Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close

mystic_trev

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Looks like the Salmon boy is on the case:

He's got no choice, otherwise Scotland will be going back to the Horse and Cart!

The refinery provides most of the fuel to Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland.

Loughton_Monkey

mystic_trev wrote: »

He's got no choice, otherwise Scotland will be going back to the Horse and Cart!

Good idea.

All the ex Grangemouth employees can follow the horses with a dustpan and bucket and have mushrooms for tea.

The latest news, however, seems to suggest - as was obvious really - that the employees are going to have to "eat it".

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Pity you didn't get a response to this important point. I guess not even Devon can argue against it.

As I've said, I'm on the fence and believe there is a lot to come out of this yet.

On the one side, I don't feel that it's a good thing that a private company can simply hold ransoms with both it's workers and the government should it be asked to negotiate.

The issue here, as I understand it (and I may be wrong) is that both sides will not negotiate.

Secondly, if a company as large as this is able to simply shut down a plant, suck up the losses all to avoid negotiating with it's staff, where does that leave us in the future?

In terms of the union, I have little time for them. However, my issue was with stating the unions had shut the plant down. That simply isn't the case. The bosses shut the plant down. It was their decision, and something is certainly wrong if they can shut the plant down and take the losses that creates while they play the power game, but plead poverty the next when workers ask for negotations on pay and awards. They could have kept the plant running while negotiating. The shutdown was incredibly quick and had little warning.

Ineos are now playing a game where they will listen to the unions, but won't state whether they will re-open the plant. They are also playing a nice little political game, where seemingly Alex Salmond appears to have given them a nice little present of "we will do whatever it takes".

Any company like Ineos will now be clever enough to wait this out and see what the Scottish government comes up with before reopening.

To me, this is agame of two sides. But it's a game where it's quite clear who has the power and quite clear they will use it to hold ransoms, not only on their workforce, but maybe even on the government. We've yet to see if this is the case.....but I do wonder why Ineos can't just state "we'll open if you agree" and why Unite now have to plead for something that may or may not be given.

If people are stating staff should just bow at any renegotiations of their contract or face the company being shut down....then I'd have to disagree. We'd end up in a dire place if that were the case.

MFW_ASAP

As I said, Even GD can't argue against it - hence an argument that mentioned everything other than Defined Benefit pensions.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I've said, I'm on the fence ......

Yes Graham.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not the unions that have "cost people their jobs"

......Personally? Sounds like a lot of games, for which I'm sure the company would be delighted should the outcome be that we blame the employees.

......Very difficult to simply blame employees and the unions.

......To me, it looks more and more as if this is a dirty game of power.... "do as we say, or you lose everything".

Confucius he say man who sit on fence get splinter up his backside.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Why does the company need to make it look like the union's fault when they could just take a unilateral decision to close the plant at any time. They could have said "we're making £10 million a second but we have decided we don't want to, so we're shutting the plant and making you all redundant" then they could have bulldozed the site and refused to sell it to anyone as a going concern and no-one could have done a thing about it.

Maybe the reason is that they don't want to close the plant? There is a possibility that their business plans see a profitable future with the £300 million investment made even more profitable with a neutered union? Just a thought.

Loughton_Monkey

Well Unite are not very contrite on their website latest:

Grangemouth, the powerhouse of Scotland’s economy, stands idle today. Ineos owner Jim Ratcliffe bears full responsibility for this. Unite and the 1400 people working there oppose this closure.

But Ineos is waging a campaign of fear against its employees. It is attacking the workers’ union, Unite, and their representatives. It has avoided paying a penny in tax for four years. Its finances are a mystery.

Now it risks destroying good Scottish jobs. This climate of fear has been created to try to force working men and women into signing away their rights and the pensions for which they have saved all their working lives.

This is a company that is out of control. This is holding Scotland to ransom.

Unite worked tirelessly to drag this company to the negotiating table only for management to walk away just as a settlement was at hand.
Grangemouth is now in serious danger because of management behaviour.

Grangemouth is a world class facility. Its workforce serves our country honourably. These men and women deserve better. Unite is determined to stop Ineos ruining Grangemouth.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe the reason is that they don't want to close the plant?

People at this level don't play games. Better (more profitable) things to do with their time.

noodle_doodle

Ineos are billions in debt, they bought every chemical concern going that the big players wanted rid of, and they almost went bankrupt in 2008.

They claim they're losing £10m a month (just at grangemouth). With 1300 workers that's £7,000 a worker a month! Doubt a 10% cut in wages or a lower pension will offset that. I'm smelling some of the stuff you chuck on roses from ineos (unless they're counting interest on the loan they took to buy the spot off BP)

On the other hand, the unite leaders are straight out of "carry on at your convenience"...."everybody aaaaht"

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I've said, I'm on the fence and believe there is a lot to come out of this yet.

On the one side,

And on the other side? You only seemed able to put one side of the argument - hardly 'sitting on the fence' is it?