Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:43 am  

Mintball wrote:

Although I also think that that op-ed is interesting in its analysis of his style of management as being quite prevalent in the UK today.

My personal experience of UK management...

I'd agree with that. Admittedly only going from my own experiences and observations but in both public and private sector workplaces, what I've seen, backs up your point. Management is either too friendly and unwilling to confront people doing something wrong, or treats people like sh|t. Often, in large organisations, both at the same time! The higher/middle management will treat people very badly and almost be looking for confrontation and something that's wrong however minor. And the Junior management will be too friendly, especially with certain people, and not pull people up who aren't doing their job.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:44 pm  

Scarily similar in looks and management styles...

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:55 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Scarily similar in looks and management styles...

Perhaps.
Have you tried a picture of Simon Cowell with a wig on and compared him with the guy Mark who ran the Grosvenor (or Grovesnor as he used to call it)?
Separated at birth I would say.
lol

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:39 pm  

Mintball wrote:

... which the union did not believe, saying that 'create accounting' was the reason that the company claimed it was losing money when it was not in reality.

No, it's not. Any more than the use of vertical trading (if I remember the term correctly) is one of the reasons that domestic fuel bills are so high and the companies get to claim they're paying a fortune to wholesalers when they're actually pretty much paying it to themselves.

If the company is using creative accounting to manipulate its finances so that it can claim to be far worse off than it is, in order to shove down pay, pensions, terms & conditions etc, then it is light years away from being a "red herring".

Because it's a stonkingly brill market for someone hunting a job, isn't it? You don't live in "the real world", do you?

Your struggle with comprehension shows yet again - the point about it being a red herring is this - it is irrelevant whether the company is moving money around it had a stated position that it made as a condition of the investment. McClusky being bouyed by the bullying of Milleband at the Labour conference told Ratcliffe to put up or shut up and was duly shown to be well out his depth. The fact he was prepared to risk so many jobs on such bravado should have anyone with half a brain questioning whether he is fit for purpose.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:49 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Your struggle with comprehension shows yet again - the point about it being a red herring is this - it is irrelevant whether the company is moving money around it had a stated position that it made as a condition of the investment. McClusky being bouyed by the bullying of Milleband at the Labour conference told Ratcliffe to put up or shut up and was duly shown to be well out his depth. The fact he was prepared to risk so many jobs on such bravado should have anyone with half a brain questioning whether he is fit for purpose.

Yet we shouldn't question the motives of a company willing to shut down a refinery just to show tough they are? Or should people just accept a company's position whenever it is stated without complaint or attempt to change it?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 1:53 pm  

Yes, Mintball has consistently demonstrated that she struggles with comprehension.
Derr!
Or Durr!

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:02 pm  

Him wrote:

Yet we shouldn't question the motives of a company willing to shut down a refinery just to show tough they are? Or should people just accept a company's position whenever it is stated without complaint or attempt to change it?

The company doesn't have to operate here - what should it have done capitulate to McClusky?

Do you think businesses should run with a negative returns just to keep people in a job - you actually believe that don't you? One thing is for sure if it was your business you would not run it at loss to keep the McClusky et al in their flash German motors

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:19 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The company doesn't have to operate here - what should it have done capitulate to McClusky?

Do you think businesses should run with a negative returns just to keep people in a job - you actually believe that don't you? One thing is for sure if it was your business you would not run it at loss to keep the McClusky et al in their flash German motors

But that's assuming and believing the company's position isn't it? Why do you blindly believe the company but not the Union?
Do you believe a company running at a profit should make redundancies, reduce wages and working conditions just to keep their company director bonuses high?

To answer your questions, no you don't capitulate, you negotiate in good faith.
Why would you think I believe that? What else do I believe? Why don't you tell me? You're good at telling other people stuff aren't you? Is that because you live in the real world but no-one else does? Funnily enough a representative from the company was on 5Live today and even said "we operate in the real world". I laughed so much a little bit of wee came out.

Why? How much are this company paying Len McClusky? Why would they pay someone who doesn't work for them?
What kind of car does Len McClusky have by the way? How does it compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:58 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The company doesn't have to operate here - what should it have done capitulate to McClusky?

Do you think businesses should run with a negative returns just to keep people in a job - you actually believe that don't you? One thing is for sure if it was your business you would not run it at loss to keep the McClusky et al in their flash German motors

Of course it doesn't have to operate here and given the cost of energy in such an energy-intensive business, you have to question why, if they really are losing £10m per month, they have persisted in doing so. They haven't appeared to be sp philanthropic in the past.

Mintball was earlier referring to transfer pricing. It's how companies like Ineos, Starbucks, Pepsico operate, simply to present a low or zero-profit UK operation in order to avoid CT.

Walkers crisps is a prime example: prior to the Pepsico takeover, Walkers bought their spuds from Lincolnshire farmers and flavourings, veg oils, packaging etc from other UK suppliers. The same spuds and sundries are now bought from the same people but are purchased by a Swiss-based Pepsico subsidiary. This subsidiary resells to Walkers at a whopping markup, ensuring that the UK Walkers operation makes minimal profit and avoids paying its fair share of tax to the exchequer.

Do you seriously contend that is an ethical way to conduct business?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:06 pm  

As long as its legal, do you think that the thousands of employees who are dependant on Walkers et al for their salaries gives a flying one?

You want ethical? Join a monastery , produce something nice, and feel all is well in the World.