|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Leverage
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
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.
If the Unite execs don't like that then maybe both sides could go back to talking it through.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
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.
I imagine any company with a US$40bn turnover has probably got that covered.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.
So in your view what are the acceptable limits - if any - to Unite's actions?
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
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.
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?
(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?)
[ 02. November 2013, 13:46: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your view, what are the acceptable limits - if any - Ineos' actions?
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.
Yeah, good work on deliberately dodging the question.
So far as I can tell this thread is principally about something called 'leverage' and how it applies to a particular demo by Union activists outside the homes of a company's employees.
quote:
Or do you have no criticisms at all on Ineos' behaviour towards its workforce and the wider Grangemouth community?
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.
But if Ineos are the bad guys (which is entirely possible) it doesn't make Unite the good guys.
quote:
(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?)
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.
But I've also had to walk through a left-wing demo (as a young adult) and can't imagine a child would view the sight of adult Union activists at the bottom of their driveway as an 'inconvenience'.
[ 02. November 2013, 13:57: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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, 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.
Good work. Being that uninformed takes real effort.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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…
Well I read the links in the OP of this thread before I commented on them. I wouldn't described that as 'time and trouble' myself, really.
quote:
... 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.
Were the Hampshire mob Scottish? I was under the impression that they were local heavies, but I could be wrong.
Also, I don't know about you, but I have never ran an oil refinery in my life so you'll forgive me for not having an intimate grasp of the ins and outs of making such a site work. On the other hand, the sight of a mob at the end of the driveway is a little more imaginable.
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:
Good work. Being that uninformed takes real effort.
Whatever.
________
What's interesting about this thread is that it so far hasn't touched upon the fact that the Unite convenor at the centre of the Grangemouth refinery is also the local chairman of Falkirk Labour Party who is implicated big time in a vote-rigging scandal and accused of conducting political activity when he should be working. What I don't understand is how his activity fitted into the decision (now reversed) to shut down the refinery.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
People have the right to free speech and can use this within the bounds of the law. If they'd broken the law I'm sure the Ineos managers would be more than happy to have the police arrest them. FFS my employers called the police at 6am when there were three of us picketing entirely legally outside our office. The police turned up within minutes, saw it was all legal, bought us cups of coffee, wished us luck and went away. I'm sure they would have turned up when this 'mob' was running amok threatening the lives of the poor innocents who want to destroy hundreds of peoples lives for profit.
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.
Also your description of 'local heavies' is bollocks. They were local union members - that is part of trade unionism, you fight for all members rights not just those who'll make you money. Slightly different from the behaviour of the Inios managers.
[ 02. November 2013, 16:15: Message edited by: chive ]
--------------------
'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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
How much of a pay and benefits cut are we talking?
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
IIRC, an end to shift allowances, pay freeze for three years (inflation running at 2-3%), end to final salary pension.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
That the changes are actually small beer for the company leads me to believe that the investment isn't anything to do with the plant having a too-expensive workforce - and everything to do with a highly unionised workforce. Ineos wanted to smash Unite because of previous incidents and took their opportunity to do so.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
the lives of the poor innocents who want to destroy hundreds of peoples lives for profit.
I don't understand this bit? How is it profitable to close down the refinery? Presumably what the owners want to do is find a way to run the place at a profit? To do this they would need to employ the workers, not sack them all.
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.
For pretty good reason: Unite are proving themselves to be militant, vote-rigging shysters. Not exactly a good look.
quote:
Also your description of 'local heavies' is bollocks. They were local union members
Well if they were local union members that means they weren't making a 600-mile round trip from Scotland.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
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!) and what little else there is is, so far, nothing but unsupported mudslinging.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Why assume that everyone who disagrees with you must get their info from the Daily Mail?
Other broadsheets today carry a story about the Falkirk vote-rigging which illustrates Labour's whitewash of an investigation.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
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.
An interesting figure quoted in the article is the cost of providing a final salary pension scheme as a proportion of gross salary. That is why they have almost completely disappeared from the private sector (to be replaced by money purchase schemes rather than by nothing at all).
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
What about the stuff I read:
on the BBC?
in the Guardian?
in the Daily Telegraph?
in the New York Times?
in Le Figaro?
or
in the New Zealand Herald?
quote:
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!)
My understanding is that usually when one is recruited into a political party one knows one is being recruited.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
Labor has done branch-stacking stunts here in Australia as well. A friend of mine found out she was a member of the ALP after a local candidate created party members from his Facebook friends list (personal friends, not his separate "FirstnameSurnameLabor4Mayo" page) including those he had known well before getting involved in politics.
This unfortunately cost her a job working as a polling booth official when the following election came around, as party members are not allowed to be employed by the Australian Electoral Commission.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
May I ask whether Ken is a paid up member of Unite?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
You and others on this thread have tried to argue that the bullying and intimidation of people's families is a legitimate part of contract negotiations. It's just astonishing.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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'.
I'm afraid no company will survive for long if their balance sheet shows sustained losses, however small. They have a duty to their shareholders to keep the profits up. They have no duty to their workers to keep them employed in an unprofitable business. If a business doesn't make any money it's stripped for parts and shuttered, or sold on to someone who'll probably do the same.
Basically any worker is paid according to the value of their work. If their work no longer has any commercial value, or less tha before, why should they continue to be paid for it, or paid more than its worth.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
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.
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'.
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.
--------------------
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 Hawk:
quote:
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Perhaps if the investment pays off, they'll start getting pay rises again. I'm certainly hoping I will when the company are able to. My circumstances are different because the company is quite small and I am quite sure my employer is being honest about our position. Whereas trust seems to be at rather a premium between employer and the unions at Grangemouth.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The pressure is building on Mr Miliband to either publish the full report on the irregularities in the Falkirk CLP or to put in another team to properly investigate.
Word is that this time he may actually be forced to get people from south of the border to do the digging: not surprising bearing in mind the almost permanent whiff of corruption in Labour politics north of the border for the past 30 years.
As for whether or not Ineos were justified in threatening to close the plant: they own it, they have to make a profit; if the union is going to strive to do everything in its power to prevent that happening there are 2 choices - either to bar the union (not possible in the UK under current law) or to close the plant.
And, as I pointed out up-thread, one would have more respect for Unite (and other unions) if they actually used their money to invest in the industries that their members work in - and maybe then they'd be more constructive about working WITH companies for the long-term good of the enterprise as opposed to being hell-bent on screwing as much as possible out of a firm regardless of whether or not it makes economic sense.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
--------------------
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 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.
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?
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.
--------------------
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
Better to be where I am than unemployed, as are many other people. But since I am very fortunate to earn a lot more than the national average, I have quite some buffer before the inflation monster swallows me.
And going on the basis of the Ineos employees I know here in the North West, they are a high skilled, high paying employer, and I would expect those people to have some buffer as well.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
Sorry, bit late to the party.
Just wanted to pick up on this. It has been hinted at previously but I want to tell you the story of a small, little-known engineering company named after their two founders; Mr Rolls and Mr Royce.
In the late 1960s RR was developing a revolutionary type of Jet engine which was named the RB211. This was a high-bypass turbofan engine and is the basis of the Trent family of engines which power around 40% of the world's large jet aircraft, not to mention the many marine and other applications.
Unfortunately developing the engine bankrupted Rolls Royce. The rabidly-left-wing government of Edward Heath nationalised Rolls Royce and rescured the company. The current range of Trent engines power the A380, the Boeing 777 Dreamliner and the A350... to name but a few.
If February 2013, RR aerospace reported a pre-tax profit of £1.4Bn. They are Employing thousands and have excellent apprenticeship schemes.
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.
There is, inevitably and inescapably a synbiotic relationship between the private and public sectors.
Moreover the shift in the US and Europe in the last 30 years has been that wages are a significantly lower proportion of GDP than they used to be. Productivity gains have not been matched by waged-income gains. We are systematically concentrating wealth to the detriment of the poor. It is time that corporations and wealthy individuals began to show some social responsibility.
Of course freedom and free-markets are (potentially) a good thing but surely any Christian (particularly if they've read the Old Testament) can see that when the marketstops serving the people and the people are made to serve the market that something has gone seriously wrong.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Hi Anglican't
No apology needed. I don't think it a strawman though. It may be a reductio ad absurdum. The point is though relevant as the idea of a 'nightwatchman' govenment is in my view deeply flawed when tied to the views of tax policy that always seem to coexist in people who hold that view.
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.
AFZ
[ 05. November 2013, 10:50: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
A lot of people seem to take the view that the rich and powerful are entitled to do what they like and stuff anyone else. Fighting back is somehow wrong.
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.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Corporations* might well benefit from these things, but they aren't the only beneficiaries, are they? Surely everyone benefits from these things?
*I'm not sure what you mean by 'corporation' here. Are you talking about big business or any profit-making enterprise including, say, a corner shop?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Did you read the Ineos chairman's comments about industrial relations in their German plants? It's linked above.
You're right that it takes two sides to co-operate. But that would require the union to abandon its "no change ever" stance.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
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.
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'.
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.
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.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
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'.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
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.
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?
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'.
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
And yes, I think workplace councils would be a good thing. For starters, it would be a bit easier for people to agree on the facts. As we have seen in the Grangemouth situation, the union do not even accept that the plant is loss making. It's quite hard to see how to make progress when the sides are so far apart on the fundamentals.
And secondly, there would be no need for workplace councils to have anything to do with any political affiliation at all, and then there wouldn't be any scope for the pre-cursor to all of this (the vote rigging sideshow) to have reared its ugly head. Had that sideshow not gone on, there might have been more constructive relations to focus on actual issues surrounding the plant.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
You have to remember where trade unionism came from in this country - as a reaction against laissez faire capitalism, exploitation of workers and the control of parliament by the bosses. 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 placemen.
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
They've got Ineos, too. (Well, plants anyway.)
quote:
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.
One of the best things about a job - its existence - is presumably mainly due to companies?
quote:
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.
Poking a bear is unnecessary cruelty, whereas criticising union militancy, well, isn't really.
[ 05. November 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, workplace councils are law. I'd like that here. Would you?
It sounds like a nice idea. Problem is they've got Siggi and we've got Stevie Deans.
Surely the problem is that they've got BMW and we've got Ineos?
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
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]
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
What, is it illegal to close a place of business in Germany?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In Germany, Ineos can't threaten plant closures if it doesn't get its own way.
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?
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What, is it illegal to close a place of business in Germany?
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Ah, the joys of a text-based medium.
In Germany, a work council obviates the need for "We'll close the plant if we don't get what we want" strongman tactics along with the "We'll strike if we don't get what we want". The work council is, IIRC, allowed to look at the books. Negotiation and conciliation are paramount.
There is a world of difference between "Ineos isn't allowed to close a loss-making plant" faux outrage, and "Ineos should be free to do whatever it wants".
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Thanks, Doc Tor. I get what you mean. However...
quote:
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.
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
--------------------
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:
Thanks, Doc Tor. I get what you mean. However...
quote:
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.
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
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.
Then on September 6th "Ineos boss Jim Ratcliffe warns in interview with The Telegraph that Grangemouth chemicals plant has two years at best if it does not receive Government support and strike a deal with unions to cut costs" followed by October 4th "Ineos writes down the value of the Grangemouth chemicals plant from £400m to nothing, saying it will not be able to keep the facility open if it does not cut staff costs".
All the while, Unite are threatening action over its convener, not the plant's viability.
From the Telegraph.
So what does that look like to you? Because to me it looks like a bit of old-fashioned union bashing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
