Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Of course, union reps are never harassed by employers or blacklisted...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: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.
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?
quote:The trade union's version
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What does 'Leverage' mean in this context?
quote:I don't have much of a problem with what's written here.
South Coast Kevin:The trade union's version
quote:Yes, this goes a bit far. But then again, so does firing hundreds of people so that they lose their house.
South Coast Kevin: A report from the BBC
quote:I have, more than once.
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.
quote:Yes, I think that's exactly what Unite want the Ineos managers to do - think differently.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:*Ducks for cover*
[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.”
quote: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.
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.
quote: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)
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.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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.
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.
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?
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by ken:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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.
Originally posted by ken:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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?
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.
quote:No.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Well, that's true of all businesses isn't it, leveraged or not.[/QB]
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Well, that's true of all businesses isn't it, leveraged or not.
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.
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]
quote: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...
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?
quote:You're right, of course. Ineos aren't a charity, and no one should mistake them for one.
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).
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You're right, of course. Ineos aren't a charity, and no one should mistake them for one.
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).
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.
quote:Right. Without finished product, how would they make anything from the extraction?
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
Leverage strikes me as a rebranding of collective bargaining, which is essential.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote: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?
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.
quote:
Leverage strikes me as a rebranding of collective bargaining, which is essential.
quote: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.
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
quote:Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
quote:While I have no doubt that having the bailiffs around would be very scary, they're there for a valid reason.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
You're starting with the wrong part of my first posting.
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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:While I have no doubt that having the bailiffs around would be very scary, they're there for a valid reason.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Not to mention that bailiffs coming into your house to take your stuff can be pretty scary.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From where I'm sitting, it looks like a rebranding of scaring little children in this case.
What we've got here is just mob rule, isn't it?
quote:So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.
quote:In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.
quote:I would view the publishing of long-lens photos and home addresses of Unite leaders on the internet as an acceptable in-kind response to this escalation on the part of Unite, maybe a few blokes in black cars to tail the secondary picketers and make sure they weren't breaking any laws at any time.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
quote:I imagine any company with a US$40bn turnover has probably got that covered.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:I would view the publishing of long-lens photos and home addresses of Unite leaders on the internet as an acceptable in-kind response to this escalation on the part of Unite, maybe a few blokes in black cars to tail the secondary picketers and make sure they weren't breaking any laws at any time.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
quote:What anyone else would do if they had a mob turn up outside of one of their employee's homes: they could telephone the police and get them moved on or possibly arrested. If the behaviour continued they could get an injunction out against the protestors.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
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.
quote:Yeah, good work on deliberately dodging the question. Or do you have no criticisms at all on Ineos' behaviour towards its workforce and the wider Grangemouth community?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What anyone else would do if they had a mob turn up outside of one of their employee's homes: they could telephone the police and get them moved on or possibly arrested. If the behaviour continued they could get an injunction out against the protestors.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Yeah, good work on deliberately dodging the question.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:What anyone else would do if they had a mob turn up outside of one of their employee's homes: they could telephone the police and get them moved on or possibly arrested. If the behaviour continued they could get an injunction out against the protestors.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
quote:I'm aware that there is a company called Ineos that runs Grangemouth. I'm aware that they've had problems running it and that they've offered revised pay and conditions to help keep the place running. But I don't know much more than that so can't comment on whether Ineos is a good or a bad employer.
Or do you have no criticisms at all on Ineos' behaviour towards its workforce and the wider Grangemouth community?
quote:I wouldn't wish involuntary redundancy on any one. It's not nice to come home from school at 3.30pm to find one's father in the dining room with a cardboard box of office stuff. I know.
(edited to add: a moment ago you seemed very concerned about the inconvenience to the children of the Ineos board members who were picketed. Does your concern extend to the families of the 800 Grangemouth workers having to make do with much less money every month?)
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, to summarise: you've taken the time and trouble to find out all about those rascally lefties causing trouble at some leafy Hampshire homes of rich people…
quote:Were the Hampshire mob Scottish? I was under the impression that they were local heavies, but I could be wrong.
... but frankly can't be arsed to discover why folk might make a 600 mile round-trip from Scotland just to stand in a road and make some noise.
quote:Whatever.
Good work. Being that uninformed takes real effort.
quote:All of which is entirely legal and doesn't fall under the definition of secondary picketing which means picketing at another workplace not involved in a dispute.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And this group didn't "just" stand in the street and make noise, they delivered leaflets to other addresses, brought along a giant rat and tried to co-opt local children into their demonstration.
quote:In principle I sympathise with this argument, but I'd have thought that an action that makes them look like a bunch of dicks, or which allows Ineos to easily present them as a bunch of dicks, isn't good for the long-term future of the union.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.
quote:The first two aren't all that earth shattering. Shift allowances sound like a nice perk if you can get it. The pay freeze is a bit worse. However, a salary that doesn't buy as much as it did the year before still pays more than no salary at all.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IIRC, an end to shift allowances, pay freeze for three years (inflation running at 2-3%), end to final salary pension.
quote:Difficult to say - but this is the circle I can't square. If £300 million of new investment was dependent on the workers accepting the change in pay, I'd have expected a bigger cut/more redundancies/something radical in terms of working practices.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:The first two aren't all that earth shattering. Shift allowances sound like a nice perk if you can get it. The pay freeze is a bit worse. However, a salary that doesn't buy as much as it did the year before still pays more than no salary at all.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
IIRC, an end to shift allowances, pay freeze for three years (inflation running at 2-3%), end to final salary pension.
An end to final salary pension could be a horse of a different color. What will replace them? Will they be phased out? Governments have enough problems guaranteeing final salary pensions.
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
the lives of the poor innocents who want to destroy hundreds of peoples lives for profit.
quote:
I would also advise against taking either David Cameron or the mainstream press's word for what happened, they are not known to be friends of the unions.
quote:
Also your description of 'local heavies' is bollocks. They were local union members
quote:What about the stuff I read:
Originally posted by ken:
You seem very credulous about the allegations of vote-rigging in the Falkirk Labour Party. Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail.
quote:My understanding is that usually when one is recruited into a political party one knows one is being recruited.
From what little actual detail has been in the news most of what they are "accused" of is quite legitimate (recruiting new members? I am shocked! Shocked! to find that there is recruiting going on in this party!)
quote:What strong arm tactics are these? Is the employer sending agents round to the houses of union members to intimidate their families? No? Well what the hell are you talking about then?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.
quote:Yes, and they were duly compensated for that work. Deal done, arrangement over. If they expected to be compensated further for building the company by being guaranteed jobs for life (or as you argue, for their descendents in perpetuity) they should have agreed that at the time, not tried to force such extra compensation now. It wasn't in the contract. And why not? Because its a ridiculous demand and no employer would agree to it.
Originally posted by ken:
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.
quote:What an odd post. You start by saying that Ineos isn't a charity and then finish with a comment that can only be taken to mean that they should take the £300 million loss year-after-year just to keep the workers employed, since it's 'small change'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:Oh do keep up - if you have no idea what's going on, educate yourself. Ineos said that an extra £300m investment in the plant (not a year-on-year loss) was dependent on degrading the workers' pay and conditions. The £300m is a one-off - pay, conditions and pension are all going south permanently.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:What an odd post. You start by saying that Ineos isn't a charity and then finish with a comment that can only be taken to mean that they should take the £300 million loss year-after-year just to keep the workers employed, since it's 'small change'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:A three year pay freeze is not permanent though is it? It's ooohh, let me see - three years. I can't imagine I'm the only ship mate who hasn't had a pay rise for longer than that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Oh do keep up - if you have no idea what's going on, educate yourself. Ineos said that an extra £300m investment in the plant (not a year-on-year loss) was dependent on degrading the workers' pay and conditions. The £300m is a one-off - pay, conditions and pension are all going south permanently.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:What an odd post. You start by saying that Ineos isn't a charity and then finish with a comment that can only be taken to mean that they should take the £300 million loss year-after-year just to keep the workers employed, since it's 'small change'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:Cheers for this, Traveller; really interesting. For those who don't want to click through (or who have reached their limit of no-subscription DT pages for the month), the Ineos chairman recounts a conversation with the union convener at Ineos' Cologne plant. The union guy said this:
Originally posted by Traveller:
Some of you will disregard anything written in the Daily Telegraph out of hand, but this article is written by the Ineos chairman rather than a hack.
It puts an interesting perspective on the respective strategies of the company and the union.
quote:
Jim, I don’t like your bonus scheme... I would rather you spend the money on the plant, on capital expenditure, maintenance and painting so we can be sure there will be jobs for the employees’ children and their children.
quote:And how's your personal inflation rate running? 5% 10%? And you expect your future pay rises to compensate for the three years your pay was eroded by roughly 15-20% compared with prices?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
A three year pay freeze is not permanent though is it? It's ooohh, let me see - three years. I can't imagine I'm the only ship mate who hasn't had a pay rise for longer than that.
quote:Don't worry - you didn't break it to me. If you look at recent ONS data in the UK, inflation has outstripped the rise in average pay for the last 12 years.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And how's your personal inflation rate running? 5% 10%? And you expect your future pay rises to compensate for the three years your pay was eroded by roughly 15-20% compared with prices?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
A three year pay freeze is not permanent though is it? It's ooohh, let me see - three years. I can't imagine I'm the only ship mate who hasn't had a pay rise for longer than that.
I hate to be the one to break the news, but you'll never get that back. Your pay freeze is a pay cut, and it's permanent.
quote:Sorry, bit late to the party.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:Can we please move on from the myth that Somalia teaches us anything about economics in the western world? I'm not a rabid libertarian by any means, but as far as I can see even those who are often want a 'nightwatchman' government which enforces the law, secures the border and provides the limited government infrastructure necessary to allow people's lives to flourish. Somalia isn't a rich country for many reasons, but in part because it has absolutely no government apparatus whatsoever.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Can we please move on from the myth that only the private sector drives an economy and the government needs to get out of the way of companies? If that were true then surely Somalia would be a very rich country.
quote:Hi Anglican't
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Can we please move on from the myth that Somalia teaches us anything about economics in the western world? I'm not a rabid libertarian by any means, but as far as I can see even those who are often want a 'nightwatchman' government which enforces the law, secures the border and provides the limited government infrastructure necessary to allow people's lives to flourish. Somalia isn't a rich country for many reasons, but in part because it has absolutely no government apparatus whatsoever.
Sorry to lunge in on this point, but this straw-man gets trotted out time and time again and I start to find it a little tiresome.
quote:Corporations* might well benefit from these things, but they aren't the only beneficiaries, are they? Surely everyone benefits from these things?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
In many ways we do have such a government in western society and certainly many corporations benefit hugely from: stable currency, the civil property laws, intellectual property rights, universal education and the basic infrastructure that enable their workers to turn up for work, etc. etc. So as the greatest beneficiaries from such, it is not unreasonable that they bear the greater burden of the cost of such things.
quote:Did you read the Ineos chairman's comments about industrial relations in their German plants? It's linked above.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
We would be a lot better off with the sort of industrial relations and wage relativities that they have in Germany - which is a much more successful economy than ours. But it takes two sides to cooperate.
quote:it's the defined benefit pension scheme that is the real sticking point, I think. No-one will buy or take on any additional ownership interest/risk in a business with a massive, possibly growing, DB pension liability. In practice, the transaction/investment market is picking up, but I've seen a few deals now where the injection of funds/purchase was conditional on target replacing the DB scheme with DC.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Oh do keep up - if you have no idea what's going on, educate yourself. Ineos said that an extra £300m investment in the plant (not a year-on-year loss) was dependent on degrading the workers' pay and conditions. The £300m is a one-off - pay, conditions and pension are all going south permanently.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:What an odd post. You start by saying that Ineos isn't a charity and then finish with a comment that can only be taken to mean that they should take the £300 million loss year-after-year just to keep the workers employed, since it's 'small change'.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
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.
quote:And companies to abandon their "this is my fiefdom, abase yourselves" stance. In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You're right that it takes two sides to co-operate. But that would require the union to abandon its "no change ever" stance.
quote:It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
quote:And they've got managers while we've got bosses. You're right though, despite all the supposed similarities, Germans and Germany are not like Britain and the British.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
quote:As I mentioned, our firm is small enough that I can be sure that we are all in it together. I am quite sure that everybody in our company has made exactly the same concessions over the last few years
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:And companies to abandon their "this is my fiefdom, abase yourselves" stance. In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You're right that it takes two sides to co-operate. But that would require the union to abandon its "no change ever" stance.
Even sensible chaps like lowlands_boy are saying the equivalent of "I don't care how far I have to bend over, at least I have a job". And pound to a penny (see the "We need to pay that to get people of the right calibre..." thread), we're far from 'all in it together'.
quote:Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
quote:They've got Ineos, too. (Well, plants anyway.)
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
quote:One of the best things about a job - its existence - is presumably mainly due to companies?
Almost all the good things about your job are a result, directly and indirectly, of trade union action in the past, and almost all of those have been fought tooth and nail by the companies and their political placement.
quote:Poking a bear is unnecessary cruelty, whereas criticising union militancy, well, isn't really.
There is a better way, but to lay all the blame at the door of trade unions is disingenuous: you poke the bear often enough and you can't complain when it tries to rip your head off.
quote:Siggi is the Union Rep for an Ineos plant in Germany. Same company, same management. All that's different is the way the union in Germany goes about its business.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
quote:No, because Ineos has to obey German law to operate a plant in Germany. That's what's different. In Germany, Ineos can't threaten plant closures if it doesn't get its own way. In Britain, it can. What we're seeing is what Ineos would do everywhere if it could get away with it, and that's why social democracy wins.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QBSiggi is the Union Rep for an Ineos plant in Germany. Same company, same management. All that's different is the way the union in Germany goes about its business. [/QB]
quote:Yes, how so? What German laws would stop Ineos closing their Cologne plant if they judged it in the company's best interest to do so?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, Ineos can't threaten plant closures if it doesn't get its own way.
quote:I still don't understand what evil it is that Ineos are doing / have done with reference to their Grangemouth plant. I can't believe you're simply saying a company should be forbidden from closing its own plant that it feels is no longer profitable / viable, so what are you saying?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What we're seeing is what Ineos would do everywhere if it could get away with it, and that's why social democracy wins.
quote:I am sure it can be done, but the balance between the interests of commerce and those of wider society differs from place to place. I suppose Britain is someway between America and Germany in this respect.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What, is it illegal to close a place of business in Germany?
quote:I don't know anywhere near all the details, but it seems clear to me that Ineos' threat to close the petrochemicals plant part of Grangemouth was not their opening gambit. I imagine pretty much everyone would agree with you that having an informed, engaged workforce is a thoroughly good state of affairs
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't know, the way some folk react: it's actually good business practice to have an informed, engaged workforce (the people who actually make the profit? Remember them?) rather than threatening to sack them all as an opening gambit.
quote:It doesn't seem all that clear to me. There appears to have been a previous spat over pensions, and the union convener issue beforehand.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks, Doc Tor. I get what you mean. However...
quote:I don't know anywhere near all the details, but it seems clear to me that Ineos' threat to close the petrochemicals plant part of Grangemouth was not their opening gambit. I imagine pretty much everyone would agree with you that having an informed, engaged workforce is a thoroughly good state of affairs
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't know, the way some folk react: it's actually good business practice to have an informed, engaged workforce (the people who actually make the profit? Remember them?) rather than threatening to sack them all as an opening gambit.
quote:While I can see that you think Unions do good work, Doc Tor (which is not an unreasonable position to take, in the grand scheme of things) in this particular instance do you think i) Stephen Deans' conduct and ii) Unite's conduct are exemplary? Do you believe that there are serious (potentially criminal) allegations about these two?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Of course, union reps are never harassed by employers or blacklisted...
quote:I can't really say anything about Deans' conduct at work. As organiser for his local constituency, there certainly seems to have been some shenanigans - but IIRC, many/most of the serious accusations have been withdrawn.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:While I can see that you think Unions do good work, Doc Tor (which is not an unreasonable position to take, in the grand scheme of things) in this particular instance do you think i) Stephen Deans' conduct and ii) Unite's conduct are exemplary? Do you believe that there are serious (potentially criminal) allegations about these two?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Of course, union reps are never harassed by employers or blacklisted...
quote:Then it needs to come to court, where the evidence can be tested.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But the most serious allegations haven't been withdrawn, have they? Over the weekend details of 1,000 e-mails were published in the Sunday Times and the allegation that members were signed up without their knowledge or consent is still very much live.
quote:I can't really say anything about Ineos' conduct.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Again, what about Ineos? Do you think they've behaved 'impeccably'?
quote:You write as if there is something wrong with striving for and achieving political power beyond the ballot box! Businesses and their representatives (such as the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the many industry lobbyists) make threats, such as to move jobs verseas if tax and employment laws are not changed, to force governments to change policy which is no more democratic than the worst actions of trade unions, and for some reason that is seen as OK! Words fail me shamwari, they really do.
Originally posted by shamwari:
I think all this talk about Unite being concerned about workers rights and interests is bollocks.
Doc Tor and Ken are living in the past when unions did represent the interests of workers. It began with the Tolpuddle martyrs who belonged to the same trade union as I do.
Unite ( and McLusky) simply use "workers interests" as a means to an end. The end being Political Power. Having got the wrong Milliband into Labour Leadership they are now pulling the strings and Ed dances accordingly.
quote:When you say 'worst actions of the trade unions', what sort of time frame are you talking about? I've never heard of a delegate from a CBI conference who hurls concrete blocks from a motorway bridge, for example. Or are you thinking more recently?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You write as if there is something wrong with striving for and achieving political power beyond the ballot box! Businesses and their representatives (such as the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the many industry lobbyists) make threats, such as to move jobs verseas if tax and employment laws are not changed, to force governments to change policy which is no more democratic than the worst actions of trade unions, and for some reason that is seen as OK! Words fail me shamwari, they really do.
quote:Yes, because that was so clearly part of trade union policy.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never heard of a delegate from a CBI conference who hurls concrete blocks from a motorway bridge, for example. Or are you thinking more recently?
quote:Maybe but (if you're including not recently) they have used bombers (in America). I can't think what the place was.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:When you say 'worst actions of the trade unions', what sort of time frame are you talking about? I've never heard of a delegate from a CBI conference who hurls concrete blocks from a motorway bridge, for example. Or are you thinking more recently?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
You write as if there is something wrong with striving for and achieving political power beyond the ballot box! Businesses and their representatives (such as the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the many industry lobbyists) make threats, such as to move jobs verseas if tax and employment laws are not changed, to force governments to change policy which is no more democratic than the worst actions of trade unions, and for some reason that is seen as OK! Words fail me shamwari, they really do.
quote:Doc Tor, this is classic whataboutery. Has anyone on this thread justified the blacklisting of union members / reps in the construction industry? Do you think anyone here would? I think it's a disgusting practice, and I gather it's now been clamped down on. But, like L'organist, has said, back to Unite...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is, of course, the ongoing saga of the (highly illegal) blacklist covering construction workers, that has been maintained and shared around many of the large construction companies in the UK. One of the best ways of finding yourself unemployable was to be a known union man.
quote:I, for one, would be fascinated to read McClusky actually saying that in public.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Back to Unite and Len McCluskey: he has publicly stated that his main interest is not his members but to influence the political direction of the Labour Party.
quote:Answering a direct question from Anglican't. I fail to see a problem here, unless it's your intention to completely brush employers' behaviour under the carpet.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:Doc Tor, this is classic whataboutery. Has anyone on this thread justified the blacklisting of union members / reps in the construction industry? Do you think anyone here would? I think it's a disgusting practice, and I gather it's now been clamped down on. But, like L'organist, has said, back to Unite...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is, of course, the ongoing saga of the (highly illegal) blacklist covering construction workers, that has been maintained and shared around many of the large construction companies in the UK. One of the best ways of finding yourself unemployable was to be a known union man.
quote:Hurried apologies (just off out) to you, Doc Tor. I didn't scroll further up the thread so missed that you were responding to Anglican't. Release the hounds, Smithers...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Answering a direct question from Anglican't. I fail to see a problem here, unless it's your intention to completely brush employers' behaviour under the carpet.
quote:Or in my case to say that is how the daily press will be reporting matters come the next election day. It's happened in the UK (and here) in the pst; there's no reason to think it won't happen again.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The trajectory of some on thread has been to make the Unite union, and UK trade unionism in general, seem entirely in the grip of unreconstructed bolsheviks, intent on overthrowing the hard-working capitalists of Ineos who want nothing more than to provide jobs for poor Scottish workers and put bread on their tables. Those same people make little attempt to even contemplate that a billionaire might want to bully and intimidate a whole workforce simply because he can.
Have you learned nothing from The Simpsons?
quote:It seems to me that the main focus on this thread has been Unite and Unite's actions. I don't see why one can't be pro-trade union but anti-Unite and its actions?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...and UK trade unionism in general...
quote:Well, they have a portrait of Lenin on the wall and its boss tries to quote Lenin (albeit unsuccessfully). So if the shoe fits…
The trajectory of some on thread has been to make the Unite union...seem entirely in the grip of unreconstructed bolsheviks,
quote:
The trajectory of some on thread has been to make [Unions]…seem...intent on overthrowing the hard-working capitalists of Ineos who want nothing more than to provide jobs for poor Scottish workers and put bread on their tables.
quote:
Those same people make little attempt to even contemplate that a billionaire might want to bully and intimidate a whole workforce simply because he can.
quote:I've learnt that it could all come back...
Have you learned nothing from The Simpsons?
quote:You can't really consider profitability on it's own without also considering the way in which the business was acquired - via a leveraged buy out which loaded the company up with debt. This made it almost inevitable that the way in which management would then seek to maintain profitability would be to slash costs.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It sought to change working conditions, but that is apparently part of a desire to make the plant profitable, rather than as part of some kind of sadistic desire to make people squirm.
quote:Was there an alternative way to acquire the company?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You can't really consider profitability on it's own without also considering the way in which the business was acquired - via a leveraged buy out which loaded the company up with debt. This made it almost inevitable that the way in which management would then seek to maintain profitability would be to slash costs.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
It sought to change working conditions, but that is apparently part of a desire to make the plant profitable, rather than as part of some kind of sadistic desire to make people squirm.
quote:I didn't realise he was compelled to buy it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Was there an alternative way to acquire the company?
quote:If BP didn't want the refinery, and if Ineos hadn't bought it, what would have happened? Wouldn't it have closed?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I didn't realise he was compelled to buy it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Was there an alternative way to acquire the company?
quote:It might have closed, but it could have been bought at a far lower price, which wouldn't have saddled the plant in so much debt.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:If BP didn't want the refinery, and if Ineos hadn't bought it, what would have happened? Wouldn't it have closed?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I didn't realise he was compelled to buy it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Was there an alternative way to acquire the company?
quote:Few things have a fixed price, certainly not a part-worn oil refinery. After a while the price BP would accept would fall and it would sell for a lower price necessitating less borrowing. After all, what do people do when they trade houses and cars?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why should BP undersell its assets?
quote:They try to sell them for the highest possible price.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
After all, what do people do when they trade houses and cars?
quote:.... and they settle for what a buyer, who wants to spend as little as possible, will spend.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:They try to sell them for the highest possible price.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
After all, what do people do when they trade houses and cars?
quote:On the subject of Ed Miliband's stated policy of "reform" of current labour relations / union legislation, McCluskey was quite plain:
Everything the working-class has achieved through the exercise of governmental power has rested upon what it had already achieved in organisation and struggle outside parliament...our attitude must be the same – if the Tories abuse the law to render effective trade unionism illegal, then we will not be bound by it.
quote:When pressed previously about what he regards as "freedom" for trades unions he is on record as saying that means the right to have unlimited numbers of pickets, secondary picketing, closed shops with compulsory union membership, compulsory company payment of union reps on any site with more than 40 workers, etc, etc.
I have made it clear that for me the critical question is what the next Labour government will do about trade union freedom’
quote:Now I dislike Ted Heath as much as the next right-wing Tory, but I think calling him a Labourite is a bit strong.
Originally posted by L'organist (emphasis supplied):
Some of us are old enough to remember the golden days of British trades unionism: the 1971 7 week postal workers strike, the 3 day week of 1972 when the miners were out for nearly 8 weeks, the dock strike, the construction workers, the power cuts; later the council workers meaning the dead went unburied, the piles of rotting garbage in the middle of parks and cities.
And those strikes were when we had a LABOUR government...
quote:The Tories don't have to be afraid of losing the next election to trash the left, do they? Wasn't there a big play made of loony-left councils around the 1987 election (which the Tories were on course to win comfortably)?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, I haven't seen a right-wing rant for a while, it's strangely comforting. It probably means that the Tories are worried about not winning the next election - hence, all hands on deck to trash the Labour Party, or Miliband, and if it's to be a red scare, so be it.
quote:So you can't. Unless you put a massive right-wing spin on it, of course.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doc Tor
You asked to know where/when McCluskey said in public that he was aiming to influence Labour policy as a first priority: well, try this in October when he gave the Jimmy Reid lecture.
<snip>
quote:True, it's a normal part of political contestation. But don't you think this time, it will have added virulence because the Tories haven't won an election for however many years? I should think that failure to win again will not go down well, and Cameron could walk the plank. So the right-wing press will be having a red scare orgasm. Hence Miliband's Britain-hating-father, McCluskey is coming to eat your children, and so forth.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:The Tories don't have to be afraid of losing the next election to trash the left, do they? Wasn't there a big play made of loony-left councils around the 1987 election (which the Tories were on course to win comfortably)?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Gosh, I haven't seen a right-wing rant for a while, it's strangely comforting. It probably means that the Tories are worried about not winning the next election - hence, all hands on deck to trash the Labour Party, or Miliband, and if it's to be a red scare, so be it.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But don't you think this time, it will have added virulence because the Tories haven't won an election for however many years?
quote:Well you've got to play the cards you're dealt with, and if Labour takes a turn to the left, that's the way the campaign'll go.
I should think that failure to win again will not go down well, and Cameron could walk the plank. So the right-wing press will be having a red scare orgasm. Hence Miliband's Britain-hating-father, McCluskey is coming to eat your children, and so forth.
quote:The Tories not only won the 2010 election, they won it handsomely:
...the Tories haven't won an election for however many years?
quote:Is FPTP not working out for you? If only there was an alternative...
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by quetzalcoatlquote:The Tories not only won the 2010 election, they won it handsomely:
...the Tories haven't won an election for however many years?
Total Votes Cast
Conservative 10,703,654
Labour 8,606,517
LibDem 6,836,248
quote:Ha, touche! That noise you can hear is this Lib Dem member sighing in frustration...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Is FPTP not working out for you? If only there was an alternative...
quote:I'd say there are differences in outlook and
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Would you say that there's a difference in aims / outlook between Len McCluskey and his cabal and the ordinary members of Unite specifically and trade union members generally?
quote:You don't need to be in the UK to use google, but here's something I dug up in about 5 seconds ( pdf)
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The same large companies where the management is held accountable by reports to shareholders, have the directors' positions elected by shareholders, have the directors subject to criminal sanction for insider trading or lying to shareholders, and in some countries even have their financial positions disclosed to the public?
I'm not in the UK, so could you please provide me with a link to Unite's most recent independently audited report detailing their financial situation, especially the proportion of union funds spent on union work and the proportion spent on party politics?
quote:Reports that in practice are opaque enough that they can also be used to cover fairly major fraud? Whilst this isn't the norm, this does expose as something of a sham the idea that these can actually be used to provide governance - they can and have been spun.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The same large companies where the management is held accountable by reports to shareholders
quote:In reality the default proxy provision on most shares mean that in practice the boards tend to elect themselves - outside directors that haven't been originally proposed by the board rarely get voted in.
have the directors' positions elected by shareholders,
quote:The ban on insider trading is not some additional imposition on directors alone, but applies to anyone in possession of such information.
have the directors subject to criminal sanction for insider trading or lying to shareholders
quote:Some more nice boring information. The Certification Officer for Trade Unions holds annual returns and here is the latest for Unite. Details of the Political Fund are on page 12.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You don't need to be in the UK to use google, but here's something I dug up in about 5 seconds ( pdf)
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
The same large companies where the management is held accountable by reports to shareholders, have the directors' positions elected by shareholders, have the directors subject to criminal sanction for insider trading or lying to shareholders, and in some countries even have their financial positions disclosed to the public?
I'm not in the UK, so could you please provide me with a link to Unite's most recent independently audited report detailing their financial situation, especially the proportion of union funds spent on union work and the proportion spent on party politics?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anglican't:
[qb] And that by and large trade unions are among the most open and transparent organisations in our society.
quote:True. I suppose the problem is that the left tend to be better organised within Unions. A lot of people don't join Unions to engage in political argy-bargy, they just want someone to turn to in case something goes tits up.
If the members don't think their officials represent their interests they can vote them out.
quote:How does his salary compare to the members he represents?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
nb, Len McCluskey's salary of about £100,000 plus £32,000 benefits compares with a cabinet minister's salary of £134,000, plus a better pension scheme than any civil servant gets and expenses as shown in this document.
quote:"might well be now"? Has been since the 19th century you mean.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anglican't:
[qb] And that by and large trade unions are among the most open and transparent organisations in our society.
They might well be now, thanks to the end of the closed shop, the introduction of secret ballots, etc.
quote:True. I suppose the problem is that the left tend to be better organised within Unions. A lot of people don't join Unions to engage in political argy-bargy, they just want someone to turn to in case something goes tits
If the members don't think their officials represent their interests they can vote them out.
up.
quote:In rather less stark contrast than than that between the average CEO and the workers he employs, I'd warrant.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How does his salary compare to the members he represents?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
nb, Len McCluskey's salary of about £100,000 plus £32,000 benefits compares with a cabinet minister's salary of £134,000, plus a better pension scheme than any civil servant gets and expenses as shown in this document.
quote:I don't mind union members running their unions. It's when they try to run the country that I start to get worried.
Originally posted by ken:
And as for "engaging in political argy-bargy", make up your mind. Do you want union members to run their own unions or not?
quote:A perhaps predictable answer but I'm genuinely intrigued: the sort of people who join trade unions such as Unite are generally at the lower end of the income scale. They join for a number of reasons but many of them couldn't hope to earn what the tabloids would call the 'fat cat salaries' and perks that current Union bosses enjoy. In fact, one might say that such salaries places them in a world apart from the people they represent.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:In rather less stark contrast than than that between the average CEO and the workers he employs, I'd warrant.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How does his salary compare to the members he represents?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
nb, Len McCluskey's salary of about £100,000 plus £32,000 benefits compares with a cabinet minister's salary of £134,000, plus a better pension scheme than any civil servant gets and expenses as shown in this document.
quote:How is a vote by walking through one particular door or other, where your fellow MPs can see how you voted, democratic?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is a closed shop democratic? How is a vote by a show of hands in the open air, where your fellow workers can see how you voted, democratic?
quote:Because voters are then able to see how the people they've elected to serve them in parliament have voted.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:How is a vote by walking through one particular door or other, where your fellow MPs can see how you voted, democratic?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is a closed shop democratic? How is a vote by a show of hands in the open air, where your fellow workers can see how you voted, democratic?
quote:You see, it's stupid comments like this that make me realise I'm so unutterably glad I'm not right-wing.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't mind union members running their unions. It's when they try to run the country that I start to get worried.
Originally posted by ken:
And as for "engaging in political argy-bargy", make up your mind. Do you want union members to run their own unions or not?
quote:Good point, well made.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because voters are then able to see how the people they've elected to serve them in parliament have voted.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:How is a vote by walking through one particular door or other, where your fellow MPs can see how you voted, democratic?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is a closed shop democratic? How is a vote by a show of hands in the open air, where your fellow workers can see how you voted, democratic?
quote:I disagree. It can be open to bullying and intimidation. If you're also in a closed shop, where not voting the right way could mean that you lose your job, then it's an awful situation.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Good point, well made.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because voters are then able to see how the people they've elected to serve them in parliament have voted.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:How is a vote by walking through one particular door or other, where your fellow MPs can see how you voted, democratic?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is a closed shop democratic? How is a vote by a show of hands in the open air, where your fellow workers can see how you voted, democratic?
However, a show of hands is still democratic. History gets made by the people who bother to turn up.
quote:I'd say these groups of people have an equal right to try and run the country, by standing for election as councillors, MPs and so on. But that's not what the trade union leaders we're talking about are doing, is it?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Union members have every right to try and run the country, probably more so than Bullingdon club members.
quote:Well, talking about stupid comments…
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You see, it's stupid comments like this that make me realise I'm so unutterably glad I'm not right-wing.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't mind union members running their unions. It's when they try to run the country that I start to get worried.
Originally posted by ken:
And as for "engaging in political argy-bargy", make up your mind. Do you want union members to run their own unions or not?
Union members have every right to try and run the country, probably more so than Bullingdon club members.
quote:I've been involved in trade unionism and I've never seen a vote by a show of hands. The idea of all the workers gathering in the canteen with rabble rousing shop stewards bullying people into raising their hands to strike and then everyone walking out waving flags is nonsense. Legally any decision to strike has to be put to a postal ballot with the results being published in time to give management a weeks notice of intention to strike. The ballot has to be sent to the member's home address so there can be no question of bullying and intimidation into striking.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I disagree. It can be open to bullying and intimidation. If you're also in a closed shop, where not voting the right way could mean that you lose your job, then it's an awful situation.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Good point, well made.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because voters are then able to see how the people they've elected to serve them in parliament have voted.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:How is a vote by walking through one particular door or other, where your fellow MPs can see how you voted, democratic?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How is a closed shop democratic? How is a vote by a show of hands in the open air, where your fellow workers can see how you voted, democratic?
However, a show of hands is still democratic. History gets made by the people who bother to turn up.
quote:Well, they also have an equal right to try and influence political parties, which in fact is what they were doing.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I'd say these groups of people have an equal right to try and run the country, by standing for election as councillors, MPs and so on. But that's not what the trade union leaders we're talking about are doing, is it?
quote:Yeah. It also claims that the average salary is £55,000 per year. I wonder how much of that the average worker receives and wonder how much goes to the plant manager. It also completely misses two crucial factors:
Originally posted by Traveller:
Some of you will disregard anything written in the Daily Telegraph out of hand, but this article is written by the Ineos chairman rather than a hack.
It puts an interesting perspective on the respective strategies of the company and the union.
quote:In other words Ineos were demanding the right to not only transfer the debt they took on to the parts they took over, they were demanding the right to welch on deals already made. And the Unions said that deals were deals.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The pensions of workers were first the subject of a proposed strike in 2008: the then General Secretary of Unite, Tony Woodley, tried to pull his members out over pensions and to give "Leverage" he only gave the management 10 days notice - which for a petrochemical plant is not enough since pulling all employees out means no gas or oil (refined or crude) can be kept on site. The strike was being called because Ineos were asking (a) to re-define the pension scheme and (b) were asking for employees to make some contribution to their pensions.
quote:That was part Unite stupidity, and party they should have joined the union.
From 2007 to 2012 there was an ongoing rumbling discontent from the tanker drivers who serviced Grangemouth since they did not belong to Unite and their pension terms were not as generous.
quote:Good! Unite are actively interested in the future. And not in "Fuck you, got mine" kicking the ladder out from under the next people to come up.
The proposal that Unite has been fighting up to now has been that the final-salary scheme be restricted to current members
quote:Now this, if true, is a pretty good reason. The question is (a) is this true and (b) why was this the trigger?
Ineos were seeking to suspend him (pending an investigation) for using company time to work on business unconnected with the company.
quote:That might be what you meant, but it's not what you said.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Well, talking about stupid comments…
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You see, it's stupid comments like this that make me realise I'm so unutterably glad I'm not right-wing.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't mind union members running their unions. It's when they try to run the country that I start to get worried.
Originally posted by ken:
And as for "engaging in political argy-bargy", make up your mind. Do you want union members to run their own unions or not?
Union members have every right to try and run the country, probably more so than Bullingdon club members.
How so? If you're going to try to measure this (which is one way to answer the question) then you might say note that 144,000* voted for Len McCluskey while 10,000,000-odd voted for those Bullingdon Club Boys Cameron and Osborne. That other Bullingdon Club boy, Boris Johnson, probably has the largest personal mandate in the country.
As I say, that's one way. But a willy-waving contest about votes seems unedifying to me for some reason.
*I trust these aren't the same 144,000 ear-marked for going to heaven…
quote:So, again. Why shouldn't union members try and run the country? They all have votes. They can use them as they wish. If they stand for parliament, get elected, form the majority party, they get to run the country. Or are they just a bunch of plebs who should know their place?
I don't mind union members running their unions. It's when they try to run the country that I start to get worried.
quote:Funnily enough, if you substitute 'Bullingdon Club boys', 'ConDems', 'neo-liberals', 'fat cats', 'Jeremy Clarkson', the 'bedroom tax', the 'Murdoch press' or 'anti-capitalist' for these words, you can probably get a good left-wing rant going too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There you are, I forgot 'barons', an essential part of any right-wing rant.
So simply perm any selection from 'union barons', 'illegal immigrants', 'anarchist thugs', 'Russell Brand', 'single mothers', 'broken Britain', 'benefit scroungers', and you won't go far wrong.
quote:Well here's the OP:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, correct, but this thread is based on a right-wing rant, isn't it? I mean the OP. Maybe I will start a thread with a left-wing rant, oh well, I'm out of practice, I'll email Russell B. for some tips.
quote:Shamwari states that he/she would like opinions on 'leverage', expresses his/her own opinion on it and then asks whether it can ever be justified.
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?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
quote:Eh? That doesn't make sense. Rants do use ordinary every day English words; they are not full of extraordinary or rare words, are they? Thus if the Daily Mail prints the headline 'single mothers and illegal immigrants ruin Britain', each word is perfectly ordinary.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I would consider them to be ordinary, every day English words. How would you express this opinion in a non-ranty way?
quote:I'm sorry; I'm getting bored with this.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What I mean to say is that I don't see what is ranty about the OP. How would you express the opinion in the OP in a non-ranty way?
quote:No. I think the majority of people are taking exception to the way in which action by the union has been defined as intimidation, and then the question really devolves to a thinly veiled one as to whether 'intimidation is ever justified'.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The reason I asked the question is that I wondered if your real objection is not to the way that the opinion has been expressed but to the fact that it has been expressed at all?
quote:Neither the Ineos chairman nor any member of the Ineos board work at the Grangemouth refinery. So what would be the point of picketing a place where no one who makes the decisions as to whether you have a job tomorrow actually work?
Originally posted by shamwari:
So picketing outside of the homes of Ineos bosses is not "intimidation"? Its wives and kids affected by this and its a mighty long way away from a legit picket line which normally forms up outside the 'business'.
quote:Well - since some here seem to object picketing someone's house in Hampshire, I doubt very much they'd prefer it if they flew over to Switzerland where the tax-dodging Ineos headquarters is now sited. Also, very much doubt if the Chairman or the board work there, either.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Fair question.
But presumably the angst is not personal ( against Chairman or Board personally ) but against the policies of the Company?
In which case the picket line is appropriately mounted against the Company and its workplace. At its workplace.
How would it be if the Company engaged a bunch of protestors to picket ( and/or leverage) the home of Len McLusky whose decisions threatened to deprive 800 people of their jobs?
quote:"Do what we say or we'll close the plant."
Originally posted by Pottage:
The management had been in negotiation with Unite for ages, none of the management could possibly be unaware of Unite's point of view.
quote:As much I dislike this behaviour I also find it somewhat baffling. If Ineos hold all the cards (as is claimed) isn't this sort of thing more likely to make Ineos walk away from the table?
Originally posted by Pottage:
[W]hat could Unite have intended to accomplish by sending the Leverage Team to picket people's homes?
quote:Shame? It's probably all they had left. Unfortunately, Ineos were immune to that, so they got everything that they wanted in the end.
Originally posted by Pottage:
My point is that all of Ineos' management will have known Unite's take on the situation already. They didn't agree with it, but they knew what it was and they had already discussed it at great length (but to little end) with Unite. Aside from tying to get their way by frightening and intimidating individuals, what could Unite have intended to accomplish by sending the Leverage Team to picket people's homes?
quote:If Grangemouth will cost a huge sum simply to close down, and the investment won't be paid for by savings from the workforce, it's not about the money. Instead, it looks like a deliberate attempt by a multi-billion dollar company to smash the union influence at the plant.
For one thing, it makes more sense than Unite's paraphrase because closing down the facility will of itself necessarily cost Ineos an eye-watering amount of money. And (leaving Siggi aside since the labour market in Germany is different) Ineos do operate other plants in the UK which don't have the history of poor labour relations that Grangemouth does. It also seems to me that Grangemouth had a history of poor labour relations before Ineos acquired the plant.
quote:That's a problem in itself. The British press is almost entirely right wing, certainly the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, so it would tend to favour Ineos. The BBC is the nearest thing to a counter in that it's soft centre-left, so it will feel sorry for the beleagured workers and their families but shocked to the core by "intimidatory" picketing.
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'm no more in a position to argue the merits of Ineos' and Unite's respective positions than you are. We only know what we read in the press.
quote:I think you do yourself a disservice. Where there are competing and contradictory claims in the press, you are more than perfectly entitled to come to a judgement as to which party is telling the more likely story.
Originally posted by Pottage:
I'm no more in a position to argue the merits of Ineos' and Unite's respective positions than you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The British press is almost entirely right wing, certainly the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, so it would tend to favour Ineos.
quote:An interesting comment. Usually when people complain that the BBC is left wing the response from left-wingers is 'no it's not!'.
The BBC is the nearest thing to a counter in that it's soft centre-left, so it will feel sorry for the beleagured workers and their families but shocked to the core by "intimidatory" picketing.
quote:Ah, but the DM never misses a chance to bash the unions, especially as its readership is the lower-middle class, particularly women,and their view of TU's is like that which Margaret Thatcher had. After all, she was fom the lower-middle class (though she married up).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The British press is almost entirely right wing, certainly the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, so it would tend to favour Ineos.
Presumably only up to a point? The Daily Mail in particular tends to be populist, so if the little man is being done over I would expect the DM to back him rather than big, remote business.
quote:Being left-wing and soft centre-left are entirely different. The difference is comparable to that between Ken Clarke and the Monday Club.
quote:An interesting comment. Usually when people complain that the BBC is left wing the response from left-wingers is 'no it's not!'.
The BBC is the nearest thing to a counter in that it's soft centre-left, so it will feel sorry for the beleagured workers and their families but shocked to the core by "intimidatory" picketing.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
