Grangemouth dispute: Ineos says petrochemical plant will close

noodle_doodle

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

Daily record in proper news shocker


Scotland may not be able to do without Grangemouth, but Ineos sure as sh*t can. That's the take home message for the unions and the SNP. However, if as this guy says the place is basically profitable (though not by much. £6m a year for that size of site?) then maybe a new buyer is the answer. Obv for free off INEOS as it's such a loss-maker.

MFW_ASAP

noodle_doodle wrote: »

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/grangemouth-bailout-ineos-screw-taxpayer-2528931

Daily record in proper news shocker


Scotland may not be able to do without Grangemouth, but Ineos sure as sh*t can. That's the take home message for the unions and the SNP. However, if as this guy says the place is basically profitable (though not by much. £6m a year for that size of site?) then maybe a new buyer is the answer. Obv for free off INEOS as it's such a loss-maker.

One Scottish newspaper was saying the site is worth 4bn to the Scottish Economy, I guess this figure includes not only corporation taxes, but also the employee's salaries that are taxed and the remainder used to buy goods in the wider Scottish economy. Replace those wages with lower ones or unemployment benefits and you can see how devastating this is for the SNP in the lead up to their independance vote. Especially as BASF has also announced a closure and job losses (albeit nothing on this scale).

The SNP's 'one trick pony' of relying on a single income stream (oil) is becoming a little lame.

chris_m

Grangemouth to reopen;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184

MFW_ASAP

The employees and unions have agreed to a 3 year pay freeze and 'modern' pension scheme (probably a money purchase). I can't see how the government can keep skirting the issue of public sector final salary pensions when yet another private sector one closes because they are unsustainable.

Employers cannot afford them, neither can/should the taxpayer.

Moto2

Perhaps Unite need a new anthem to sing at their conference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the dealin's done

mike_the_bike_2

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The employees and unions have agreed to a 3 year pay freeze and 'modern' pension scheme (probably a money purchase). I can't see how the government can keep skirting the issue of public sector final salary pensions when yet another private sector one closes because they are unsustainable.

Employers cannot afford them, neither can/should the taxpayer.

They can because they are able to do so ..and this Government will long be out of office before the cost of these public sector pensions needs to be met.

It's pretty obvious the whole issue of pensions is just one long slow car crash when we know there are going to be numerous fatalities further down the rd.

Loughton_Monkey

Moto2 wrote: »

Perhaps Unite need a new anthem to sing at their conference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwvnkPRgo_E&feature=kp

StevieJ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

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

Remind me, where did I write that it was a game? a tactic for subduing the unions/workforce is not a game.

Hoopie1

ILW wrote: »

Making your opponenet think you have a rubbish hand when you have a good one, is bluffing.

Not in poker terms it isn't.

From a poker dictionary:

A bluff is a bet or raise made by a player when they believe their hand is weaker than their opponent's, and is unlikely to become stronger (thus distinguishing a bluff from a semi-bluff). The bluff is a bet made with the sole purpose of causing better hands to fold.

Anyway, I digress. I'm delighted it will re-open. I suspect that a few thousand Grangemouth workers are wondering what exactly they pay Unite a membership fee for.

StevieJ

Fella wrote: »

Be interesting to see opinions on what people think a Union's role is.

To my mind this should include things like ensuring workers conditions are safe but should not include anything to do with negotiating pay. IMO a company should be free to pay as much or as little as it wants & in return people can choose to work there or not.

If a company makes widgets that sell for £1 and then demand changes & now widgets sell for 90p, it's perfectly reasonable they might reduce pay by 10%. But Unions would be out on strike immediately in such circumstances.

I've worked at places that imposed 10% pay cuts (yearly at one point). So I changed jobs to somewhere that paid more.

Was that before or after 2008 and the new reality?