Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Southend1

I'm not trying to defend anything mr deans may or may not have done to end up facing a disciplinary hearing.

But I wish people would get it out of their heads that unite forced workers to take action. They voted in a ballot and did what the majority thought was right.

You can say with hindsight they were wrong, but at the end of they day they (unite members ie ineos employees) did what they thought was in their best interests.

colino

Southend1 I really now find your misunderstanding of the facts to be deliberate.
Unite, i.e., Stevie Dean, generated a vote for industrial action for the victimisation of a union member, one Stevie Dean.
Unite made a point that the industrial action was on this issue and was not related to the survival plan.
Unite members voted for said industrial action, worked to rule and then called a strike.
INEOS made their position clear that any strike would see the withdrawal of the survival plan, why chuck an extra £300,000,000 into an investment when a lying - to his members- TU official can suspend production on a specious claim of victimisation?
Unite HQ, aware that their shaky standing on the Falkirk issue, Stevie Dean & Co., was seriously out of line although they had persuaded Ed Milliband, as they are Labours largest financial supporters, to drop the Labour official investigation into misconduct in the Falkirk candidate selection process, run of course by Stevie Dean.
Heads were put together and Unite HQ begged for a meeting with INEOS to put things right. At no time did they ask their members to suspend the action or take this 180 degree swivel on the point allegedly in discussion. So much for them being merely mouthpieces for their membership.
INEOS met with Scottish and Westminster Government, got support financially and agreed to reopen.
Workers who voted positively are getting the INEOS package, those that followed Unite guidance are getting a poorer pension deal.
All because Stevie Dean, with the initial support of Big Len tried to hurl us back four decades to an era when Unions thought they ran businesses and generated wealth.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

Southend1 I really now find your misunderstanding of the facts to be deliberate.
Unite, i.e., Stevie Dean, generated a vote for industrial action for the victimisation of a union member, one Stevie Dean.
Unite made a point that the industrial action was on this issue and was not related to the survival plan.
Unite members voted for said industrial action, worked to rule and then called a strike.
INEOS made their position clear that any strike would see the withdrawal of the survival plan, why chuck an extra £300,000,000 into an investment when a lying - to his members- TU official can suspend production on a specious claim of victimisation?
Unite HQ, aware that their shaky standing on the Falkirk issue, Stevie Dean & Co., was seriously out of line although they had persuaded Ed Milliband, as they are Labours largest financial supporters, to drop the Labour official investigation into misconduct in the Falkirk candidate selection process, run of course by Stevie Dean.
Heads were put together and Unite HQ begged for a meeting with INEOS to put things right. At no time did they ask their members to suspend the action or take this 180 degree swivel on the point allegedly in discussion. So much for them being merely mouthpieces for their membership.
INEOS met with Scottish and Westminster Government, got support financially and agreed to reopen.
Workers who voted positively are getting the INEOS package, those that followed Unite guidance are getting a poorer pension deal.
All because Stevie Dean, with the initial support of Big Len tried to hurl us back four decades to an era when Unions thought they ran businesses and generated wealth.

Even if the ballot was purely about the treatment of mr deans (which I don't believe but remain to be proved wrong when someone tells us what the ballot question was) then the resulting action was the democratic wish of the members.

colino

Tell you what, nip over to Unites own website and have a look at their, albeit tainted view, of the story from their news section as the story developed. They always claimed the sole purpose of the industrial action was victimisation of a union member. You might also find it amazing how they turn this massive fail into a story of them saving Grangemouth.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

Tell you what, nip over to Unites own website and have a look at their, albeit tainted view, of the story from their news section as the story developed. They always claimed the sole purpose of the industrial action was victimisation of a union member. You might also find it amazing how they turn this massive fail into a story of them saving Grangemouth.

Every book tells a different story, even in describing the same event. Just as ineos PR people would have spun the situation to their advantage, so unite's would do the same. The question really is what were members voting on- once we know what the ballot question was, then we know what the dispute was actually about.

burnleymik

colino wrote: »

Southend1

I really now find your misunderstanding of the facts to be deliberate.
Unite, i.e., Stevie Dean, generated a vote for industrial action for the victimisation of a union member, one Stevie Dean.
Unite made a point that the industrial action was on this issue and was not related to the survival plan.

Where did Unite make this point?

The industrial action voted for by the workers was because of changes to do with their Pensions and their terms of employment.

Every single pre-talks report I saw was reported as being because of the above.

Suddenly the Ineos publicity machine starts to muddy the waters and tries to mingle two sperate issues into one. Remember the Deans inquiry was officially closed off last month.

The fact is Deans had no choice but to resign. If the company wanted rid of him they could easily manufacture a way to do so and it would look better for him if he resigned rather than being sacked.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/union-official-at-centre-of-grangemouth-dispute-quits-job.1382975165

''Unite was the subject of entirely unjustified attacks in relation to the Labour parliamentary selection in Falkirk. Both the Labour Party and Police Scotland investigated the issue and found that neither the law nor the party's rules were broken by the union.
''The email exchanges, apparently leaked by an employer for its own purposes, do nothing to change that."

Seems like it's just Ineos making sure they keep wielding that power stick to me.

colino

Tell you what, as you didn't see the quotes in the broadsheets for the past few weeks, or catch The Sunday Times this weekend, or have went on to Unites own website, just wait for another volte-face from Unite when both Labour and the Police have to reopen their respective investigations surrounding this potential disaster. Deans and Rafferty almost destroyed a major Scottish Industry while they were running off the leash.

Southend1

colino wrote: »

Tell you what, as you didn't see the quotes in the broadsheets for the past few weeks, or catch The Sunday Times this weekend, or have went on to Unites own website, just wait for another volte-face from Unite when both Labour and the Police have to reopen their respective investigations surrounding this potential disaster. Deans and Rafferty almost destroyed a major Scottish Industry while they were running off the leash.

I thought ineos was half Chinese owned? Not sure the other half is Scottish either?!

You can dress it up how you like but no industrial action would be taken without members say so. It's the members that take the action after all so why would they get involved if they didn't support it?

burnleymik

colino wrote: »

Tell you what, as you didn't see the quotes in the broadsheets for the past few weeks, or catch The Sunday Times this weekend, or have went on to Unites own website, just wait for another volte-face from Unite when both Labour and the Police have to reopen their respective investigations surrounding this potential disaster. Deans and Rafferty almost destroyed a major Scottish Industry while they were running off the leash.

You keep stating these things as though fact, please post links/reference to these "facts" because without them your arguments are flawed.

burnleymik

I'll give you a few links where is is stated, even by Ineos that the strikes were over pensions and changes to the terms of employment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24603346

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24631342

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10398563/Grangemouth-owners-Ineos-to-close-petrochemical-site.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/10398888/Grangemouth-timeline-of-the-dispute.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grangemouth-to-reopen-ineos-says-union-strikes-lastminute-deal-8903785.html

etc etc


In fact if you read the timeline of events, you will see that although they did initially threaten to strike over the treatment of Mr Deans, they actually called that action off.

The actual strikes that were supposedly going to occur near the end were purely in regards to the workers refusing the terms set out by Ineos "

which would cut pension entitlements, overtime pay and redundancy terms and institute a pay freeze. "

So, as you can see, this is the work of Ineos to muddy the waters over two seperate issues, so they can get rid of Mr Deans.