Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Buzby

Not all who voted were Unite members - that said, the management lost most credibility by attempting to renegotiate agreements made previously (I believe the terminology is 'renege') so rather than concede new issues, pre existing ones were hauled in and dismantled.

If anything ever would instil a 'Yes' vote at next years referendum, is this nonsensical situation where INEOS were allowed to take full control and then squeeze it mercilessly during their tenure. Hopefully, a solution will be found for the plant sans INEOS and a fairer management style.

Takeaway_Addict

Buzby wrote: »

Not all who voted were Unite members - that said, the management lost most credibility by attempting to renegotiate agreements made previously (I believe the terminology is 'renege') so rather than concede new issues, pre existing ones were hauled in and dismantled.

If anything ever would instil a 'Yes' vote at next years referendum, is this nonsensical situation where INEOS were allowed to take full control and then squeeze it mercilessly during their tenure. Hopefully, a solution will be found for the plant sans INEOS and a fairer management style.

It has to be profitable though? And most who voted no were union members....do you not feel the union have any responsibility over this?

Andy_L

zildjian wrote: »

"Within this, almost all of the administrative staff voted for the company's plan but a large majority of shop floor employees voted to reject it."

Can anyone explain this?

Shop floor staff were more affected by the changes?

eg a change to shift payments would be likely to affect shop floor shift-workers rather than 9-5 office staff

kelpie35

I think the workforce will regret being a member of the union.

I would rather have a job than face months, possibly years on the dole.

There are no jobs in that area so my belief is that you are better to accept the conditions and keep a job. The workforce is no different to many other people that have had to take a pay cut, pay frozen and changes to their pensions.

These workers have good hourly rates and should have stood up for themselves and accepted what they were offered.

I have no sympathy for them as they have allowed union bullies to win at their expense.

Buzby

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

It has to be profitable though? And most who voted no were union members....do you not feel the union have any responsibility over this?

Responsibility for what, exactly? For refusing to re-negotiate matters that were hard-fought and agreed? There will always be those who will take a non-confrontational route and accept what they see is 'inevitable' - but surely this is simply a managerial tactic to screw down the costs, and if results in the workers being paid less, so be it?

INEOS talk of the cost of upgrading, but this should be an ongoing program - I can stand bring corrected, but I don't recall there being anything major since BP pulled out. If it is genuinely losing millions per month (INEOS state) then clearly their management has been ineffective and it is time for change.

I see the current situation as an opening door - not one that is slamming shut. The prospect of 'blame' is inappropriate, but from what I can see nobody is blameless - and that includes management!

aledrinker

imo unite are crooks ive been told in the past to slow down dont show the job up by unite they should be there to protect the workforce not milk the cash cow
they would rather protect one job loss even if it jeopardises 10

ohreally

bap98189 wrote: »

As I understand it, the union rep in question was accused of rigging an election. The company was carrying out an investigation and said they would come to a decision by 25th October. The union wanted the investigation shelved, the company refused and things escalated to the point a strike vote was called.

My understanding is the convener was accused of using facility time for political activity (who would have though that) and an investigation was conducted. Management were provided with the investigation findings, which recommended no action, so they had another investigation, same conclusion which triggered a third investigation - perhaps hoping to investigate until they secured the outcome they wanted.


The events which have unfolded show an employer which has went feral. These events are simply an excuse to get their way, nothing more.


Their decision is rancid.

bluenoseam

You get the feeling that it was always going to boil down to a plant closure & that Ineos were looking for a way to "spark" that off so that they didn't have to come out and say "we're looking to close the plant". Had they done that they'd have been portrayed (and some would argue rightly so) as cold, callous illegitimate children - so in order to save face & avoid such accusations they'll look to create a problem.

Lets be fair here, it doesn't take much to get Unite's back up, knowing this they picked that angle & ran with it, ultimately causing the union to appear pig headed & stubborn. In today's world where unions are growing ever more marginalised (particularly up here where most are distrustful following the Falkirk affair recently) it was particularly easy. No side in this is innocent, no side is without blame, but ultimately Unite made it easier for Ineos to achieve their objectives while ditching atleast part of the blame onto the union.

For the area involved this is a very dangerous blow indeed, massive employer in that part of Scotland and ultimately something that will devastate that community.

Takeaway_Addict

Buzby wrote: »

Responsibility for what, exactly? For refusing to re-negotiate matters that were hard-fought and agreed? There will always be those who will take a non-confrontational route and accept what they see is 'inevitable' - but surely this is simply a managerial tactic to screw down the costs, and if results in the workers being paid less, so be it?
I agree in a way but the Union pushed it to far IMO, yes renegotiate but the risk is what has happened. A Union should be pushing for the best deal, this does mean cutting some of the benefits if it saves jobs.

INEOS talk of the cost of upgrading, but this should be an ongoing program - I can stand bring corrected, but I don't recall there being anything major since BP pulled out. If it is genuinely losing millions per month (INEOS state) then clearly their management has been ineffective and it is time for change.
I don't know on this, maybe they should have done continuous improvements but for whatever reasons they didn't and were now looking to address it. However, what's the point in this investment if the costs are still out of control on a monthly basis and they were losing money?

I see the current situation as an opening door - not one that is slamming shut. The prospect of 'blame' is inappropriate, but from what I can see nobody is blameless - and that includes management!

I feel for the workers and yes both parties are at fault,

Takeaway_Addict

aledrinker wrote: »

imo unite are crooks ive been told in the past to slow down dont show the job up by unite they should be there to protect the workforce not milk the cash cow
they would rather protect one job loss even if it jeopardises 10

I agree with the bold part regarding Unions on these manners