Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Deepfatfriar

I think you are absolutely correct. In my view the whole thing had its roots in Scottish Labour, they are absolutely petrified of a YES vote in Scotland because the political damage to Labour will be massive as they stand to lose 41 MPs . My view is that Unite thought they would get a protracted strike probably spanning weeks giving them time to repeatedly stress how dependent Scotland is on the rest of the UK.

Ineos obviously pre-emptied that by shutting the plant down, an option which Unite had not even considered.


I have no doubt Unite will try another avenue in the future within another sector in Scotland with the needs of employees secondary to it's political ambitions.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

It never was a cut in standard/basic pay or salaries and this remains unaltered. The development plan means they will no longer get the outrageous extra payments for overtime and standby on top of what is a mark time of halcyon BP days superstar salaries and pensions. If Grangemouth had went into liquidation last week there would have been no redundancy as the company was insolvent and their Chinese associates would probably have taken up the reins as new employers, looking for half the core staff at half the current payscales. The decent employees at Grangemouth were used by Unite as a test case to show their power to the UK government and it badly backfired. Unite "leadership" are a dangerous bunch of political office seeking labourites willing to throw 10,000 jobs under the bus for their own self-aggrandisement.

Interesting POV.

Or it could be that Grangemouth workers were simply unhappy that ineos wanted to cut their terms and conditions, and therefore voted to take action?

Why is it that whenever workers take any action some people see all these sinister leftist plots by "militant union leaders"?

Deepfatfriar

There is an excellent piece in today's Scotland on Sunday that is worth reading that summarises the whole thing very well.

Have a look.

Deepfatfriar

Sorry the article I meant appeared the Scotsman on 24th October.

colino

Southend1 the strike that never was concerned INEOS treatment of a full time union official who was under investigation for using his time doing work for the local labour party to shoehorn in Unites favoured candidate. Not only was that investigation not yet complete, but no one apart from the management team conducting it knew of its findings. The sheer guff now being generated by Unite trying to invent reasons why they were not at fault are breathtaking and the employees swayed my their delusional rantings are now in a far weaker place.

Deepfatfriar

There is a very interesting in last week's Spectator written by Eric Joyce the deposed Labour MP for Falkirk .


It makes worrying reading about Unite and the Labour Party.


So I stick to my views.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

Southend1 the strike that never was concerned INEOS treatment of a full time union official who was under investigation for using his time doing work for the local labour party to shoehorn in Unites favoured candidate. Not only was that investigation not yet complete, but no one apart from the management team conducting it knew of its findings. The sheer guff now being generated by Unite trying to invent reasons why they were not at fault are breathtaking and the employees swayed my their delusional rantings are now in a far weaker place.

So people keep saying but no one has clarified what the ballot paper actually said.

Sounds to me as though the Grangemouth workers have come out with a slightly less bad deal than initially offered.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

So people keep saying but no one has clarified what the ballot paper actually said.

Sounds to me as though the Grangemouth workers have come out with a slightly less bad deal than initially offered.

You are correct that no one has clarified what the ballot paper actually said, but in every article I have read it is stated the industrial action started over the issue regarding the union convener.

You can butter it up any way you want but they got well and truly spanked on this one and are lucky the company did not make further cuts.

burnleymik

How did the Union get "spanked"?

The workers never even stood a fighting chance. They were forced to either accept it or Ineos would shut it, that simple.

Ineos could afford to close the plant for a while and it not really be any skin off their nose, I would asssume they could have re-opened a few months down the line with new employees on new contracts.

The fact was they knew they had the power and they were prepared to wield it like a big stick to beat everyone down in their path.

Workers rights are going to be eroded very quickly if all big corporations decide that this was a win for them and decide to follow suit.

All these people bashing the Union will be regretting it when they are all on Zero hour contracts, no holiday pay, no sick pay, poor pensions and very few employment rights.

These are all the things Unions help to protect.

I have worked in both Union and Non-Union Engineering companies and I can tell you there is a very big difference. The morale and productivity have always been higher where the Unions have been representing members.

Also, consider that Ineos were doing some creative accounting when it came to the poijnt about them losing money...

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

I mean who puts business investments all upfront in their accounts, unless they arte trying to portray something different?

I am really suprised the hate some people show towards a body of people, all workers, that are trying to stop big companies exploiting their staff.

Nebulous2

Southend1 wrote: »

So people keep saying but no one has clarified what the ballot paper actually said.

Sounds to me as though the Grangemouth workers have come out with a slightly less bad deal than initially offered.

I can't see that in any media reports. The BBC said:-

"Unite had earlier agreed to "embrace" the firm's proposals "warts and all".

article 24647843.