Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:13 pm  

There are times I actually miss Wigan Fan. He could be pompous, aggressive and unnecessarily abusive at times but at least he could engage in a coherent argument.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:53 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Ineos "Do it my way"
Union "No, you do it MY way"
Ineos "We'll shut the plant"
Union "Don't believe you"

Archetypal situation of Management V Union, both more bothered about willy-waving than trying to see the other's point of view.

Could be wrong but that's how it looks..

Or you could say this is how it looks:
Ineos Grangemouth: haemoraging money (£10 million a month) - main source of of oil, the Forties North Sea pipeline now provides half what it used to and is dwindling by the month. Refining in Britain is dying - last year the Coryton refinery in Essex closed after its parent Petroplus went bust. We cannot compete with the much larger refineries in India or Saudi Arabia which are run at a fraction of the cost. The UK industry was built to produce petrol, for which demand has been falling for 15 years. More efficent engines and enviromental controls have led to a rise in demand for diesel that the domestic market refineries cannot meet and they are all old (60's & 70's) The future of refining has been debated in the Commons this summer. The specialist consultancy Purvin & Gertz estimated that the refiners need to invest £5.5bn over the next 10 years just to keep operating "most of which would not generate any return on investment"

Union: When the activist Unite union called its strike this month, it was over the Deans dismissal rather than the more pressing problem of Grangemouth survival. Deans it transpired had used the company time (25%) and resources for his Labour Party ambitions which included the vote rigging scandal at the Falkirk elections. Although the two issues later combined it was the Deans dispute that led to the industrial action that took Grangemouth to the brink.

El Barbudo wrote:

I've been doing a bit of background reading and I wouldn't want to be negotiating with Jim Ratcliffe, his history suggests he's a "My way or the highway" type who is well used to using brinkmanship to get his way.

Well he sure is one tough Tyke. In June the 61 year old took part in the Comrades ultramarathon in South Africa . He finished the 56 mile endurance test in 11 hours. In 2009 he trecked to the North Pole.

I think his history proves he says exactly what he means and only a fool should think he is bluffing. He offered a clear survival plan that needed the workforce to make some contributions and stability guarantees towards their joint futures in return for some serious new investment (£300million) to convert the outdated plant into a new terminal to import super cheap shale gas from the States. He had already negotiated with the banks and the government to underwrite a £125m loan but the intransigent unions, Mr Salmond and Whitehall did not seem to appreciate that Grangemouth was worth a lot more to them than to Ineos who last year made £1.7bn profits on t/o of £27bn and were getting tired of pouring some of this down the Grangemouth drain.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:45 pm  

One crucial fact you and the vast majority of the press have omitted from your accounts of Grangemouth is the result of the ballot for a change to working practises. The ballot ended with a majority of ten (10) in favour of accepting the proposals. The management interpreted this as a refusal and issued the closedown threat.

If that's not confrontational, I don't know what is.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:53 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

On Mr McClusky's salary which I believe is the order of 125k ... not bad for a supposed socialist!!

This is a typical red herring.

But I admit curiosity: what is the going rate for "a supposed socialist" these days, in the UK?

Does it vary with the level of responsibility or the nature of the job?

And where, if you're able to provide straight answers to these questions, do you conclude all this from? Please quote the ... err, 'socialist bible' or whatever it is to prove your claim.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:39 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

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!

Your deliberate missing of the point is very clear too.
Mr Paradise was making the distinction that, in his admitted guess, the directors would be seeking to improve dividends and share values for their shareholders rather than for their own gain.
As the directors in this case ARE the shareholders, it is still for their own gain.

We can all split hairs, it doesn't invalidate the point that the directors are seeking to increase their own fortunes.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:17 am  

El Barbudo wrote: Your deliberate missing of the point is very clear too. Mr Paradise was making the distinction that, in his admitted guess, the directors would be seeking to improve dividends and share values for their shareholders rather than for their own gain. As the directors in this case ARE the shareholders, it is still for their own gain. We can all split hairs, it doesn't invalidate the point that the directors are seeking to increase their own fortunes. Yes, imagine that! Someone tasked with input which results in increasing Company profit, and job security for their workforce, should get to share in this financial good fortune with other shareholders. It'll never catch on. However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more PHOTOGENIC? And will the bold Ed step up and smack down the guys whose votes got him the top job?

El Barbudo wrote: Your deliberate missing of the point is very clear too. Mr Paradise was making the distinction that, in his admitted guess, the directors would be seeking to improve dividends and share values for their shareholders rather than for their own gain. As the directors in this case ARE the shareholders, it is still for their own gain. We can all split hairs, it doesn't invalidate the point that the directors are seeking to increase their own fortunes. Yes, imagine that! Someone tasked with input which results in increasing Company profit, and job security for their workforce, should get to share in this financial good fortune with other shareholders. It'll never catch on. However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more PHOTOGENIC? And will the bold Ed step up and smack down the guys whose votes got him the top job?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:00 am  

Mintball wrote:

This is a typical red herring.

But I admit curiosity: what is the going rate for "a supposed socialist" these days, in the UK?

Does it vary with the level of responsibility or the nature of the job?

And where, if you're able to provide straight answers to these questions, do you conclude all this from? Please quote the ... err, 'socialist bible' or whatever it is to prove your claim.

One thing is very interesting about Unite - they still have a final salary scheme in place. The members, most of whom will have had their final salary scheme replaced as it simply too expensive to fund, will be paying to support a scheme to benefit union officials that they themselves will never benefit.

What is a rate for a Socialist - perhaps multiples of the lowest paid employee i.e. the Swedish x 12 or Richard Rogers' organisation.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Would you say that covers it?

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:04 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Would you say that covers it?

No, I'd say that is more akin to Communism than the sort of Socialism that we have ever seen in the history of Socialism in the UK.

It is however the view of most Americans that Socialism IS Communism hence their panic at the first post WWII Labour government and the view of most Republicans ever since.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:16 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... What is a rate for a Socialist - perhaps multiples of the lowest paid employee i.e. the Swedish x 12 or Richard Rogers' organisation.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Would you say that covers it?

You may need to begin with an understanding of what socialism is and how it differs from communism.

But no, irrespective of accuracy, it doesn't come even close to providing a basis for what "a supposed socialist" should expect to receive as pay in any society, and particularly not in a society that is not organised in such a way.

Mind, "perhaps" is not a sound basis for trying to provide something concrete as a basis for your comment, although it might suggest that you have made the comment without actually thinking about it.

Re: Unite and Grangemouth : Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:28 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

...It'll never catch on...

I didn't say it wouldn't.
I was simply pointing out the disingenous interpretation.
That the brinkmanship is about getting more money for themselves, at the expense of the workforce, is a valid opinion.

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

...However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more PHOTOGENIC?

I'm not concerned with the prettiness or otherwise of Trade Union officials but, hey-ho, each to their own, knock yourself out.