We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Did the union get it badly wrong? Grangemouth Refinery
Comments
-
Lobbying and disrupting other peoples lives (for political reasons) are two different things.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.0 -
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.
The more I read about this situation the more I am convinced that the union made a big mistake. Below is an extract from BBC regarding one of the key players in the dispute.
"Perhaps the key figure in the dispute, Stephen Deans, is the convener for Unite in Scotland.
Unite started its industrial action earlier this month over what it says is the victimisation of Mr Deans, who has worked at the Ineos plant for more than 20 years.
Ineos accused him of contravening company policies as part of his work as former chair of the Labour Party in Falkirk.
He was suspended from Ineos in the summer in connection with his Labour Party activities, essentially accused of campaigning on work premises.
His suspension soured labour relations between management and union members, a large number of whom were angry at his treatment.
Mr Deans had recruited a number of Unite members from the Ineos workforce to the local Labour branch, where the selection of a new parliamentary candidate was taking place.
His activities attracted the suspicion of Labour Party head office.
An investigation into whether electoral rigging was taking place cleared Unite."
It seems strange that the union balloted for strike action over one person. Read through the many posts on here about people who feel they have been treated unfairly at work and some of the advice they have received from unions and how many times have the union called a strike ballot because of it? But as soon as it is a union convener then its all stops out. I'm afraid it smacks of the union flexing its muscles at the expense of its members.0 -
-
I would suspect the whole thing was more for teh unions benefit.Exactly.
They have only themselves to blame.
Greed always comes back to bite you.
I am sick of hearing them all whinge and cry :mad:
I am old enough to remember Scargill in the 80s. Made himself a rich man whilst the members were the losers.0 -
Maybe I'm always looking on the bright side of life, but I don't see anyone has really got it wrong here. It looks like a win-win situation.
As I understand it, the owner of the business was losing money from the site. The site has been losing money for a long time apparently.
The owner, having considered all the available options, needed to cut the cost of labour at the site.
The workers said they would rather not work, than work for the reduced pay and conditions the owner wished to impose, and they demonstrated this by withdrawing their labour.
So they weren't earning anything anyway. What option did the owner have but to close down the loss making site (which was presumably losing even more whilst the workers were on strike)
At least now the workers know where they stand. It looked like the closure announcement has at least kicked some former employees into looking elsewhere for work, sending out their CVs etc., even if they hadn't done so earlier when they said they'd rather not work there under the revised terms.
Even if they don't find alternative work quickly, presumably they will soon be entitled to claim benefits as unemployed, rather than strikers.
Meanwhile, the owner of the site can hopefully concentrate his time & energy on making or retaining the profitablility of his other sites and keep the employees there employed and off benefits.
0 -
Lobbying and disrupting other peoples lives (for political reasons) are two different things.
It depends I suppose on what workers were balloted on.
If the question was "are you prepared to strike over the treatment of Stephen Deans" that's completely different to "are you prepared to reject the employer's offer of reduced pay and closure of the pension scheme".
The former would be a political issue, and I would tend to agree with you. The latter is a workplace issue and employees have every right to reject the offer if they wish.0 -
It depends I suppose on what workers were balloted on.
If the question was "are you prepared to strike over the treatment of Stephen Deans" that's completely different to "are you prepared to reject the employer's offer of reduced pay and closure of the pension scheme".
The former would be a political issue, and I would tend to agree with you. The latter is a workplace issue and employees have every right to reject the offer if they wish.
But it appears that it was the treatment of Stephen Deans that caused the initial industrial action.
I am not aware of the actual ballot and maybe someone in the know could enlighten me.
But even if the question was "are you prepared to reject the employer's offer of reduced pay and closure of the pension scheme". then that is poorly put as the issue is a lot more complex than cutting wages and pension, you also have to say why the company feels they have to take such action and what the options are.0 -
Average means nothing in this context. One guy could be on £5m a year and the rest on £10ph
No, but it does mean the overall wage bill is over 70million a year, even if this got cut by 1/12 it goes a way to reducing the overall deficit of £120m a yearDon't trust a forum for advice. Get proper paid advice. Any advice given should always be checked0 -
Takeaway_Addict wrote: »No, but it does mean the overall wage bill is over 70million a year, even if this got cut by 1/12 it goes a way to reducing the overall deficit of £120m a year
Point taken but there is a discussion to be had regarding how the deficit is reduced. And if this involved wage cuts, whether there is a flat % cut for everyone, or whether the poorest are protected and the highest earners take a bigger hit. Of course there may have been other options but if management weren't prepared to negotiate, they risked a walkout.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 348.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.6K Spending & Discounts
- 241.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 618.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176K Life & Family
- 254.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards