Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:40 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Are you accusing me of acting unlawfully in regards to my taxes?

If so, I would be very careful sunshine, that is way outside the AUP

As for the origins and ethics of the stuff I sell: last time I looked there wneren't many, if any, Savile Row tailors or Jermyn Street shirtmakers that were outsourcing their cutting and tailoring to Bangladeshi sweatshops, unlike many multinationals. As for what is sold from my van, I'm very particular about what I carry. I've checked the provenance of most of our range but there are still some items that I will never keep in stock, let alone offer for sale.

I can't remember the last time I saw a rag and bone man out on the streets. A nicely cut hacking jacket from Gieves and Hawkes would certainly catch the eye atop the cart, although in these straitened times, I'm not sure there's many bespoke suits around, far less appearing on your stock list.

I'm impressed you have a range though. Have you a link to your Winter Catalogue?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:44 pm  

[quote="Him"]You haven't answered any question put to you at all.

Why do you blindly believe the company's position and not the Union?

Do you believe a company running a profit should make redundancies, reduce working conditions and wages just to keep director bonuses high?

I'm not sure what relevance your FTSE 100 paragraph or the paragraph about directors has, it's seemingly just an attempt to mask your unwillingness to answer the questions.

How much is the company paying Len McCluskey? Why would they pay someone who doesn't work for them?
What kind of car does Len McCluskey have? How does it, and his salary, compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?[/qu

I don't think I said the company were paying Mr McClusky?

On Mr McClusky's salary which I believe is the order of 125k - which is significantly less than Derek Simpson - not bad for a supposed socialist!! The differential between his salary and those of many of his members is significant. For someone on such a high salary he should have performed better in this dispute than he has and that should bring into question his value. Maybe he should concentrate on running his union rather than trying to run the labour party.

I believe a company has the right to do whatever it chooses if that means making redundancies so be it - I doubt very much the redundancies are made solely to keep director's bonus high - more about keeping share price and shareholders returns at a high level - but your myopia has been duly noted.

The point about the FTSE was to show what happens to firms that adopt your policy of paying everyone more for no additional added value.

I don't believe either the company or the union - but that is not the issue. The company stated its position it would invest 300m if the workforce made some concessions if not the site would be closed. The company never faltered from that position.

Now its your turn to answer some questions - can't see that happening anytime soon though

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:37 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

I can't remember the last time I saw a rag and bone man out on the streets. A nicely cut hacking jacket from Gieves and Hawkes would certainly catch the eye atop the cart, although in these straitened times, I'm not sure there's many bespoke suits around, far less appearing on your stock list.

I'm impressed you have a range though. Have you a link to your Winter Catalogue?

Gieves & Hawkes? Don't make me laugh.

Most of Gieves suits are now laser-cut and sewn in China, any bespoke they do undertake would only be at the low end of the spectrum and certainly not the quality of Gieves of old or the true master cutters who didn't sell out to the first hedge fund that came knocking. Yet another example of money getting involved in a business simply to make money, no matter what the cost to quality or reputation

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:18 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I believe a company has the right to do whatever it chooses if that means making redundancies so be it - I doubt very much the redundancies are made solely to keep director's bonus high - more about keeping share price and shareholders returns at a high level - but your myopia has been duly noted.

Ineos are a private company, no shares, no shareholders, just directors. Your ignorance has been duly noted.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:24 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't think I said the company were paying Mr McClusky?

Yes. You did.

Sal Paradise wrote:

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

Sal Paradise wrote:

On Mr McClusky's salary which I believe is the order of 125k - which is significantly less than Derek Simpson - not bad for a supposed socialist!! The differential between his salary and those of many of his members is significant. For someone on such a high salary he should have performed better in this dispute than he has and that should bring into question his value. Maybe he should concentrate on running his union rather than trying to run the labour party.

Once again you haven't answered the question. How does McCluskey's salary compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?

Sal Paradise wrote:

I believe a company has the right to do whatever it chooses if that means making redundancies so be it -

That wasn't the question asked. The company's right to make redundancies is not, and has never been, in doubt. The question was SHOULD a company that is running a profit make redundancies, reduce wages and working conditions?

Sal Paradise wrote:

I doubt very much the redundancies are made solely to keep director's bonus high - more about keeping share price and shareholders returns at a high level - but your myopia has been duly noted.

Thanks for proving you don't know what you're on about. But then you do freely admit to being in a different world to the rest of us.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The point about the FTSE was to show what happens to firms that adopt your policy of paying everyone more for no additional added value.

And isn't relevant to anything being discussed, quite apart from being a staggeringly ridiculous statement. Maybe in your own little world it's true.

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't believe either the company or the union - but that is not the issue.

Yes it is. It's very much the issue. If you, or in this case, the Union & the workers don't believe the company's position that the plant is unprofitable, then why should they take wage and conditions cuts?

Sal Paradise wrote:

The company stated its position it would invest 300m if the workforce made some concessions if not the site would be closed. The company never faltered from that position.

Nice attempted swerve. But that's not the position being discussed as you well know. So can you answer the question as to regards the actual position? That the plant was losing money?

Sal Paradise wrote:

Now its your turn to answer some questions - can't see that happening anytime soon though

Which questions? I answered yours straight away.
In contrast to yourself who has avoided or tried to swerve each question put to you several times now.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:54 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Ineos are a private company, no shares, no shareholders, just directors. Your ignorance has been duly noted.

Where did I ever mention Ineos in this? My statement was about companies in general - hence the point about directors and shareholders - and not specifically about Ineos. Your ignorance has again been duly noted.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:27 am  

Him wrote:

Yes. You did.
Once again you haven't answered the question. How does McCluskey's salary compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?

That wasn't the question asked. The company's right to make redundancies is not, and has never been, in doubt. The question was SHOULD a company that is running a profit make redundancies, reduce wages and working conditions?

Thanks for proving you don't know what you're on about. But then you do freely admit to being in a different world to the rest of us.

And isn't relevant to anything being discussed, quite apart from being a staggeringly ridiculous statement. Maybe in your own little world it's true.

Yes it is. It's very much the issue. If you, or in this case, the Union & the workers don't believe the company's position that the plant is unprofitable, then why should they take wage and conditions cuts?

Nice attempted swerve. But that's not the position being discussed as you well know. So can you answer the question as to regards the actual position? That the plant was losing money?

Which questions? I answered yours straight away.
In contrast to yourself who has avoided or tried to swerve each question put to you several times now.

On McClusky's salary what are you comparing to - Cameron's salary of 143k makes McClusky look over paid for the respective levels of responsibility. The idea that 1.4m people are relying on him is simply not reality - most are far more reliant on their employers doing the right thing than they are on McClusky. No bad thing if his performance in this dispute is anything to go by. To put his salary in context how many people does unite employ and what are their revenues - basing it on that might be better way of judging whether he is paid at the correct level.

Why should the workers take a pay cut - because that is the only game in town, the company made that perfectly clear. What bit of that did you not understand? Whether they make money or not was irrelevant and it has proved to be the case. The union have just capitulated and given in to every demand the company requested - so how relevant to the settlement of the dispute was the profitability or otherwise of the company?

Should a company making profits reduce labour costs by salary reductions and redundancies - depends on the future view of the business and the market it is in. An good company should be planning for the future and adjusting accordingly. Yes a profitable company should be looking to reduce labour costs if it sees troubled market conditions in the future - just sitting on its laurels as you are suggesting is a recipe for a nasty shock.

Was the plant losing money - neither you nor I really know the only people who really know is Ratcliffe and his directors. Given the directors were prepared to close it would suggest its a marginal call. I would not trust McClusky to have done sufficient exploration to truly understand the finances of the site - that is just not his style. He is a throw back to the 1970s his ego is much larger than his effectiveness as has been demonstrated but here and at the Labour conference.

So there you go some points for you to get your teeth into - I look forward to your considered responses.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:36 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Where did I ever mention Ineos in this? My statement was about companies in general - hence the point about directors and shareholders - and not specifically about Ineos. Your ignorance has again been duly noted.

If backpedaling were an Olympic sport...

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:08 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Ineos are a private company, no shares, no shareholders, just directors. Your ignorance has been duly noted.

A private company still has shares and in this case Jim Ratcliffe owns about two thirds. Your ignorance does not need noting as it is there for all to see!

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:09 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Your ignorance does not need noting as it is there for all to see!

Sick of having your booty handed to you no the Mitchell thread I see