Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

colino

Well done Nebulous2, but don't waste your time, it's like teaching pigs to sing.

Nebulous2

burnleymik wrote: »

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.

There never was 'another' ballot. Equally there wasn't a second strike or even the rumour of a second strike. Unless you count the response to the companys demands as a ballot.

The union called a ballot on action because the shop steward was being investigated for a disciplinary. They started a work-to-rule and overtime ban on that. They then called a 48 hour strike on that.

The company shut the plant down in preparation for it. The union backed down and said we're not striking. The company said well we have been losing money, we cannot restart the plant without these guarantees.

So the company turned the strike on the convenors disciplinary into accept our terms or the petrochemical plant wont reopen. The union said no thanks we aren't giving up our rights.

The company said ok, we'll liquidate the petrochemical plant and the refinery probably hasn't much of a future either.

That's when the union said as I quoted a long way upstream:- "We'll embrace the offer warts and all."

The outcome is worse than the first offer from the company. The company asked for an agreement not to strike until the statutory consultation ended next year. They got three years no-strike agreement.

Staff were offered a cash sum of £15k to accept the changes. Someone further up the thread stated that only those who initially agreed are getting it. I haven't seen that in the press, but it would be a real blow to the staff who don't get it.

All of that is in the timeline you posted above from the Telegraph. The union picked a fight on the convenor and the company managed to use it to reduce terms and conditions. Where do you get a second dispute from? It may be two separate issues but there was only one ballot and one strike threat.

burnleymik

colino wrote: »

Well done Nebulous2, but don't waste your time, it's like teaching pigs to sing.

Someone has a differing opinion to you, so you decide to be rude about it?

I don't agree with your point of view and you don't agree with mine, but the difference is I don't resort to name calling and being offensive.

:sad:

burnleymik

Nebulous2 wrote: »

There never was 'another' ballot. Equally there wasn't a second strike or even the rumour of a second strike. Unless you count the response to the companys demands as a ballot.

The union called a ballot on action because the shop steward was being investigated for a disciplinary. They started a work-to-rule and overtime ban on that. They then called a 48 hour strike on that.

The company shut the plant down in preparation for it. The union backed down and said we're not striking. The company said well we have been losing money, we cannot restart the plant without these guarantees.

So the company turned the strike on the convenors disciplinary into accept our terms or the petrochemical plant wont reopen. The union said no thanks we aren't giving up our rights.

The company said ok, we'll liquidate the petrochemical plant and the refinery probably hasn't much of a future either.

That's when the union said as I quoted a long way upstream:- "We'll embrace the offer warts and all."

The outcome is worse than the first offer from the company. The company asked for an agreement not to strike until the statutory consultation ended next year. They got three years no-strike agreement.

Staff were offered a cash sum of £15k to accept the changes. Someone further up the thread stated that only those who initially agreed are getting it. I haven't seen that in the press, but it would be a real blow to the staff who don't get it.

All of that is in the timeline you posted above from the Telegraph. The union picked a fight on the convenor and the company managed to use it to reduce terms and conditions. Where do you get a second dispute from? It may be two separate issues but there was only one ballot and one strike threat.

I give up. Re-read the timeline, the workers refused the new pay negotiations and threatened the strike on the back of it. Ineos told them, you accept it or we shut, thats the reason they never got to the strike.

Anways, we are simply going in circles. No point cluttering the thread up anymore unless either of us has anything more to add. good luck.

Nebulous2

burnleymik wrote: »

I give up. Re-read the timeline, the workers refused the new pay negotiations and threatened the strike on the back of it. Ineos told them, you accept it or we shut, thats the reason they never got to the strike.

Anways, we are simply going in circles. No point cluttering the thread up anymore unless either of us has anything more to add. good luck.

Okay - I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward here, or even to promote a political point. I'm trying to point out what actually happened.

Somehow you just refuse to accept that the union made such a big mistake. They created industrial action and a strike over one man, before the resullt of the disciplinary was even in.

The whole thing stems from the botched Falkirk selection process to select a candidate for the parliamentary seat.

The union won a battle to make Ed Milliband back down and they were convinced they would make Ineos/ Ratcliffe do the same. All the time Ineos were saying openly and publicly that a dispute would place their future jobs and the plants future at risk.

It is very frustrating for me not being able to post links, but the timeline doesn't anywhere mention a second set of industrial action.

27th Sept - ballot result -
7 October overtime ban / work to rule.
11 October 48 hour strike called for October 20/21. There isn't time in there for a second ballot to allow the legal notice period.
14th October company begin shutdown - needed for safety reasons they say.
16 Oct worried at the shutdown the union calls off the strike. Too late says the company. We'll only restart if you meet our conditions.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

I think that is a very naive view of how it works. Yes in an ideal world it would be so but the actual fact is that in a lot of cases the members take guidance from the union and if the union advise them that striking would be their best option then a lot of people are swayed be this advise. I am not saying they follow like sheep, but a lot of workers put too much trust in the union and believe that the advice given by them is correct rather than look into the issues more closely themselves.

It is not purely a democratic process, and when the union has a political agenda then the workforce become pawns in a bigger game.

I had a case once many years ago during negotiations for a wage rise where the union suggested that we accept the company offer and it went to ballot and I know for a fact that more than 50% balloted for strike action but still the union did not support the strike action and went ahead with a deal with the company.

Unions have a place in the workplace and I applaud the many union reps who give their time to look after the interests of their colleagues, and I agree they should not be victimised for this. But when the unions and reps become more interested in politics outside the company then I think they have crossed the line and are no longer representing the workforce.

Southend1

Nebulous2 wrote: »

Okay - I'm not trying to be deliberately awkward here, or even to promote a political point. I'm trying to point out what actually happened.

Somehow you just refuse to accept that the union made such a big mistake. They created industrial action and a strike over one man, before the resullt of the disciplinary was even in.

The whole thing stems from the botched Falkirk selection process to select a candidate for the parliamentary seat.

The union won a battle to make Ed Milliband back down and they were convinced they would make Ineos/ Ratcliffe do the same. All the time Ineos were saying openly and publicly that a dispute would place their future jobs and the plants future at risk.

It is very frustrating for me not being able to post links, but the timeline doesn't anywhere mention a second set of industrial action.

27th Sept - ballot result -
7 October overtime ban / work to rule.
11 October 48 hour strike called for October 20/21. There isn't time in there for a second ballot to allow the legal notice period.
14th October company begin shutdown - needed for safety reasons they say.
16 Oct worried at the shutdown the union calls off the strike. Too late says the company. We'll only restart if you meet our conditions.

The thing is, you're trying to point out what actually happened, without having the facts of the matter to back up your argument. Others aren't so quick to judge based on an article in the torygraph,

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

I think that is a very naive view of how it works. Yes in an ideal world it would be so but the actual fact is that in a lot of cases the members take guidance from the union and if the union advise them that striking would be their best option then a lot of people are swayed be this advise. I am not saying they follow like sheep, but a lot of workers put too much trust in the union and believe that the advice given by them is correct rather than look into the issues more closely themselves.

It is not purely a democratic process, and when the union has a political agenda then the workforce become pawns in a bigger game.

I had a case once many years ago during negotiations for a wage rise where the union suggested that we accept the company offer and it went to ballot and I know for a fact that more than 50% balloted for strike action but still the union did not support the strike action and went ahead with a deal with the company.

Unions have a place in the workplace and I applaud the many union reps who give their time to look after the interests of their colleagues, and I agree they should not be victimised for this. But when the unions and reps become more interested in politics outside the company then I think they have crossed the line and are no longer representing the workforce.

You may think that it is naive. I disagree. As a rep myself I know how hard it can be to get members to strike or vote to strike even if they believe in the cause, because they are afraid of victimisation by management or they have been brainwashed by the daily mail into thinking that standing up for yourself and your rights at work is evil.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

You may think that it is naive. I disagree. As a rep myself I know how hard it can be to get members to strike or vote to strike even if they believe in the cause, because they are afraid of victimisation by management or they have been brainwashed by the daily mail into thinking that standing up for yourself and your rights at work is evil.

Your words alone prove my point. Why should you have to try hard to get the members to vote for a strike. If it is truly democratic you should give them the correct information from both sides and let them decide themselves.

In majority of cases the union leadership have already decided the outcome they want and then work on getting the members to vote that way. Its a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of unions who do it correct and only go with the wishes of the workforce, but when you get a very large union with a political agenda it is not a democratic process.

Nebulous2

Southend1 wrote: »

The thing is, you're trying to point out what actually happened, without having the facts of the matter to back up your argument. Others aren't so quick to judge based on an article in the torygraph,

I'm pointing out what happened - based on the evidence provided at the time. The article in the Torygraph as you call it was posted by someone trying to back up your viewpoint. I'm not able to post links remember!

You are trying to claim it didn't happen as all the news sources and Unite said it did. You are insisting all the new sources are wrong, yet you are posting nothing to show what you say did happen...............