|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Leverage
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I am interested in what Shipmates think of the Unite Trade Union's use of "Leverage" as a political weapon.
As far as I can see it amounts to intimidation on a grand scale.
The Unite Union used it to try and intimidate bosses at the Grangemouth refinery to capitulate to their demands.
Is such 'leverage' ever justified?
[ 10. January 2014, 21:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I am interested in what Shipmates think of the Unite Trade Union's use of "Leverage" as a political weapon.
As far as I can see it amounts to intimidation on a grand scale.
The Unite Union used it to try and intimidate bosses at the Grangemouth refinery to capitulate to their demands.
Is such 'leverage' ever justified?
Negotiations where the union is called in are normally ones that started with massive force from the employer. Namely "Do what we want or you will have problems eating and keeping a roof over your head." Ineos were playing chicken while driving a tank.
Which means that the question is "How much force is allowed in matters of self-defence?" Because sure as hell the employer is going to use it. And all so a tax exile who's already almost a billionaire can make more money.
So are such tactics ever right? I don't know. Two wrongs don't make a right - but any threats that are alleged to have been made by Unison are peanuts compared to the threats coming from Ineos in the pursuit of more profits.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
What does 'Leverage' mean in this context?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Ah, thank you.
quote:
South Coast Kevin:The trade union's version
I don't have much of a problem with what's written here.
quote:
South Coast Kevin: A report from the BBC
Yes, this goes a bit far. But then again, so does firing hundreds of people so that they lose their house.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynnk
Apprentice
# 16132
|
Posted
Sounds excellent to me.
We could some of that here in Australia.
The liberal government screwed the unions,
and now employers particularly big ones are screwing employees.
Posts: 22 | From: Tasmania | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
1. Doesn't this amount to secondary picketing? In which case, it is against the law of the land.
2. How can it ever be justified to bully and intimidate small children just for the "sin" of being born as children of a particular man.
The union are in the wrong, and the sooner they acknowledge that, apologise and stop these bullying tactics the better.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
ISTM that the Big Guys (and a lot of the nonunionised public) loather the unions and want to get rid of them
BUT the Big Guys (and the more idiotic of the public) end up mistreating the workers so badly that said workers have to fight back, thereby causing the unions to become powerful again.
Some sort of natural balance, which would be fine if so many people weren't being hurt by the actions.
Not that workers matter to the Big Guys, who never work out that, if people don't have spare cash beyond survival, they won't buy stuff, which will hurt the Big Guys (see: slow "recovery" from the totally-stupid actions of the banks, not to mention the cheque-writers like the Koch brothers)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I agree with Justinian. I think it's justified when the employer is using such strong-arm tactics. If you don't like fighting, don't start a fight.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
It's asymmetric action. Ineos hold all the cards (literally in this case). They can hide in leafy Hampshire while strong-arming workers in Scotland. It isn't the Ineos board who are losing their pensions, shift allowances and having a pay freeze after all.
Perhaps, L'Organist, you'd have preferred the children of the Grangemouth workers to come down and explain to the children of the Ineos chairman what their dad is threatening to do?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The bully always complains when you kick him back - he tends to screech foul play.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I think if some of you had had the experience of having to get through a howling mob of people to get from A to B you might think differently.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
L'organist: I think if some of you had had the experience of having to get through a howling mob of people to get from A to B you might think differently.
I have, more than once.
Don't get me wrong, howling mobs are a bad thing. But abusing workers' rights is a form of violence too. I don't think that putting the blame on one side is helpful towards a solution.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think if some of you had had the experience of having to get through a howling mob of people to get from A to B you might think differently.
Yes, I think that's exactly what Unite want the Ineos managers to do - think differently.
edit for spelling
[ 01. November 2013, 07:20: Message edited by: Hairy Biker ]
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think if some of you had had the experience of having to get through a howling mob of people to get from A to B you might think differently.
If you'd ever had the experience of having to feed and clothe and shelter a family on reduced wages while your employers award themselves another bonus, you might think differently.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think there will be many more stories like this in the next period, leading up to the election. The right wing press are very worried that the Tories will not win the next election, which will make it 21 years without a win, and 26 by the election after that.
So it's all hands on deck now, for all right-wingers, seek out the 'Labour loves shirkers and strikers' stories, find photos of Miliband grinning at McCluskey/the devil/insert villain of the moment. See the recent story about Miliband senior.
It's gonna get rough!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Regarding Unite's overall approach in the Grangemouth dispute, I quite like this comment from today's Telegraph:
quote:
[I]n Grangemouth, Len McCluskey and the Unite union successfully presented themselves as the friend of the ordinary workers. They would stand up to the bosses and vested corporate interests, they said. “Workers of Grangemouth, we are on your side,” they said.
And the bosses looked at them, shrugged and said “Fine. We’re out of here.”
*Ducks for cover*
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Or you could say that the bosses held a gun to the heads of the workers, and said, either accept our conditions, or no job, no pension, end of your community. That is the power which rich billionaires have in some sectors.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or you could say that the bosses held a gun to the heads of the workers, and said, either accept our conditions, or no job, no pension, end of your community. That is the power which rich billionaires have in some sectors.
Yeah, I guess you're right. But if the rich billionaires feel they could make better use of their money elsewhere, then surely they shouldn't be condemned for shutting up shop and taking their business somewhere else. We have laws to protect people when their jobs disappear, but jobs do disappear and the government shouldn't step in to stop it.
The impression I have (although I'm a long, long way from being an expert on this) is that much damage was done to the UK in the 1970s by the government subsidising industries that were no longer competitive. I think what the government should be doing is (a) protecting employees from malicious, capricious employer behaviour, (b) supporting and encouraging unemployed people in their search for new work, and (c) providing a favourable environment (e.g. tax breaks) for new businesses.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think what a lot of people fear is the right-wing Tory wet dream - that is, zero hours contracts, wage freeze, no strike deals, the unions broken, benefits cut, bonuses increased, privatization of chunks of the NHS and BBC - even some Tories are a bit worried about this, as it could lose them the election.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The impression I have (although I'm a long, long way from being an expert on this) is that much damage was done to the UK in the 1970s by the government subsidising industries that were no longer competitive.
But what does 'competitive' mean in global markets? Do we really want our workers to be treated the way they are in some countries in order for us to compete? (and this example seems to show things are heading that way)
Poor pay and conditions vs no job - sad, but that's the only choice many people now have. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
aka - a race to the bottom. If wages and conditions in some parts of the world are shit, then the obvious solution is to make ours shit also. But still we need high bonuses for execs as an incentive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
aka - a race to the bottom. If wages and conditions in some parts of the world are shit, then the obvious solution is to make ours shit also. But still we need high bonuses for execs as an incentive.
ISTM there's a trade-off; globalisation means that many businesses in the UK are in genuine competition with those in places such as China where employment conditions are, shall we say, less generous.
So if the UK imposes very worker-friendly conditions on businesses then those that can do so will move to China etc. Or the UK businesses will fold and the demand for the products / services they provided will be met by businesses in China etc.
That's what the Telegraph article I linked to is basically saying; if Labour win the next election and do what they're threatening to do, then business in the UK will take a nosedive. That's not good for anyone, is it?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
aka - a race to the bottom. If wages and conditions in some parts of the world are shit, then the obvious solution is to make ours shit also. But still we need high bonuses for execs as an incentive.
ISTM there's a trade-off; globalisation means that many businesses in the UK are in genuine competition with those in places such as China where employment conditions are, shall we say, less generous.
So if the UK imposes very worker-friendly conditions on businesses then those that can do so will move to China etc. Or the UK businesses will fold and the demand for the products / services they provided will be met by businesses in China etc.
That's what the Telegraph article I linked to is basically saying; if Labour win the next election and do what they're threatening to do, then business in the UK will take a nosedive. That's not good for anyone, is it?
I think all parties are in a kind of bind now, as globalized capitalism, or supra-national corporations are now so powerful, that national governments in some ways can only look on, while they manage their no-tax arrangements, move companies around the globe in order to max on various benefits, and stash their cash away in hard to trace off-shore accounts.
Can anything be done? I don't know. I suppose for right-wing Tories this is all like a wet dream come true - it's what they have always dreamed of, so happiness, happiness, with the slight flaw, that it might lose them the election.
Hence Tories like John Major are sounding the alarm about this.
As to Labour - God knows. They are probably secretly terrified of winning the election!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Damn, caught by this bloody guillotine.
My sense is that Labour will end up with a right wing Tory wet dream, slightly diluted. That is, they will accept wage-freeze, no-strike conditions; they may alter zero hours contracts a bit; they may help the disabled a little bit on benefits.
Apart from that, they are bending over, asking the employers to insert it in gently please, KY jelly is preferred.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose for right-wing Tories this is all like a wet dream come true - it's what they have always dreamed of, so happiness, happiness, with the slight flaw, that it might lose them the election.
I really think this is neither true nor fair. This demonisation of those with whom we strongly disagree is something that irks me greatly, both in political and theological discussions. Can't we credit those on the other side of the argument from ourselves with even a bit of good faith?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose for right-wing Tories this is all like a wet dream come true - it's what they have always dreamed of, so happiness, happiness, with the slight flaw, that it might lose them the election.
I really think this is neither true nor fair. This demonisation of those with whom we strongly disagree is something that irks me greatly, both in political and theological discussions. Can't we credit those on the other side of the argument from ourselves with even a bit of good faith?
I don't think it's unfair to say that the neo-liberal wing of the Tories want exactly that. The 'old' Tories - Major et al, are a step away from that particular raft of policies.
All parties are a coalition, but it's not wrong to point out that blaming and making poor people pay for the financial crash is a strong strand in current Conservative policy.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose for right-wing Tories this is all like a wet dream come true - it's what they have always dreamed of, so happiness, happiness, with the slight flaw, that it might lose them the election.
I really think this is neither true nor fair. This demonisation of those with whom we strongly disagree is something that irks me greatly, both in political and theological discussions. Can't we credit those on the other side of the argument from ourselves with even a bit of good faith?
How is it demonizing right-wing Tories? Surely they are committed to economic neo-liberalism? I think Tories such as John Major are putting out warnings, partly because he's worried it could lose them the election, if they hammer the low wage, high bonus, punish the shirkers/workers, theme too much.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But if the rich billionaires feel they could make better use of their money elsewhere, then surely they shouldn't be condemned for shutting up shop and taking their business somewhere else.
Whyever not? All they have invested in the place is their money - or, more likely, someone else's money, no-one ever gets that rich all on their own. The workers and the community have invested their lives in the place, perhaps for generations. Ineos - which is basically one bloke and a few minions - didn't build the place, the workers did. Ineos bought it with other people's money - that's what "leverage" means in corporate finance.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But if the rich billionaires feel they could make better use of their money elsewhere, then surely they shouldn't be condemned for shutting up shop and taking their business somewhere else.
Whyever not? All they have invested in the place is their money - or, more likely, someone else's money, no-one ever gets that rich all on their own. The workers and the community have invested their lives in the place, perhaps for generations. Ineos - which is basically one bloke and a few minions - didn't build the place, the workers did. Ineos bought it with other people's money - that's what "leverage" means in corporate finance.
It also means that the company that Ineos bought with borrowed money now has to repay that debt, plus provide an income to Ineos as well as paying the workers' wages. It's the ultimate in corporate parasitism.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But if the rich billionaires feel they could make better use of their money elsewhere, then surely they shouldn't be condemned for shutting up shop and taking their business somewhere else.
Whyever not? All they have invested in the place is their money - or, more likely, someone else's money, no-one ever gets that rich all on their own. The workers and the community have invested their lives in the place, perhaps for generations. Ineos - which is basically one bloke and a few minions - didn't build the place, the workers did. Ineos bought it with other people's money - that's what "leverage" means in corporate finance.
It also means that the company that Ineos bought with borrowed money now has to repay that debt, plus provide an income to Ineos as well as paying the workers' wages. It's the ultimate in corporate parasitism.
Well, that's true of all businesses isn't it, leveraged or not. Let's not forget that however shitty or otherwise the owners are supposed to be, the resolution of the deal results in £300m being invested (some of which will be taxpayer guaranteed in some shape or form).
If it were a different owner wanting to make that investment, they'd either have to have £300m lying around, or they'd have to borrow it. If they borrow it, then they have to repay that debt, plus get an income for themselves, plus pay the wages. So not all that different.
Like Ken said, nobody gets that rich on their own - and the workers didn't really put their own money in to build it in the first place did they. They got paid for their efforts, just like the current employees.
I know lots of people who work for Ineos here in the north west (former ICI employees in this region) and they are considered a pretty good employer.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose for right-wing Tories this is all like a wet dream come true - it's what they have always dreamed of, so happiness, happiness, with the slight flaw, that it might lose them the election.
I really think this is neither true nor fair. This demonisation of those with whom we strongly disagree is something that irks me greatly, both in political and theological discussions. Can't we credit those on the other side of the argument from ourselves with even a bit of good faith?
To credit them with good faith implies that they are too stupid to realise the consequences of their actions. In this sort of situation sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[qbIt also means that the company that Ineos bought with borrowed money now has to repay that debt, plus provide an income to Ineos as well as paying the workers' wages. It's the ultimate in corporate parasitism.
Well, that's true of all businesses isn't it, leveraged or not.[/QB]
No.
Some companies borrow money from the banks to invest in plant, or new premises, or to plan an expansion. They expect that greater revenues and higher productivity will pay for the cost of the loan and the repayment.
Some companies save up and re-invest the profits they make from their existing turnover.
Some issue bonds direct to the market.
It's not a good business case to go to the bank and say "I'd like an extra £1m to investing the company, and I'll pay for it by cutting the workers' pay and conditions." It's an even worse one to go to the bank and say "I'd like £1bn to buy profitable company X: I'll transfer all the debt to X, making it not-at-all profitable, but we'll get round that by screwing it into the ground."
To suggest that "oh, this is all companies, all the time" is bad and wrong. Some companies do manage to behave decently, have good labour relations and still turn a profit.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[qbIt also means that the company that Ineos bought with borrowed money now has to repay that debt, plus provide an income to Ineos as well as paying the workers' wages. It's the ultimate in corporate parasitism.
Well, that's true of all businesses isn't it, leveraged or not.
No.
Some companies borrow money from the banks to invest in plant, or new premises, or to plan an expansion. They expect that greater revenues and higher productivity will pay for the cost of the loan and the repayment.
Some companies save up and re-invest the profits they make from their existing turnover.
Some issue bonds direct to the market.
It's not a good business case to go to the bank and say "I'd like an extra £1m to investing the company, and I'll pay for it by cutting the workers' pay and conditions." It's an even worse one to go to the bank and say "I'd like £1bn to buy profitable company X: I'll transfer all the debt to X, making it not-at-all profitable, but we'll get round that by screwing it into the ground."
To suggest that "oh, this is all companies, all the time" is bad and wrong. Some companies do manage to behave decently, have good labour relations and still turn a profit. [/QB]
I didn't suggest all companies crap on their employees. I suggested that most/all companies borrow money, and that therefore "having to run the place, make repayments and pay the salaries" still applies. Which it does.
How long ought any company be expected to keep losing £10m a month? Of course, one of things about this being a private entity is that we don't really know the financial position. If you read the press, Ineos claimed that it lost £10m per month, and the unions rejected this as scaremongering. How do they know?
"Losing pensions" is also rather common isn't it? There aren't many final salary pension schemes around nowadays are there.
Given that this dispute also has the rather strange background about the Labour Party candidate selection and it supposedly escalated from there, it's rather hard to see any actual facts.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
The behaviour of Ineos in this dispute has been despicable. They seem to have made a corporate decision to stamp their feet and run away with the ball at the expense of their employees. This is why trade unionism is so important.
What is worse - having half a dozen people inconvenienced for a wee while or having 800 people without incomes?
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
The behaviour of Ineos in this dispute has been despicable. They seem to have made a corporate decision to stamp their feet and run away with the ball at the expense of their employees. This is why trade unionism is so important.
What is worse - having half a dozen people inconvenienced for a wee while or having 800 people without incomes?
Sorry not to reply to each post in response to mine, but it seems several people are very nearly saying that companies shouldn't be allowed to take a decision to close any of their sites, no matter the circumstances. Unless I've severely misunderstood...
Chive, why would Ineos 'stamp their feet and run away with the ball at the expense of their employees'? If they think there's money to be made at Grangemouth then they'll carry on, if not they'll close the plant. What's so wrong with that? I don't think they have a moral duty to keep the Grangemouth plant open if it is indeed losing many millions per month (I know that figure has been questioned, mind you).
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Chive, why would Ineos 'stamp their feet and run away with the ball at the expense of their employees'? If they think there's money to be made at Grangemouth then they'll carry on, if not they'll close the plant. What's so wrong with that? I don't think they have a moral duty to keep the Grangemouth plant open if it is indeed losing many millions per month (I know that figure has been questioned, mind you).
You're right, of course. Ineos aren't a charity, and no one should mistake them for one.
However, do you honestly believe that hard-nosed businessmen like the chair of Ineos would risk £300 million on a loss-making plant if the only way that investment could be paid for was by eroding workers' pay and conditions? A company whose turnover is over US$40bn?
I think they don't care what happens to Grangemouth. It's almost to the point where £300 million is small change down the back of the sofa. So yes, why not stick one to the uppity unionmen and women, complaining about their 'pay' and their 'pensions': the Ineos board probably make in a day what a worker at Grangemouth makes in a year, and that wouldn't be affected one jot whether the plant is open, closed, or spinning rapidly about Arthur's Seat.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Chive, why would Ineos 'stamp their feet and run away with the ball at the expense of their employees'? If they think there's money to be made at Grangemouth then they'll carry on, if not they'll close the plant. What's so wrong with that? I don't think they have a moral duty to keep the Grangemouth plant open if it is indeed losing many millions per month (I know that figure has been questioned, mind you).
You're right, of course. Ineos aren't a charity, and no one should mistake them for one.
However, do you honestly believe that hard-nosed businessmen like the chair of Ineos would risk £300 million on a loss-making plant if the only way that investment could be paid for was by eroding workers' pay and conditions? A company whose turnover is over US$40bn?
I think they don't care what happens to Grangemouth. It's almost to the point where £300 million is small change down the back of the sofa. So yes, why not stick one to the uppity unionmen and women, complaining about their 'pay' and their 'pensions': the Ineos board probably make in a day what a worker at Grangemouth makes in a year, and that wouldn't be affected one jot whether the plant is open, closed, or spinning rapidly about Arthur's Seat.
If I remember rightly, Ineos bought the plant off BP because they couldn't turn a profit from the thing. I would have thought that if it was a really good business then the threat of closing it down would be hollow. Someone would step in and make the money that Ineos turned their back on. But there is no one waiting in the wings. For some reason, refining oil doesn't seem to be a profitable game. I find that surprising, but I've been told that the super-major oil companies make all their profits from the crude oil extraction, and almost none from refining and retailing the finished products. Seems a bit odd, and I'm by no means an expert, but I think Ineos probably really don't care what happens to Grangemouth. They do hold all the cards in this case.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
I find that surprising, but I've been told that the super-major oil companies make all their profits from the crude oil extraction, and almost none from refining and retailing the finished products.
Right. Without finished product, how would they make anything from the extraction?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I'm just too young to remember first hand so much about how govt subsidy / union power played out in the 70s, but I'm an engineer and I'm interested in all this. 'We' certainly bailed out a few strategic industrial concerns - Rolls-Royce aero springs to mind - which are now held up as paragons of UK top-flight manufacturing excellence.
One major precondition for that excellence is, of course, the prevention of the collapse of that company in a previous tough period (For Rolls this was the 1973? Oil crisis plus big problems with novel materials in RB211 engine).
Denmark still has a very substantial ship-building industry, and is hardly a low-wage economy. How did they do it? Not by closing massive, hugely-expensive-to-replace 'legacy' plant when times were hard. But not by management / union fighting either, would be my guess.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Perhaps part of the problem for the UK is that industrial relations have always been seen as part of the class war, in a way that is inconceivable in Europe.
From day 1 many (most?) trades unions were formed because they not only felt, quite correctly, that the people in a particular industry needed to have someone to represent them in disputes with the owners of an enterprise but - and this is almost unique - to then go on and represent them in government, both local and national.
Muddying the waters - in some industries to a catastrophic extent - was the smaller link to the old guilds, which meant that every single trade or specialism in a complex industry or plant felt the need to have a separate union.
This worked against the best interests of both management and workers: the labour force because each tiny specialised craft union was hell-bent on getting a better deal for its members than any others; the management because trying to negotiate with so many different bodies was like trying to deal with the Hydra, and no sooner had agreement been reached with one union that another objected and tried to circumvent or surmount the deal just achieved. Demarcation disputes cost this country billions of pounds and thousands of jobs.
For many, many years UK unions seemed incapable of seeing that they might achieve more for their members if they were truly industry wide, as in (say) Germany or France.
The entrenched position of some older union bosses to fight every suggestion from management, even training, led to British industries falling behind their European counterparts both in methods of manufacture and in productivity.
And the depressing thing is that whenever the subject of labour relations and/or disputes comes up the same class obsession comes straight to the fore - see this thread.
Frankly, if unions wish to protect the interests of their members they could do a lot worse than use their financial muscle constructively: if they pooled their resources and became major shareholders in some of companies where they have the most members they would (a) have automatic access to full details of the company's strengths and weaknesses; (b) they'd be in a position to see that sufficient R&D was funded to ensure jobs for the future; (c) they could influence boardroom pay and perks.
Its always been a mystery to me why the trades union movement wastes it time and significant sums of money propping up a political cabal that is every bit as corrupt and self-serving as either the Conservative or LibDem party machines, when it has at its disposal the means to directly influence the industries that employ its members in a constructive way and thus ensure that there is a future for their members and their offspring.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Price is only ever part of the cost of something. If the price is low, someone else is paying the cost. Usually the worker who made it.
We really need to wake up in parts of the world with decent labour laws if we want to keep our right to determine how our society works. We need to realise that if we don't support producers who adhere to our standards, no-one else will.
Globalisation is NOT neutral. It is, at least in its effects, an ideological movement of hypercapitalism which attempts to force the dirt poor to shaft the marginally less poor in the ultimate interests of the hyper-rich.
Leverage strikes me as a rebranding of collective bargaining, which is essential.
And yes, billionaires CAN be held to account for wanton social destruction. Their billions did not come from nothing - they are the fruits of other people's labour. This labour was enabled by the billionaire's riches when they were smaller, so there is some balance in that respect, but riches do not buy anyone out of accountability for their actions.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Globalisation is NOT neutral. It is, at least in its effects, an ideological movement of hypercapitalism which attempts to force the dirt poor to shaft the marginally less poor in the ultimate interests of the hyper-rich.
If I buy a South Korean DVD player today, which I'm able to do because of globalisation, which category am I in here? Hyper-rich or dirt poor?
quote:
Leverage strikes me as a rebranding of collective bargaining, which is essential.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
Globalisation is NOT neutral. It is, at least in its effects, an ideological movement of hypercapitalism which attempts to force the dirt poor to shaft the marginally less poor in the ultimate interests of the hyper-rich.
If I buy a South Korean DVD player today, which I'm able to do because of globalisation, which category am I in here? Hyper-rich or dirt poor?
You're starting with the wrong part of my first posting. Because the price is cheap, you are paying less of the cost than you would be of, for example, a DVD player produced in Germany, and leaving the worker who produced it to pick up more in poor working conditions and other conditions of employment. Yes, you are able to do this because of globalisation, but does that make it a good thing? I would say not. You are not of yourself either hyper-rich or dirt-poor, but you are aiding the hyper-rich in their exploitation of the dirt-poor by endorsing it with your decision to by the product of that exloitation.
quote:
Leverage strikes me as a rebranding of collective bargaining, which is essential.
quote:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
Why so? As far as I can see, the greatest "crime" of the workers at Grangemouth was to object to having their terms and conditions destroyed. Good heavens, how exploitative.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
I'm guessing "Daddy/Mummy doesn't have a job any more and getting another before Christmas is unlikely" is going to scare a lot more children than a bunch of blokes standing at the end of a driveway with placards.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
I'm guessing "Daddy/Mummy doesn't have a job any more and getting another before Christmas is unlikely" is going to scare a lot more children than a bunch of blokes standing at the end of a driveway with placards.
Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
I'm guessing "Daddy/Mummy doesn't have a job any more and getting another before Christmas is unlikely" is going to scare a lot more children than a bunch of blokes standing at the end of a driveway with placards.
Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
While I have no doubt that having the bailiffs around would be very scary, they're there for a valid reason.
What we've got here is just mob rule, isn't it?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
You're starting with the wrong part of my first posting.
How so? I'm trying to look at the affects of what you're claiming.
quote:
Because the price is cheap, you are paying less of the cost than you would be of, for example, a DVD player produced in Germany, and leaving the worker who produced it to pick up more in poor working conditions and other conditions of employment.
Do South Korean tech workers work in poor working conditions? I'm sure I once read that after the War, the GDP per head of South Korea was roughly equivalent to GDP per head in Africa. The country has come on in leaps and bounds in the last half-century or so and that's in part because of its ability to manufacture electrical goods at an attractive price.
quote:
Yes, you are able to do this because of globalisation, but does that make it a good thing? I would say not. You are not of yourself either hyper-rich or dirt-poor, but you are aiding the hyper-rich in their exploitation of the dirt-poor by endorsing it with your decision to buy the product of that exploitation.
I don't know who the kulak-like 'hyper-rich' are, but I'm not setting out to aid them when I buy a Korean DVD player, I'm acting in my own self-interest, which incidentally benefits the Korean factory worker. If I didn't have the option and the only DVD player available was a British-made option at three or four times the price, I might not buy one because it's too expensive and no-one would benefit.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
I'm guessing "Daddy/Mummy doesn't have a job any more and getting another before Christmas is unlikely" is going to scare a lot more children than a bunch of blokes standing at the end of a driveway with placards.
Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
While I have no doubt that having the bailiffs around would be very scary, they're there for a valid reason.
What we've got here is just mob rule, isn't it?
No, what we've got is plutocracy seeing as the rich won. Trying to protect your livelihood is a valid reason for being somewhere, including trying to, ultimately, protect your children from being terrified by the bailiffs.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
