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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close
Comments
-
And on the other side? You only seemed able to put one side of the argument - hardly 'sitting on the fence' is it?
Most fences are seen to be in the middle ground.
Graham's fences appear to be about as far as you can get from normality, and as close as you can get to the planet bollox.
On the one hand, he doesn't know what he's talking about, on the other hand, he doesn't know either.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »Most fences are seen to be in the middle ground.
Graham's fences appear to be about as far as you can get from normality, and as close as you can get to the planet bollox.
On the one hand, he doesn't know what he's talking about, on the other hand, he doesn't know either.
At least I can make a point and argue it without throwing playground abuse around.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »At least I can make a point and argue it without throwing playground abuse around.
Come now we all know that that isn't true, you give as good as you get.
Anyway, are you going to finish your post? I'll start you off:
"And on the other side...."0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »It's not the unions that have "cost people their jobs".
If the plant isn't profitable, as the company allures to, then it would have gone anyway, regardless of the unions.
If the only way for it to stay profitable is to reduce contractual benefits to it's staff, then it's not exactly stable, so again, it would likely have gone without the unions objecting (just kept going for a while more).
As it is, there are many rumours that a bluff is being called here. The politics is intense and some have suggested that the company are hoping for a taxpayer bailout for which, in turn, people will keep 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.
Quite a few voices have stated there was a wry smile on the face of the person making the announcement to staff....as if the company had beaten them after daring to go on this long.
Very difficult to simply blame employees and the unions.
Think theres more yet to come on this one, dependant upon the pressure that can be applied politically.
It may well the the unions that are to blame. But it may not be. At the moment, it seems both sides are still arguing...but the point that the plant appears to be losing £10m a month suggests there are issues anyway, without the unite issues.
Edit: and a slight update has happened even since I read this morning. The government is now considering stepping in with a business plan. Therefore, if the company were being clever and holding a ransom of sorts (not saying they are, just looking at all the options) it looks as if they may well be getting somewhere.
The company has also stated it may "consider" re-opening if the emplyees agree not to go on strike and accept conditions.
To me, it looks more and more as if this is a dirty game of power.... "do as we say, or you lose everything".
Might want to consider the 150 million it cost to shut down and restart the plant during the last strike.
Striking certainly didint help matters. I hope those few unionists that ruined the lives of the workforce hang their heads in shame.0 -
0
-
I'm guessing that it was actually you who created it, I'm not wrong, am I?
On the matter in hand, it's rather toe-curling to see Unite and Len McCluskey backtrack on this one, it's been a monumental own goal.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »At least I can make a point and argue it [STRIKE]without throwing playground abuse around[/STRIKE].
Well that's a revelation!
And that's why you provide excellent entertainment. I'm currently on my second rather large Gin & Tonic, and if I go for a third, then your arguments could actually start making sense. However, as they say, I'll be sober in the morning.0 -
I have a theory that he's aiming at a target of 100,000 "Thanks" after which we will all congratulate him and he will call it a day to pursue other activities. Maybe we should all thank his posts, regardless of what drivel they may contain, and accelerate that departure?
On second thoughts, no. I prefer the drivel. And in any case, I don't think he would 'retire' until houses cost £20,000 max, and rents fall to £50 a month.0 -
mayonnaise wrote: »I'm defo not a union basher, but they got it so wrong here.
Like paying poker bluff without any cards in your hand.
Why would you ever want to bluff with a good hand?0 -
Yep the union had such a good hand that they bet their members jobs.
And lost.
The fact of the matter is that the union were told that refusal to accept what Ineos were offering would probably result in the plants closure. The union didn't believe them and thought they were bluffing,0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards