Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

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.

Yes it says that, but where did it come from? Probably lifted straight out of an ineos press release! Personally I don't take stuff like that at face value. There may be a grain of truth but why would an employee being suspended over political activities suddenly lead to a need for everyone to take a pay cut?

Southend1

burnleymik wrote: »

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.

There is quite a lot of misconception on this forum about unions. Many posters don't seem to understand that they are there solely to represent the interests of their members I.e. Employees and that they are democratic organisations, with the bulk of reps being volunteers. There are some people here who hear the word union and think militant Bolshevik propagandists who manipulate workers for their own ends.

colino

The reward for biting the hand that has so generously fed them, is that those that voted against the survival plan have a poorer pension plan now than those that voted for it. Obviously they will also not be eligible for the compensation payments of between £2500 and £15000 that those that voted positively.
Well done Unite, don't let that door catch you on the way out. Perhaps they will make up the difference from their £26,000,000 war chest? Thought not.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

The reward for biting the hand that has so generously fed them, is that those that voted against the survival plan have a poorer pension plan now than those that voted for it. Obviously they will also not be eligible for the compensation payments of between £2500 and £15000 that those that voted positively.
Well done Unite, don't let that door catch you on the way out. Perhaps they will make up the difference from their £26,000,000 war chest? Thought not.

Not sure why you keep blaming unite? The workers voted for the course of action they thought best and the majority of them didn't want to take the bribe.

burnleymik

colino wrote: »

The reward for biting the hand that has so generously fed them, .

Haha, yeah extremely generous... so generous that there is no way they would ever run at a so-called "loss" for the short term even though the investment would have made them more profitable.

It's the workers that make the company money, not the other way around, although many of you seem to have forgotten that.

colino

Southend1 your lovely belief on how this was a structured, democratic event is touching. Of course Unite went through the process of getting a vote harvesting the results and calling the strike. At what point (other than being told directly by their national bosses) did local Unite speak to, consult, or take a vote when they called off the strike and entered "consultations" with INEOS? None whatsoever. When senior unite heads saw Grangemouth circling the drain, they stepped in, ignored that strike call and surrendered everything.
Watch out for the police investigation into Stevie Deans, the reason for the strike and the way unite flooded Falkirk with new labour members to get his girlfriend to be a candidate. Shocking eh? A tin pot wannabe politico nearly destroyed a vast swathe of Scottish industry on the clock for INEOS, but working for his own ends.

dshart

burnleymik wrote: »

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.

I have nothing against unions and I do not like seeing workers terms and conditions eroded. When I was employed I was very vociferous against any erosion of terms and conditions, in fact this is what led me to leave the company I was working for as I would not accept the terms and conditions of the new contract they were pushing through. I now work for myself and my pay and condition negotiations are based on how much my company makes. When times are bad I take a pay cut or reduce pension contributions etc.

The issue in this case is that the union appear to have had a political agenda and this almost lost hundreds of workers their jobs. This was not just about the company cutting terms and conditions. If the workers want sympathy they should tell their unions to look after them and forget about politics. Forget the stance that if the unions control the government then things will get better, because they will not, we live in a global economy and artificially supporting high wages and low productivity will eventually lead to collapse.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

Yes it says that, but where did it come from? Probably lifted straight out of an ineos press release! Personally I don't take stuff like that at face value. There may be a grain of truth but why would an employee being suspended over political activities suddenly lead to a need for everyone to take a pay cut?

Did you read the article that was posted earlier in the thread?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us

The author of the article appears to support the unions actions but also says that the initial actions were due to the suspension of the union convener. So it is not just the pro Ineos press stating this.

The bottom line as I see it is that if there was no political angle on this would the union have pushed so hard for strike action or would they have been more willing to negotiate?

As I see it the unions let the issue with the union convener cloud their judgement and this has let the company take advantage of the situation and push through probably more severe cuts than originally planned.

burnleymik

dshart wrote: »

The issue in this case is that the union appear to have had a political agenda and this almost lost hundreds of workers their jobs. This was not just about the company cutting terms and conditions. If the workers want sympathy they should tell their unions to look after them and forget about politics. Forget the stance that if the unions control the government then things will get better, because they will not, we live in a global economy and artificially supporting high wages and low productivity will eventually lead to collapse.

I guess it depends where you source your information.

It looked to me like all this Deans stuff was used wisely by Ineos to muddy the waters and because of his political workings he was an easy target. They decapitate the ring leader and everyone else falls into line?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/21/ineos-unite-union-busting-grangemouth

Despite how the Ineos publicity machine spin it, the democratic Union members voted to strike in relation to pensions and changes in working conditions.

colino

Neat Guardian spin which totally ignores quotes direct from Unite that the industrial action was only about the "victimisation" of a union member. Incidentally, having dragged this to the nth degree and screwed up the pensions for those that voted against the survival plan, Stevie Deans had now resigned, the day before he was due to meet INEOS to prove his innocence in any of the claims he had abused his position, equipment or systems provided to him by his employer. A disgusting little creep who has destroyed Unites reputation.