to be more in tune with local sensitivities so as to not accept such a deal in the first place. For a club that prides itself on its role within the community, and an owner who prides himself as a defender of the little person, it was a spectacular own goal and showed themselves very much out of touch.

I did criticise them. Look, you may expect perfection, and think that both you and your club's leadership are capable of it. I on the other hand, do not. That's life. 

Let's be honest, a lot of the "will nobody think about the children..." hand-wringing around here is just fans of other clubs taking an opportunity to have a crack. It's a bit nauseating really, but good luck to them. 

[Ullman]

16 hours ago, Damien said:

The right thing would have been not doing the deal in the first place. They were forced to go back on that because of the backlash.

Spot on.

[Ullman]

4 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Oh, that's very good!

Bravo Sir.

 

4 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Hull KR PR Manager :

"Calm down everyone, it was a genuine mistake. We had no idea that P&O sacked employees from Hull. It's not as though you can even see the ferry terminal from our home ground."

As is that.

Bravo!

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Ullman said:

 

As is that.

Bravo!

Here's Hull FC's kit, 6 years after P&O had been bought by Dubai Ports. That company had at that time used bonded labour in its ports for years (locking immigrants in to their contracts), and was serially using cheap labour across its shipping workforce. The White House almost didn't allow the transaction to take place, such was the level of US concern at DP operating critical US port infrastructure.

So no, it's not unusual for sponsors to have ethical question marks about them. P&O did in 2012 when they sponsored you, I don't recall any concerns at the time. Doubt you gave it a second thought. Yes, they then later terminated 80 Hull-based employees without proper consultation (although with compensation beyond what they'd have got had a process been followed), but personally I put no greater value on a Hull worker's rights than I do the lives of Indian or Pakistani workers held to contracts against their will in the UAE. In fact, I'd say the latter was far, far worse behaviour. That's before we even start to look at the actions of the UAE government, who wholly own DP and so owned P&O at the time.

Like I said, all this holier-than-thou nonsense doesn't get past 5 minutes of thought. I objected to Rovers sponsorship, and complained to the club directly. You did nothing about yours. 

 

[Damien]

32 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Here's Hull FC's kit, 6 years after P&O had been bought by Dubai Ports. That company had at that time used bonded labour in its ports for years (locking immigrants in to their contracts), and was serially using cheap labour across its shipping workforce. The White House almost didn't allow the transaction to take place, such was the level of US concern at DP operating critical US port infrastructure.

So no, it's not unusual for sponsors to have ethical question marks about them. P&O did in 2012 when they sponsored you, I don't recall any concerns at the time. Doubt you gave it a second thought. Yes, they then later terminated 80 Hull-based employees without proper consultation (although with compensation beyond what they'd have got had a process been followed), but personally I put no greater value on a Hull worker's rights than I do the lives of Indian or Pakistani workers held to contracts against their will in the UAE. In fact, I'd say the latter was far, far worse behaviour. That's before we even start to look at the actions of the UAE government, who wholly own DP and so owned P&O at the time.

Like I said, all this holier-than-thou nonsense doesn't get past 5 minutes of thought. I objected to Rovers sponsorship, and complained to the club directly. You did nothing about yours. 

 

Talk about deflection.

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Talk about deflection.

No, it's all wholly factual. I'm open to any correction, and not deflecting.

My position is simple, and consistent. Others is demonstrably hypocritical, and cynical opportunism. I'm calling it out. 

1. Rovers should never have accepted this sponsorship. I said so, still say so, and I acted at the time to influence change.

2. The club reconsidering after fan feedback and cancelling the agreement was a good thing, to be respected albeit it should never have been needed. Others may not have done that, and I appreciate it. 

3. Many sponsors have questionable ethics. Hull FC fans have been very noisy about this one, as if they had some high ground, when in fact they have also been sponsored by the very same organisation at a time when they were no better. DP World and P&O has done, and still does, far worse things than laying some people off without following the proper process. 

I'm very happy that my position here is balanced and reasonable. That's far more than I could say for others.