Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Nebulous2

I've just tried to respond to burnleymik, but as a new user I'm not allowed to post links. Basically you aren't going back far enough. Look at your second bottom link from the Telegraph. It gives a good timeline, which contradicts much of what you have said.

There's also a good BBC article from 1st October which states:

"Workers at the Ineos complex in Grangemouth are to ban overtime and take other industrial action in a row over the treatment of a union official."

Unite Scottish regional secretary Pat Rafferty is quoted as saying:

"Ineos is trying to spin this dispute into a fight over the future of Grangemouth - this is not the case. This dispute is about the unfair treatment of Stephen Deans who has already been cleared by the police and by the Labour party."

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I've just tried to respond to burnleymik, but as a new user I'm not allowed to post links. Basically you aren't going back far enough. Look at your second bottom link from the Telegraph. It gives a good timeline, which contradicts much of what you have said.

There's also a good BBC article from 1st October which states:

"Workers at the Ineos complex in Grangemouth are to ban overtime and take other industrial action in a row over the treatment of a union official."

Unite Scottish regional secretary Pat Rafferty is quoted as saying:

"Ineos is trying to spin this dispute into a fight over the future of Grangemouth - this is not the case. This dispute is about the unfair treatment of Stephen Deans who has already been cleared by the police and by the Labour party."

Spin and counterspin.

Again.... What was the actual ballot question?

Nebulous2

Southend1 wrote: »

Spin and counterspin.

Again.... What was the actual ballot question?

Nobody here knows that or if they do they are not saying- however all the newspaper reports leading up to the strike and still available were about the treatment of the union rep. The union were all over the radio in Scotland as well talking about the reps treatment, 3 investigations etc... Most of the spinning I see is trying to rewrite that at a later point, now it doesn't fit with the outcome.

They called a two day strike on that basis. The company responded by shutting down the plant - a cold shutdown which the union hadn't expected. The union then called off the strike. The company response was we aren't restarting without agreement on no-strike, closing pension scheme etc.

It may well be that the situation suited the company and they kept the pot stirring, however the union didn't just walk into the trap - they marched into it gaily to a brass band.

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Nobody here knows that or if they do they are not saying- however all the newspaper reports leading up to the strike and still available were about the treatment of the union rep. The union were all over the radio in Scotland as well talking about the reps treatment, 3 investigations etc... Most of the spinning I see is trying to rewrite that at a later point, now it doesn't fit with the outcome.

They called a two day strike on that basis. The company responded by shutting down the plant - a cold shutdown which the union hadn't expected. The union then called off the strike. The company response was we aren't restarting without agreement on no-strike, closing pension scheme etc.

It may well be that the situation suited the company and they kept the pot stirring, however the union didn't just walk into the trap - they marched into it gaily to a brass band.

They can all say what they like, but unless and until we know what was on the ballot paper, none of us know the real reason for the strike.

burnleymik

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I've just tried to respond to burnleymik, but as a new user I'm not allowed to post links. Basically you aren't going back far enough. Look at your second bottom link from the Telegraph. It gives a good timeline, which contradicts much of what you have said.

these are two seperate issues. The first lot of action was cancelled, as you can see on that timeline. The second lot of action and the reason they were going to shut plant was because of the second lot of action.

These are two seperate issues, which would have been voted on seperately otherwise that first strike wouldn't have been cancelled.

The press and some people here are trying to mingle the two things together and that is not right, they are seprate issues, which Ineos and the press are trying to make it look like are the same thing.

Nebulous2

Southend1 wrote: »

They can all say what they like, but unless and until we know what was on the ballot paper, none of us know the real reason for the strike.

Yes you do - you just refuse to accept it on a demand for the exact wording.

Unite's own website for the 27th of September states:-

"Unite, the country's biggest union, is calling on Ineos' management to step back from the brink as workers at the Grangemouth site in Scotland delivered an overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action today (27 September) in a dispute over the treatment of a trade union representative."

"Unite Scottish regional secretary Pat Rafferty said:"This overwhelming result reflects the genuine ill-feeling held by the Grangemouth workforce, because of the grossly unfair treatment of Stephen Deans who has 24 years of loyal service at the site.

"Despite the ongoing threats of plant closures at the Grangemouth site, the workforce are determined to support their colleague and to bring this injustice to an end. This tight knit community has no tolerance for the unfair treatment of a trade unionist because they know that an attack against one is an attack against all."

burnleymik

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Yes you do - you just refuse to accept it on a demand for the exact wording.

Unite's own website for the 27th of September states:-

"Unite, the country's biggest union, is calling on Ineos' management to step back from the brink as workers at the Grangemouth site in Scotland delivered an overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action today (27 September) in a dispute over the treatment of a trade union representative."

"Unite Scottish regional secretary Pat Rafferty said:"This overwhelming result reflects the genuine ill-feeling held by the Grangemouth workforce, because of the grossly unfair treatment of Stephen Deans who has 24 years of loyal service at the site.

"Despite the ongoing threats of plant closures at the Grangemouth site, the workforce are determined to support their colleague and to bring this injustice to an end. This tight knit community has no tolerance for the unfair treatment of a trade unionist because they know that an attack against one is an attack against all."

:cool: Yes, this did occur, as I already stated, but thats not the reason that everything came to a head. Even Ineos' original press releases stated the strikes were about the changes in pensions, overtime pay etc, nothing to do with this other dispute.

Ineos are now trying to mix the two issues up, when they shouldn't be.

The fact remains that all this isn;t down to militant unions, but rather over-powered, greedy, corporate company bosses/fat cats, but everyone is so pre-occupied with demonising the Unions that they seem to be completely missing the big picture.

Nebulous2

burnleymik wrote: »

these are two seperate issues. The first lot of action was cancelled, as you can see on that timeline. The second lot of action and the reason they were going to shut plant was because of the second lot of action.

These are two seperate issues, which would have been voted on seperately otherwise that first strike wouldn't have been cancelled.

There wasn't a first strike - in fact technically there wasn't a strike at all.

They started an overtime ban based on a ballot over Stevie Deans. They called a 48 hour strike over the same issue, which pretty much every newspaper report written at the time agrees on.

The company then shutdown the plant a 'cold shutdown' in preparation for the strike. The union realised this was more serious than they expected and called the strike off.

The company response was to demand certain things:- end final salary, stop full time shop stewards, pay freeze, no strike agreement for the rest of the year. They put that directly to the workers, with an offer of a financial incentive to accept.

The Union then asked people to vote agains the offer. A majority of admin staff voted for and a majority of shopfloor staff voted against. So the company responded by saying the petrochemical plant was staying closed, with the refinery reopening ... and you know the rest.

The whole thing is a mess, and blame will be argued for a longtime. I believe the dispute suited the company, but I also believe the union chose the wrong battle at the wrong time.

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Yes you do - you just refuse to accept it on a demand for the exact wording.

Unite's own website for the 27th of September states:-

"Unite, the country's biggest union, is calling on Ineos' management to step back from the brink as workers at the Grangemouth site in Scotland delivered an overwhelming vote in favour of industrial action today (27 September) in a dispute over the treatment of a trade union representative."

"Unite Scottish regional secretary Pat Rafferty said:"This overwhelming result reflects the genuine ill-feeling held by the Grangemouth workforce, because of the grossly unfair treatment of Stephen Deans who has 24 years of loyal service at the site.

"Despite the ongoing threats of plant closures at the Grangemouth site, the workforce are determined to support their colleague and to bring this injustice to an end. This tight knit community has no tolerance for the unfair treatment of a trade unionist because they know that an attack against one is an attack against all."

Well excuse me if I don't jump to conclusions without knowing the actual facts of the case!

Yes newspapers say this, unite says that, ineos says the other. Regardless of what they said then or say now or have said at any point in between, the reason the workers voted for industrial action was whatever was written on the ballot paper.

burnleymik

Nebulous2 wrote: »

There wasn't a first strike - in fact technically there wasn't a strike at all.

Yes.. because it was cancelled. It's not the reason the 2nd strike was going to take place.

There would have HAD to have been two seperate ballots because they are two seperate issues, but yet you seem obsessed with linking them.

Also it wasn;t the company's response to the intitial strike threat, not sure how the heck you draw that conclusion, that is entirely of your own making.

The company, according to every press report and statement I have seen, issued the changes to pensions and such because they were supposedly "losing money".

It's only now, when their agenda is to get rid of the convenor that they decide to link it together.