Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

Fair enough, you don't agree with the aims of a union then don't join it. You can get individual support and protection via employment lawyers and insurance companies. But you don get the support of local reps who have a deep understanding of your own workplace and a working relationship with your management.

I don't pay into an affiliated political fund myself because I wouldn't call myself a labour supporter (though I may vote for them next time round as I like some of milibands policies).

There is an argument that labour is no longer aligned with the unions and therefore they should not have such strong links. My view is actually that since the Labour Party came out of the union movement it's actually the party that needs to adapt and realign itself with union members.

One workplace unions would be weak, and likely to end up as puppets of the management. It wouldn't be in members interests to have such small unions, since the point of unions is collective action.

You still dont get the point I am trying to make. Why should I lose out on the support of local reps who have a deep understanding of my workplace because I choose not to support a unions political beliefs? I support unions and think they have a proper place in the work place, but that is where it should end.

You say the Labour party should align with union members, but not all union members support Labour.

Put it this way if people wish to influence a political parties direction or manifesto then they should join that party and campaign from within, they should not try and do it through a union giving the impression that all their members are behind the views.

Kick politics out of the unions and I am sure you would find more employers would work better with them.

Deepfatfriar

This issue is far from over looking at various press source over the last week or so.

The more that comes out the more it was to do with politics and the less to do with Grangemouth workers.

burnleymik

So there was no criminal behaviour from the conveynor and it was a setup by the bully boy management of the company and the Government and press got it very wrong.

Funny how the press and such are quiet now.

Cameron told to apologise for Grangemouth smears

Ahead of today’s (Wednesday 22 January) prime minister’s questions, Britain’s largest union, Unite demanded an apology from David Cameron over his smears against the union’s former Grangemouth convenor Stevie Deans and claims that he was a ‘rogue’ official.

The call follows yesterday’s news that Police Scotland had found ‘no evidence of any criminality’ in a cache of emails held on the work computer of Stevie Deans and puts pressure on David Cameron over his remarks.

On 30 October 2013 during PMQs, the prime minister sought to exploit the Grangemouth dispute for political gain, using the dispatch box to claim that ‘we have a real problem with a rogue trade unionist at Grangemouth.’

The emails which formed the basis of his smears had been leaked to the Sunday Times and subsequently handed to Police Scotland by his former employer Ineos.

Commenting, Len McCluskey Unite general secretary said: “David Cameron should use prime minister’s questions to apologise for his smears and his gleeful contribution to the witch-hunt of Stevie Deans and Unite.

“He demeaned the office of prime minister in using the dispatch box to smear an ordinary working man for cheap political advantage. Had the prime minister not hid behind parliamentary privilege to hurl abuse at Stevie Deans, had he said this is a public arena, he would find himself in court for slander.

“If he has a shred of decency then the Bullingdon bully will apologise for his part in the hysteria that put Stevie and his family under siege and for the smears that were without foundation.”

ENDS

ohreally

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25983057

Owners of the Grangemouth oil refinery and petrochemical plant have dropped legal action against the Unite union.

The union said the decision means the company will have to pay Unite's legal costs, which could amount to more than £100,000.

The union's general secretary Len McCluskey said Unite expected "no apologies" but said the company was "completely wrong in its attempts to drag our union through the High Court."

Takeaway_Addict

ohreally wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-25983057

Owners of the Grangemouth oil refinery and petrochemical plant have dropped legal action against the Unite union.

Both as bad as each other in the end by the looks of it.

colino

Unite and INEOS have agreed that they are best dampening this down, especially as the union has agreed to do what the management set out to do in the first place.
Apart from the plant nearly closing, no fallout then.
Apart from that upstanding shop steward, Stevie Deans, who manfully fell on his sword and gave up his job after being caught out. Poor, unemployed Stevie.
Oh, hang on, what a lucky guy, seems he found paid employment straight away.
He works full -time (at Unites cost not INEOS anymore) for the union that he dragged into the mire.

ohreally

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-26039630

Grangemouth Unite convener Mark Lyon sacked.

A union convener at the Grangemouth petrochemicals complex, the scene of a bitter industrial dispute last year, has been sacked