Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Takeaway_Addict

ohreally wrote: »

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.

Surely that's the aim of both sides? to get the best deal for themselves as possible, even if it means shutting the plant down to save not losing money

eamon

There is probably lots more to this story than we will ever get to know about. Being cynical Ineos will do some more clever (tax) accounting and walk away with even more profit. But Unite will carry the can and all the bad publicity.

Spirit_2

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?

The administrative staff may well include finance, marketing, HR, sales staff, IT, analysts and managers who have insight into the state of the business beyond the production processes.

Current margins and forecasts will have informed their view on what a realistic mutual settlement and outcome could look like.

ILW

Just heard on the news that the average workers salary at Grangemouth is £55,000.

Think that they should have kept their heads down.

mountainofdebt

Of course they did.

But there again I get the impression that unions are not so much about protecting workers but trying to relive the 'glory' days of the 1970s.

dandelionclock30

£55,000 ! thats quite a lot. I think I would have accepted a small paycut if I was on that type of money. Compared to what they will be looking at when they have been finished!. Dole money and NMW wage jobs etc.

I wonder if It will definatley shut, if so I feel sorry for those people. It will be a long way to fall when you have been used to that wage.

CFC

Southend1 wrote: »

It's possible the actions of the staff at Grangemouth contributed to accelerated closure however you have to defend your position at some point.

No, you don't. Starving on a point of principle is never a good look.
The trouble is that between companies telling lies and unions being the private domains of politically motivated egomaniacs there are many opportunities to get it all wrong.
And that's what the union have done on this occasion.

Southend1

CFC wrote: »

No, you don't. Starving on a point of principle is never a good look.
The trouble is that between companies telling lies and unions being the private domains of politically motivated egomaniacs there are many opportunities to get it all wrong.
And that's what the union have done on this occasion.

Interesting take on unions.

I was somehow under the impression that they were democratic membership organisations.

marybelle01

Of course, the media only tell us a version of the story they want us to hear.

There are other versions - http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us

dshart

marybelle01 wrote: »

Of course, the media only tell us a version of the story they want us to hear.

There are other versions - http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us

The article makes interesting reading, but like most articles is biased towards the authors or organisations views.

I will admit that I knew little regarding this dispute till I read this thread and that indicates to me how little the media coverage has been regarding this.

One thing that gets me about the article and its version of events it that the dispute was originally about the company trying to get rid of a union activist who was obviously involved in political issues not related to the company. Okay I agree that a person should not be victimised for that, but if the union knew that the company were spoiling for a fight why did they get the whole workforce involved? Surely there are other routes they could have taken to protect the persons job or go to a tribunal for unfair dismissal etc.

The result of them fighting for one man has played right into the companies hands and allowed them get rid of the whole workforce and allowed the company lay off the blame on the union.

If the petrochemical plant is a going concern I am sure some other company will step in and reopen it (maybe even the same company under a different guise), but you can guarantee it will be under new terms and conditions for the workforce with the loss of a lot of existing conditions.

I personally think the days of large unions are done with. They try to have too much political influence and lose sight of the people they are supposed to be supporting. I think unions should be on a company by company basis with no outside affiliations. That way they just represent the workforce of that single company and have no political bias.