Sad state of affairs at Grangemouth

Spuff

Spuff

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,236
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I know it's probably a lot more complex than reported but what a shame we can't have a more collaborative approach (from all sides) to industrial relations and moving business forward - more like I understand the German's have adopted.

Instead we have the age old adversarial "us and them" stance to the detriment of the business and employees. And now there are 800 people out of work on the run up to Christmas with the potential for the refinery to close too.
 
I don't know the details of this dispute (ie where the blame lies or if it is even sensible to talk about blame) but it is very sad that, unless there is some rescue, 800 people are going to lose their jobs.

Dave
 
Damned bad state of affairs. Not at all sure that the truth is on the surface.
 
I've been following the debate elsewhere, Grangemouth made a £150 million loss last year, no firm can carry those sort of losses long term, it really does seem to have been a case of "keep the pension, lose the job" or "lose the pension, keep the job" (and the accompanying wage adjustments).

The unions should have tried to negotiate a short term agreement on the lower terms with a sunset clause for a renegotiation when the plant turns around.
 
Last edited:
Dave, the entire Ineos company in the uk (according to them) made a 150 million pound loss last year though other sources say it's 150mil over four years, Grangemouth made a 10-50mil profit last year depending what source you read. Ineos is a huge company with a turnover in billions and has a very aggressive attitude to it's workforce, they claim now that Grangemouth is unprofitable because its product isn't selling for as much but Grangemouth isn't responsible for selling losses, other parts of the company are.
They told the workforce they would shut the plant if they went on strike and demanded a promise not to strike for the rest of this year, the union said yes to that but Ineos shut it down anyway, basically they want the union gone and the workforce to accept a freeze and pension cut.

The problem with Ineos is they make it really difficult to find the true profitability of their company, they just have written off nearly £500 million in loans they made to themselves for goodness sake!
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
Dave, the entire Ineos company in the uk (according to them) made a 150 million pound loss last year though other sources say it's 150mil over four years, Grangemouth made a 10-50mil profit last year depending what source you read.
Click to expand...

It was a typo in my post, should have read £150 million, seems to be the figure the mainstream press are using. For eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...owners-Ineos-to-close-petrochemical-site.html

The unions being 1970s style hard line has done the workers no favours, without even looking at the good or bad of Ineos.
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling, this is a game, being play by Ineos. Say they're going to close, wait for government money, then state they'll continue if workers accept terms.

In one way, I hope I'm right, as it will mean that 800 people are not going to be put out of work. On the other hand, if I am right, it will show how morally bankrupt Ineos are.
 
Well I don't have a lot of time for Unite's hierarchy and how the workers often seem to be manipulated for the union leaders' own ends but I guess in this case you don't call someone's (i.e. Ineos's) bluff when they've got a much bigger pile of chips than you've got and when they seem to be holding all the decent cards.

Ineos now has its headquarters in Switzerland and any statements of profit or loss with this particular plant are very difficult to verify. I suppose if the petrochemical business does turn out to be profitable then the liquidator shouldn't have too much trouble in finding a buyer.

The latest tonight seems to be that the Unite have capitulated so it remains to be seen if Ineos can reverse their closure decision tomorrow.
 
Once again the 'lowest of the low' the working man gets cowpied upon form a great height by corporate greed. Disgrace but it's happening all over in the private and public sector too.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Once again the 'lowest of the low' the working man gets cowpied upon form a great height by corporate greed. Disgrace but it's happening all over in the private and public sector too.
Click to expand...

Problem is, this time the average worker is being screwed from both sides, management who want to either cut their costs or walk away and a union team that seemed intent on following '70s policies.

It was always going to be a total screw up when neither party was willing to budge, unfortunately Ineos had them by the proverbial short and curlies, they don't care about the plant and shutting it down now seems their preferred course.
 
Dave1 said:
I've been following the debate elsewhere, Grangemouth made a £150 million loss last year, no firm can carry those sort of losses long term, it really does seem to have been a case of "keep the pension, lose the job" or "lose the pension, keep the job" (and the accompanying wage adjustments).

The unions should have tried to negotiate a short term agreement on the lower terms with a sunset clause for a renegotiation when the plant turns around.
Click to expand...

Too right - I have only seen snippets so could be wrong but losses were big and it was a simple case of reduce outgoings (wage freeze, no strikes etc..) or no job. The union though cut their nose off to spite their face. The workers voted in favour (overall) to strike and not give in so they need to take some blame.

While I would not like it, if my work told me to take a pay cut etc... or lose job, I would agree (and then look for another job).

hopefully this will be a wake up call to unions, move with the times. I have no time for most of them as they seem to have this attitude in the main. However, the country will benefit more by employers and unions working together and sometimes having to think about the bigger picture than political viewpoint.
 
cambsno said:
hopefully this will be a wake up call to unions, move with the times. I have no time for most of them as they seem to have this attitude in the main. However, the country will benefit more by employers and unions working together and sometimes having to think about the bigger picture than political viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. I'm also with Unite. They sold us down the river when my employer wanted to change our pensions. Then they very nearly cost us tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of pounds each when the company offered voluntary redundancy or relocation due to a plant closure. The union prolonged the process making it quite stressful for some and because they kept delaying things some people have now ended up with crap jobs well below their wage grade leaving a lot of bitter resentment towards the company, when the blame should lay with Unite.
 
To be honest, Unite leaders only care how much in subscriptions they get and how many favours they will get if and when Milliballs come into power. Have you ever seen an impoverished union leader?
 
arclight said:
Looks like the plant will stay open:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184
Click to expand...

It seems Ineos got their way (and to an extent, common sense prevailed). The losses had to be stemmed for the plant to have a long term future.

The company said the move had followed a "dramatic U-turn" by the union Unite and its "belated recognition" that the company's survival plan was the only way to ensure Grangemouth's long-term survival.

It added that Unite had agreed to taking no strike action for three years, moving to a "modern" pension scheme and a three-year pay freeze.
Click to expand...
 
welshwizard645 said:
To be honest, Unite leaders only care how much in subscriptions they get and how many favours they will get if and when Milliballs come into power. Have you ever seen an impoverished union leader?
Click to expand...

I've intensely disliked and distrusted all unions since I was 17 when it was made clear that as a trainee I wasn't important enough for the Union to take a grievance I had to the management. They did of course want the subscriptions.
 
BRASH said:
Once again the 'lowest of the low' the working man gets cowpied upon form a great height by corporate greed. Disgrace but it's happening all over in the private and public sector too.
Click to expand...

Well these employees were hardly the lowest of the low - average salaries of £55K (double the Scottish average) and a gold plated pension - total cost to Ineos was £96K per employee per annum.

Nevertheless, good news that Unite were able to see common sense and perform the U-turn and maybe they should now focus on getting the relevant Scottish branch officials to resign.
 
Spuff said:
Well these employees were hardly the lowest of the low - average salaries of £55K (double the Scottish average) and a gold plated pension - total cost to Ineos was £96K per employee per annum.
Click to expand...

By lowest of the low I meant the general middle and upper class opinion and perception of the working class man (a bit of self deprecating humour therein too), that's why I put it in inverteds.

We all know who the lowest of the low in these terms really are.
 
Last edited:
dod said:
I've intensely disliked and distrusted all unions since I was 17 when it was made clear that as a trainee I wasn't important enough for the Union to take a grievance I had to the management. They did of course want the subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like a crap union rep, one of them is worse than having no rep at all.
Unions are vitally important, more so now than they have been for decades because there are very few ethical employers out there and when times are hard they will try to keep their profit margins any way they can.
 
There is no place for nationalistic, blinkered unions in a global marketplace. They serve only themselves, and to drive investment abroad.

Ethics won't pay your pension, or give you a job. Profits do that.
 
The trouble with that is without unions there would be no such thing as a pension and the working person would not earn enough to be able to pay into one anyway. Not to mention the benefit of having someone fighting your corner in cases of victimisation. Employers are not all good hearted liberalists and the world doesn't have a rosy glow about it.
 
Steep said:
The trouble with that is without unions there would be no such thing as a pension and the working person would not earn enough to be able to pay into one anyway. Not to mention the benefit of having someone fighting your corner in cases of victimisation. Employers are not all good hearted liberalists and the world doesn't have a rosy glow about it.
Click to expand...

Have you seen Made in Dagenham? Unions still have the same blinkered views, doing what they want, or what they think is right, rather than serving the people they represent. I have worked for the same company for 34yrs and been in the same union whichhas amalgamated with others over the years and to be honest my employer has done the better job of representing me.
 
That's the fault of the workforce involved, including you nilagin. Union reps are voted in by the people they represent, if yours is doing a bad job do something about it. In the bigger picture neither unions nor management should ever 'get the upper hand' because that leads to problems. It's perfectly possible for both to work together to ensure the best outcome for all in any situation but you need the right people to do it.
 
Steep said:
The trouble with that is without unions there would be no such thing as a pension and the working person would not earn enough to be able to pay into one anyway. Not to mention the benefit of having someone fighting your corner in cases of victimisation. Employers are not all good hearted liberalists and the world doesn't have a rosy glow about it.
Click to expand...

Exactly people forget that unions fought for and achieved a lot of the benefits that working people take for granted now
Unions are not perfect but are still relevant
the situation in Germany is the answer where unions/workforce and the company works together
it never happens here and is the fault of both sides
 
Steep said:
That's the fault of the workforce involved, including you nilagin. Union reps are voted in by the people they represent, if yours is doing a bad job do something about it.
Click to expand...
That's fine at local level. I'm talking about the district officials and upwards. People that aren't voted in just by one workforce, but many from different companies.
 
who needs unions these days, we have Europe to look after our interests. :gag:
 
It's great we have pensions in the UK and all that...but's also the reason why I can hire as many people as I like in Guanzhou and Pune, but London? Not a fricking chance, way too expensive.

Can't have your cake and eat it in an international workplace. Want some of the jobs that go to Asia? You got to compete on cost.
 
Workers in asia earn less but they also pay less, ask someone to work here for the same money they get paid there and they'd starve to death. Competing on cost is all well and good but it cuts both ways and somehow I doubt that your business would be the first to offer goods and services here at Chinese prices.
 
You haven't been on Canton Road on a Saturday afternoon ;)

The sort of people we are hiring are university educated professional who live in nice apartments and sport the latest iPhones and such like. They work harder, for longer, for less. Don't want to compete? Better find another job.
 
I would add that the cost of living in HK is horrendous, but people still earn far less here than the UK. There's no sense of entitlement though and people are prepared to put in the graft that UK workers seem to think is unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top