Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Grangemouth distillery

76 posts in this topic

They wouldn't but they would use the apparent non- profitability / high losses to bully the workforce to accept lower pay and conditions. When in reality the business is viable and profitable

This seems like an incredible statement to make. I assume that you can back this up with something other that the fact that it's blindingly obvious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't but they would use the apparent non- profitability / high losses to bully the workforce to accept lower pay and conditions. When in reality the business is viable and profitable

Time will tell. If the plant closes then we can safely assume that it was not "apparent". That would be taking bluffing a little too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man at the heart of the affair is Stephen Deans, convener of the Unite union in Scotland, who has worked at Grangemouth for 24 years. It was Mr Deans' role as chairman of the Labour Party in the Falkirk constituency which landed him in hot water with his employer.

In short, the union official was accused of trying to rig the selection of a candidate for Westminster. It was claimed that Mr Deans had signed up dozens of new members for Labour, promising the recruits that Unite would pay their membership fees on the understanding that they would back the union's choice in the contest to select a new Labour candidate to stand for parliament in Falkirk, to replace the disgraced Eric Joyce.

 

 So it is always possible that the union member should be blaming Unite in some way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would they wish to close it down if it was making a profit?

Companies don't work that way.

 

 

It could be that the Grangemouth situation is directly comparable to the situation with Google and Vodaphone's UK tax liabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the Grangemouth situation is directly comparable to the situation with Google and Vodaphone's UK tax liabilities.

The owners are Swiss based I read. Not sure whether this is that they're actually Swiss based or have a nominal based there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an answer to this.  Nationalisation.

 

Stage 1:  Nationalise it.  Pay Ineos the very lowest end of a fair market price, obviously taking into account a cold refinery, a closed petrochemical plant, a hostile union, their claims of massive ongoing losses and so on.  Do you think £1 would be too much?

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

 

Is it only me that sees this could be the much talked about, but seldom seen third way. Giving employees a genuine stake in their business combined with meaningful engagement with management and participation in the "big decisions" has to be a good thing. We really need to move away from the "them and us" mentality of the past. Unfortunately there are still far to many in positions of power, on both sides (employers and unions). Ideally there would be no need for unions at all, and I say that as a socialist, not because I want rid of them but because of legislation and decent employment practice by employers would make them redundant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an answer to this.  Nationalisation.

 

Stage 1:  Nationalise it.  Pay Ineos the very lowest end of a fair market price, obviously taking into account a cold refinery, a closed petrochemical plant, a hostile union, their claims of massive ongoing losses and so on.  Do you think £1 would be too much?

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

I like what you are saying, but if the plant is the basket case that Ineos are claiming, just take it off their hands for £1, that way they would immediately save the £10million per month drain on their accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an answer to this.  Nationalisation.

 

Stage 1:  Nationalise it.  Pay Ineos the very lowest end of a fair market price, obviously taking into account a cold refinery, a closed petrochemical plant, a hostile union, their claims of massive ongoing losses and so on.  Do you think £1 would be too much?

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

 

 

 

Go further than that, hand the plant over to the workers to run it as a worker owned and managed co-op. The workers to make all the descisions which affect them, pay rates, pensions, business plan, production etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an answer to this.  Nationalisation.

 

Stage 1:  Nationalise it.  Pay Ineos the very lowest end of a fair market price, obviously taking into account a cold refinery, a closed petrochemical plant, a hostile union, their claims of massive ongoing losses and so on.  Do you think £1 would be too much?

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

Good stuff, what's my cut? If the workers are getting something for making it more profitable, then what do I get for propping it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a coffee with a friend who knows all about the insider world of this kind of thing.  He's certainly no friend of the unions.  I'm now thoroughly convinced that Unite have been Scargilled.  They've been prodded repeatedly until they step into a fight with an opponent who has planned for one and really, really doesn't care if they don't win, just as long as they don't lose to the unions.

 

Unite aren't blameless by any means, it took a threat to one of their union shop stewards before they really stepped up even though unionised workers have been getting the rough end for a good bit of time now.  Just like Scargill, a direct challenge to the union was too much for their egos to handle and they gave Ineos a free hit when they threatened a strike and site shutdown over a shop steward who didn't like being investigated for potentially doing dodgy things on staff time.

 

What it has done is help convince me even further that things like this have no business being run purely for commercial reasons.  All it will take is the owner to shrug and walk away for Scotland to lose 80% of its fuel supplies, the tax write-off alone would make it quite short-term profitable to close the plant then he can just get another subsidiary to buy the plant in liquidation, hire new workers in a non-unionised plant and make even more money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a coffee with a friend who knows all about the insider world of this kind of thing.  He's certainly no friend of the unions.  I'm now thoroughly convinced that Unite have been Scargilled.  They've been prodded repeatedly until they step into a fight with an opponent who has planned for one and really, really doesn't care if they don't win, just as long as they don't lose to the unions.

 

Unite aren't blameless by any means, it took a threat to one of their union shop stewards before they really stepped up even though unionised workers have been getting the rough end for a good bit of time now.  Just like Scargill, a direct challenge to the union was too much for their egos to handle and they gave Ineos a free hit when they threatened a strike and site shutdown over a shop steward who didn't like being investigated for potentially doing dodgy things on staff time.

 

What it has done is help convince me even further that things like this have no business being run purely for commercial reasons.  All it will take is the owner to shrug and walk away for Scotland to lose 80% of its fuel supplies, the tax write-off alone would make it quite short-term profitable to close the plant then he can just get another subsidiary to buy the plant in liquidation, hire new workers in a non-unionised plant and make even more money.

Unfortunately this is now the way of the world. A situation aided and abetted by first Brown with his pension changes then Blair and Mandelson with the 'light touch' attitude to business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entire site to stay open now

 

Is there any point to union members on site paying their dues any longer?

 

Under the deal, Unite has agreed to a three-year pay freeze, a cut to pension benefits via the abolition of the final salary retirement scheme now £200m in deficit, changes to union agreements on site including no full time union convenors and, most controversially, an undertaking not to strike for three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an answer to this.  Nationalisation.

 

Stage 1:  Nationalise it.  Pay Ineos the very lowest end of a fair market price, obviously taking into account a cold refinery, a closed petrochemical plant, a hostile union, their claims of massive ongoing losses and so on.  Do you think £1 would be too much?

Stage 2:  De-power the unions who'd quite happily kill the plant to get their way by creating a John Lewis style co-operative Partnership.  A few idiot moves by unions that cost the company lots of money and, by association, reduce the money going into employees' hands via profit shares will see them shown the door.

So, when you've nationalised it and made choosing not to work illegal, all in the name of national security. Which other vital services will you want to remove workers rights from? Nurses? Teachers? etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when you've nationalised it and made choosing not to work illegal, all in the name of national security. Which other vital services will you want to remove workers rights from? Nurses? Teachers? etc

 

Where does he say there that he would make choosing not to work illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does he say there that he would make choosing not to work illegal?

It's a "critical industry", therefore there can be nothing that could potentially harm the running of it, choosing not to work will do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, when you've nationalised it and made choosing not to work illegal, all in the name of national security. Which other vital services will you want to remove workers rights from? Nurses? Teachers? etc

 

 

Haha yeah, you really care about workers rights don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the seventies, we had unions doing basically the same that INEOS have just done i.e. Wining a dispute by holding a gun to the head of the other party. It wasn't right then and has been soundly criticised by most right minded people.

so I ask the question why is this case any different, it is still one side bullying the other into submission, but in this case the victor will be hailed as completing a great piece of business, whilst the general working conditions of the country continue to move further backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha yeah, you really care about workers rights don't you?

As a "worker" I certainly do. I'm not the one advocating totalitarian state control over "critical industries".

 

The average "worker" has the power to change many things, and the poor oppressed masses will no doubt one day rise up and cast off the shackles of the capitalist system that buries them slowly. But it'll have to wait until they've paid off the conservatory. And the kids' ipads. Oh, DFS will be needing their chunk for the next couple of years, it was interest free after all. And Sky. Plus Curry's, because what's the point of watching rugby if it isn't being shown through a 42 inch HD tv. And they said they'd take the kids to Disney next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a "worker" I certainly do. I'm not the one advocating totalitarian state control over "critical industries".

 

 

 

 

Neither am I, I'm advocating workers control of industry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24758166

 

Seems a strange way to improve relations/negotiate with the management?

 

 

Oh dear, poor managers, all they wanted to do was shut the plant down and throw the workers on the dole :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017