It's a shame that both parties didn't find a way to move forwards.
A great loss for Scotland, that's for sure.
Regards,
Cypher
I would have liked to have seen more pressure from the Scottish and British governments to encourage both sides to compromise and use ACAS' good offices.
I would have liked to have seen more pressure from the Scottish and British governments to encourage both sides to compromise and use ACAS' good offices.
On Sky News tonight, I saw the Socialist Worker placards about no compromise and they have just gone and got their pyrrhic victory.
What, you mean the workers weren't going to lie down and give in to blackmail? Accept a wage freeze and pension downgrade or else?
It should be nationalised now, with Ineos given minimal compensation.
It has little or no scrap value, most of the value in the scrap would be eaten up by decontamination charges and waste disposal charges. As a non running site it would cost money to get rid of it.
What, you mean the workers weren't going to lie down and give in to blackmail? Accept a wage freeze and pension downgrade or else?
It should be nationalised now, with Ineos given minimal compensation.
Not going to happen ever not even if the SNP had total economic control because that would deter inward economic investment. Marxism died in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall (I recommend this book here, Stasiland, which describes how things were really like) and the thing to do is have a more humane form of capitalism like the Scandinavian states do by and large.
As for the case in question, I made it quite clear above that greater political pressure should have been applied on both sides to compromise.
The oil industry is the one of the most profitable sectors in the market. How on Earth can a company in the oil business lose money?
It isn't there is over capacity in the refining market hence refineries are not profitable. It is actually cheaper for us to buy our fuel from the US than make it here.
UK refineries are necessary to ensure supply. Hence the previous requests for government funds to keep it open. I previously worked in the semiconductor industry but high costs in the UK eventually meant FABS moved overseas. Companies just keep moving to where it cost less to manufacture.
We used to manufacture all our own clothing but now import virtually everything. If you want to keep UK manufacturing we have to accept higher prices. Given the choice would you happily pay £10 for an item if it was UK made or pay £5 for an import? We all want to earn more but pay less, who to blame for this countries mess? We all are!!
Aren't you one of those who keep saying that Scotland won't vote to leave anyway?
Sounds like Scotland should withhold the tax that is being used to build up the South Easts infrastructure projects. You know the 89% of total UK capital spending that will occur around London, following your myopic view.
Attitudes like yours leads to situations where English refineries are given no access to North Sea production from an independent Scotland, if it happens.
A prime example of why it is impossible to have any useful conversation with a Scottish Nationalist.
A prime example of why it is impossible to have any useful conversation with a Scottish Nationalist.
Because your hypocrisy (or, if we're being generous, the hypocrisy you suggest on behalf of the UK government) is exposed? Let's be clear: you suggested that Westminster wouldn't pay out for Grangemouth because they may lose that investment if Scotland leaves the UK in 2016. Are you denying that, by that logic, Scotland should refrain from contributing to things like HS2 or development in England, NI or Wales because it may lose those investments if it leaves the UK in 2016?
It isn't there is over capacity in the refining market hence refineries are not profitable. It is actually cheaper for us to buy our fuel from the US than make it here.
UK refineries are necessary to ensure supply. Hence the previous requests for government funds to keep it open. I previously worked in the semiconductor industry but high costs in the UK eventually meant FABS moved overseas. Companies just keep moving to where it cost less to manufacture.
We used to manufacture all our own clothing but now import virtually everything. If you want to keep UK manufacturing we have to accept higher prices. Given the choice would you happily pay £10 for an item if it was UK made or pay £5 for an import? We all want to earn more but pay less, who to blame for this countries mess? We all are!!
I don't believe that for one second. With prices soaring at the pumps, the wholesalers are rolling in it.
We are still part of the UK and westminster wants to keep it that way. Funny way to go about it;)
It's a sensible way to invest - why do it if they are threatening to leave? It'd be a waste of money that could be better spent on more reliable areas of the union.
I don't believe that for one second. With prices soaring at the pumps, the wholesalers are rolling in it.
All that shows is how little you know about the Oil & Gas Industry, all the profit is in Exploration & Production (Upstream), not Refining (Midstream) or Retail & Distribution (Downstream).
following Monday's vote for strike the plant's owners have been as good as their word and are closing the plant.
Did Unite think they were bluffing? is this really what is best for it's members?
What twaddle, if you knew anything of the history of INEOS and its asset stripping record of its 'acquisitions ' in the chemical industry then you might not be in such haste to blame the unions.
A company which regards Capital Expenditure as a loss to use as an excuse to close a plant or factory shouldn't be let anywhere near crucial national resources.
The Sunday Herald explains INEOS and its little games quite well,
Rationalisation of refining has been on the cards for some time. The unions would have thought that there is no way the government will allow Grangemouth to close. Perhaps the union should have researched the markets more closely before spoiling for a fight.
Interesting part of the article mentioned earlier was, " So, too, are refineries in places like Britain and Australia, where closing down operations is relatively uncomplicated."
It's a sensible way to invest - why do it if they are threatening to leave? It'd be a waste of money that could be better spent on more reliable areas of the union.
So Westminster is showing that it does not want to invest in Scotland. How does that equate with the Better Together campaign? A bit contradictory, what.
According to news reports, they would have been required to have a pay freeze lasting from 2014 until 2016.
and a £15,000 lump sum payment for accepting the new pension conditions. I suspect the company knew Unite would not agree and have found an alternative solution to the problem.
Knowing that now and looking at the timeline of events in this dispute, it almost seems to me the situation was orchestrated to bring about the closure of the plant and solely blame the unions.
Make me wonder what would have happened if the workers had accepted the new term and conditions. The cynic in me thinks it would have been something else. The dispute started with the union threatening to strike. The union backed down. Then the company said they'd have to freeze pay etc. I wonder what would have been next if the union had backed down again. We'll never know!
Rationalisation of refining has been on the cards for some time. The unions would have thought that there is no way the government will allow Grangemouth to close. Perhaps the union should have researched the markets more closely before spoiling for a fight.
Interesting part of the article mentioned earlier was, " So, too, are refineries in places like Britain and Australia, where closing down operations is relatively uncomplicated."
You think that the union thought the government would step in a save the place, sorry unions for many years have seen that government don't care, seen many a business go bust or sold abroad. The writing been on the wall for a long time for it to shut down
Comments
Will we be seeing headlines in tomorrow's Right wing rags that Ineos has been holding their workers and the country to ransom?
Of course not.
A despicable company.
I would have liked to have seen more pressure from the Scottish and British governments to encourage both sides to compromise and use ACAS' good offices.
On Sky News tonight, I saw the Socialist Worker placards about no compromise and they have just gone and got their pyrrhic victory.
What, you mean the workers weren't going to lie down and give in to blackmail? Accept a wage freeze and pension downgrade or else?
It should be nationalised now, with Ineos given minimal compensation.
It has little or no scrap value, most of the value in the scrap would be eaten up by decontamination charges and waste disposal charges. As a non running site it would cost money to get rid of it.
Not going to happen ever not even if the SNP had total economic control because that would deter inward economic investment. Marxism died in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall (I recommend this book here, Stasiland, which describes how things were really like) and the thing to do is have a more humane form of capitalism like the Scandinavian states do by and large.
As for the case in question, I made it quite clear above that greater political pressure should have been applied on both sides to compromise.
It isn't there is over capacity in the refining market hence refineries are not profitable. It is actually cheaper for us to buy our fuel from the US than make it here.
UK refineries are necessary to ensure supply. Hence the previous requests for government funds to keep it open. I previously worked in the semiconductor industry but high costs in the UK eventually meant FABS moved overseas. Companies just keep moving to where it cost less to manufacture.
We used to manufacture all our own clothing but now import virtually everything. If you want to keep UK manufacturing we have to accept higher prices. Given the choice would you happily pay £10 for an item if it was UK made or pay £5 for an import? We all want to earn more but pay less, who to blame for this countries mess? We all are!!
A prime example of why it is impossible to have any useful conversation with a Scottish Nationalist.
I wonder what their executives were paid this year.
Because your hypocrisy (or, if we're being generous, the hypocrisy you suggest on behalf of the UK government) is exposed? Let's be clear: you suggested that Westminster wouldn't pay out for Grangemouth because they may lose that investment if Scotland leaves the UK in 2016. Are you denying that, by that logic, Scotland should refrain from contributing to things like HS2 or development in England, NI or Wales because it may lose those investments if it leaves the UK in 2016?
I don't believe that for one second. With prices soaring at the pumps, the wholesalers are rolling in it.
Try reading the news sites, don't know which pumps your buying at but prices at present are falling.
Article about overcapacity.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/column-campbell-idUSL2N0D20VD20130415
It's a sensible way to invest - why do it if they are threatening to leave? It'd be a waste of money that could be better spent on more reliable areas of the union.
All that shows is how little you know about the Oil & Gas Industry, all the profit is in Exploration & Production (Upstream), not Refining (Midstream) or Retail & Distribution (Downstream).
I'm guessing that the majority of workers would have taken the pay cut if it meant that they kept their jobs. I sure know i would have.
What twaddle, if you knew anything of the history of INEOS and its asset stripping record of its 'acquisitions ' in the chemical industry then you might not be in such haste to blame the unions.
A company which regards Capital Expenditure as a loss to use as an excuse to close a plant or factory shouldn't be let anywhere near crucial national resources.
The Sunday Herald explains INEOS and its little games quite well,
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/industrial-relations-for-the-modern-age-if-employees-are-a-bar-to-profit-reduce-t.22457924
According to news reports, they would have been required to have a pay freeze lasting from 2014 until 2016.
Interesting part of the article mentioned earlier was, " So, too, are refineries in places like Britain and Australia, where closing down operations is relatively uncomplicated."
So Westminster is showing that it does not want to invest in Scotland. How does that equate with the Better Together campaign? A bit contradictory, what.
and a £15,000 lump sum payment for accepting the new pension conditions. I suspect the company knew Unite would not agree and have found an alternative solution to the problem.
Still better than having no job at all.
Knowing that now and looking at the timeline of events in this dispute, it almost seems to me the situation was orchestrated to bring about the closure of the plant and solely blame the unions.
Make me wonder what would have happened if the workers had accepted the new term and conditions. The cynic in me thinks it would have been something else. The dispute started with the union threatening to strike. The union backed down. Then the company said they'd have to freeze pay etc. I wonder what would have been next if the union had backed down again. We'll never know!
You think that the union thought the government would step in a save the place, sorry unions for many years have seen that government don't care, seen many a business go bust or sold abroad. The writing been on the wall for a long time for it to shut down