Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

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.

Unions are based on a principle of collective action. Members stand together because they believe they are stronger together than as individuals.

If each company had it's own union there would be too much opportunity for the employer to influence or control the union for its own purposes. (Having said that, a few companies do have a union representing only employees of that firm).

If unions didn't have political affiliations, how would they advance the interests of members? Eg if they wanted to lobby for a new health and safety law?

I can see you have formed your opinion with the best interest of employees in mind, but the whole concept and purpose of unions seems to have passed you by.

Moving to an employment relationship solely based on individual negotiation and the enforcement by individuals of contracts through employment tribunals would be a licence for companies to slash pay and hard own terms and conditions across many sectors of our economy.

dshart

Southend1 wrote: »

Unions are based on a principle of collective action. Members stand together because they believe they are stronger together than as individuals.

If each company had it's own union there would be too much opportunity for the employer to influence or control the union for its own purposes. (Having said that, a few companies do have a union representing only employees of that firm). How so? the union would be the workforce of the company and the issues would be confined to the company. There would be no outside political motivation in decisions by either side.

If unions didn't have political affiliations, how would they advance the interests of members? Eg if they wanted to lobby for a new health and safety law? You do not need political affiliation to lobby for changes in law, you could set up a seperate body (not union) to lobby on these issues.

I can see you have formed your opinion with the best interest of employees in mind, but the whole concept and purpose of unions seems to have passed you by. I do not think the concept and purpose of unions has passed me by, I think in a lot of cases the unions are the ones who appear to forget their purpose by being more concerned regarding politics than their members.

Moving to an employment relationship solely based on individual negotiation and the enforcement by individuals of contracts through employment tribunals would be a licence for companies to slash pay and hard own terms and conditions across many sectors of our economy. The individual unions would fight for their workforce without outside political pressure on issues relevant to that company.

In the bad old days an issue like this would have led to the union probably calling a national strike and holding the country to ransom, but where did that get the country? Industry stagnated and the country went downhill. Do we want to go back to those days? By the same token we do not want to go back to the days where workers had no say and were basically slaves.

Compare this with countries like Germany where the work force got together with management of companies and negotiated with understanding for the long term benefit of the company and employees and you begin to understand why Germany is the powerhouse in Europe today.

In the UK there is still too much of an us and them attitude in the workplace and both the unions and management are to blame, it is a political power struggle with the management seen as being tories and the union seen as being labour. Both sides need to realise that if they work together and understand each others point of view they will both benefit (or maybe that is just in an ideal world).

Andy_L

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

£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.

but its an average salary (especially if its mean not median) which is fairly meaningless. It may have been dragged up by highly paid professionals/executives off the shopfloor (who voted against action) whilst the people who voted for action are down the bottom of the pay pile

Southend1

dshart wrote: »

In the bad old days an issue like this would have led to the union probably calling a national strike and holding the country to ransom, but where did that get the country? Industry stagnated and the country went downhill. Do we want to go back to those days? By the same token we do not want to go back to the days where workers had no say and were basically slaves.

Compare this with countries like Germany where the work force got together with management of companies and negotiated with understanding for the long term benefit of the company and employees and you begin to understand why Germany is the powerhouse in Europe today.

In the UK there is still too much of an us and them attitude in the workplace and both the unions and management are to blame, it is a political power struggle with the management seen as being tories and the union seen as being labour. Both sides need to realise that if they work together and understand each others point of view they will both benefit (or maybe that is just in an ideal world).

Who is this outside political influence controlling the unions and manipulating their members?

I definitely agree that labour relations in this country could and should be more collaborative but largely this is not the fault of the unions. For example at Grangemouth the company unilaterally decided to take away the pension scheme and cut wages. They held the employees to ransom, basically saying accept this or you're out of a job.

Similarly in the HE sector where I currently work there is a pay dispute because management refuse to negotiate with the unions and want to continue slashing pay. Staff wouldn't need to resort to strike action if management were prepared to negotiate.

I would argue that unions have increasing relevance at a time when the gap between the highest and lowest paid is widening so rapidly and employees are expected to suffer repeated attacks on pay and conditions. We seem to be heading back to the Victorian age and there needs to be a counter balance to this.

Union membership has been increasing in recent years. I don't think it will ever reach the highs of the 1970s again because there have been so many years of employers and Tory politicians brainwashing workers that they should be grateful for any kind of job and they should put up and shut up without making any attempt to stand up for their right to decent pay and conditions. However it's encouraging that there are still some people out there prepared to stand up for themselves and their colleagues.

dshart

Whether it was the companies or the union fault the end result is that hundreds of workers will be out of a job and the UK becomes more reliant on imported products affecting the balance of trade.

They say "choose your battles wisely...", well in this case I do not think they have been wise.

I do not know the full story or the reasons behind it, and each side puts forward their justifications, but in this case the company hold the trump card that they can shut the plant and walk away. How many people would have voted differently had they known this would be the outcome.

ILW

dshart wrote: »

Whether it was the companies or the union fault the end result is that hundreds of workers will be out of a job and the UK becomes more reliant on imported products affecting the balance of trade.

They say "choose your battles wisely...", well in this case I do not think they have been wise.

I do not know the full story or the reasons behind it, and each side puts forward their justifications, but in this case the company hold the trump card that they can shut the plant and walk away. How many people would have voted differently had they known this would be the outcome.

not sure about that, it appears there is overcapacity in the UK already. Hence the refinery losing money.

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

Who is this outside political influence controlling the unions and manipulating their members?

I definitely agree that labour relations in this country could and should be more collaborative but largely this is not the fault of the unions. For example at Grangemouth the company unilaterally decided to take away the pension scheme and cut wages. They held the employees to ransom, basically saying accept this or you're out of a job.

Similarly in the HE sector where I currently work there is a pay dispute because management refuse to negotiate with the unions and want to continue slashing pay. Staff wouldn't need to resort to strike action if management were prepared to negotiate.

I would argue that unions have increasing relevance at a time when the gap between the highest and lowest paid is widening so rapidly and employees are expected to suffer repeated attacks on pay and conditions. We seem to be heading back to the Victorian age and there needs to be a counter balance to this.

Union membership has been increasing in recent years. I don't think it will ever reach the highs of the 1970s again because there have been so many years of employers and Tory politicians brainwashing workers that they should be grateful for any kind of job and they should put up and shut up without making any attempt to stand up for their right to decent pay and conditions. However it's encouraging that there are still some people out there prepared to stand up for themselves and their colleagues.

I would suggest that is a matter for voters to decide, not minority vested interests such as unions. If the majority want a more left wing society, they can vote in one.

globetraveller

When the company announced the closure it immediately crossed my mind that they had every intention of reopening. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this dispute, from now on when the workforce votes against a company, that company has now seen what can happen if you say you are closing.

dshart

http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/Market%20Sector/Oil%20and%20Gas/future-european-refining-industry.pdf

Linked above is an interesting article regarding the refining industry and it would lend credence to Ineos need for restructuring and looking for cost cutting.

As I understand it they have been trying to sell it since 2010.

What has either side done to make the plant viable. I guess no worker wants to give up hard won terms and conditions but if the only other option is having no job then what do you do? By the same token the employer cannot be allowed to just walk all over the employees using the excuse of hard times to cut conditions and wages just to increase profits.

Southend1

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest that is a matter for voters to decide, not minority vested interests such as unions. If the majority want a more left wing society, they can vote in one.

I'm not saying unions should seize control of the government!

There's nothing wrong with people getting together to represent their interests. Employers do it e.g. Through the CBI and IoD so why shouldn't employees have unions to represent them?

These groups lobby for their interests all the time so it's only fair to have soma balance.