Grangemouth

[Thorizaar]

Here...

http://opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us

Wages at Grangemouth account for 1.6% of costs? That sounds an incredibly hard statistic to believe.

[davidg]

Wages at Grangemouth account for 1.6% of costs? That sounds an incredibly hard statistic to believe.

There's more contractors on site than Ineos staff though. This figure probably only accounts for Ineos wages.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

At the weekend I heard that it was £44k at Grangemouth, now its £55k. No doubt when the liquidators have their first press conference it will be around £66k...

Interesting to note that he workers were to take a pay freeze and have pensions reduced - what were the sacrifices being made by the senior management team?

I naively thought that management and staff representatives entered into negotiations at ACAS. It would appear that the billionaire and millionaires at Ineos simply said take it or leave it. To now place the company straight into liquidation thus denying the staff even their redundancy with no livelihood of finding sustainable employment is morally bankrupt.

Their behaviour during this has been ruthless and rather reprehensible IMO

[buddiecat]

Thanks all !

Company to blame.

All sorted.

Wish i hudnae started this.

What a bore already.

Everybody to blame apart from the Unions as usual.

i dislike unions and management alike, i blame them both, mainly management though as they would have known that no majority of workforce are going to vote themselves a drop in salary, these guys have set their lives up based on their salary and will now face hardship as they would also have done had they accepted wage cuts, they hardly had a choice, the unions should have done their job better - but thats why i hate unions, in my experience they are not very good at their job

[Drew]

Drew can you give us a brief summary of what the unions had a problem with?

To me it looks like it was over a pay freeze and pensions.

Fighting pensions I can understand but fighting a pay freeze is madness.

If I've got this wrong can you clarify?

I can't speak for the union, but I don't think it is difficult to imagine why they might have a grievance over the manner in which INEOS have approached this matter.

It seems to me that this is one situation where the Devil isn't in the detail. The terms of the company's 'rescue plan' (this assumes that a rescue was required - something we hadn't heard a great deal about prior to the issue arising in respect of the shop steward, despite the fact that one would have assumed a matter of such significance would have been more apparent) aren't really the issue in many respects. It is apparent that INEOS piggy-backed this armageddon scenario on the matter of the dispute surrounding the steward, and then decided to issue this Hobson's Choice ultimatum to the workforce. Is that a reasonable form of negotiation? I wonder how each of us would feel if presented with that scenario when we arrived at work in the morning, or opended a letter that landed on the doormat.

I can't comment on the proposals to cap salaries and remove the final salary pension, but I can tell you right now that if my employer hit me with a proposal that would radically impact on my established terms and conditions, and only gave me a matter of days to decide whether I was opting in or otherwise, I would expect my union to represent my interests and attempt to negotiate a reasonable outcome. This is where the betrayal lies. The workforce, contractors, and community surrounding the plant have invested in the plant, be that through their labour, loyalty, or trust. To my mind, they deserve a minimum level of respect for this, and this is why I talk of social responsiblity. I am not naive, and know what the imperatives of private commerce are, but this does not absolve these organisations of all moral and social obligations. If we were to accept this as a reasonable position, then we couldn't be looking back on the highland clearances or the cotton plantations with the abhorrance that most of us feel.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Drew

[groucho]

There are three important lessons that we need to learn from the industrial dispute-going-on-catastrophe at the Grangemouth oil refinery. Firstly, industrial ownership in Britain is broken. Secondly, industrial relations in Britain is broken. Thirdly, London's capacity to understand or take an interest in the rest of Britain seems problematic.

Let's begin with the background. It is an accepted rule in Scotland right now that you write about Ineos (the company that owns the Grangemouth facility) with care. They have thrown around threats of defamation action (mainly towards the trade unions) with the abandon of the powerful who wish to silence those less powerful. People have felt unable to describe what they see. So allow me; if Ineos was a person, the characteristics would strongly suggest it was a psychopath. It has demonstrated no empathy, no interest in reaching mutual outcomes, no momentary doubt that any course of action it believes to be 'necessary' is anything other than a divine calling, no concern about what weapons it points, where it points them or who it points them at, and a chilling certainty from day one about the course of events

[zurich_allan]

There are three important lessons that we need to learn from the industrial dispute-going-on-catastrophe at the Grangemouth oil refinery. Firstly, industrial ownership in Britain is broken. Secondly, industrial relations in Britain is broken. Thirdly, London's capacity to understand or take an interest in the rest of Britain seems problematic.

Let's begin with the background. It is an accepted rule in Scotland right now that you write about Ineos (the company that owns the Grangemouth facility) with care. They have thrown around threats of defamation action (mainly towards the trade unions) with the abandon of the powerful who wish to silence those less powerful. People have felt unable to describe what they see. So allow me; if Ineos was a person, the characteristics would strongly suggest it was a psychopath. It has demonstrated no empathy, no interest in reaching mutual outcomes, no momentary doubt that any course of action it believes to be 'necessary' is anything other than a divine calling, no concern about what weapons it points, where it points them or who it points them at, and a chilling certainty from day one about the course of events

This is interesting to read, and I would expand on that by saying that I know for a fact that at least some (I don't know how many - could be only certain workers, could be all) workers at the plant had communicated to them a couple of weeks ago by senior management, that when discussing the strike situation in public they should only discuss facts, give no opinion that may be deemed to be negative or defamatory, and that action may be taken against those who didn't adere to this 'order' (I'm paraphrasing as I didn't commit the whole thing to memory, but you get the idea). I saw the communication with my own eyes. At the most flexible end of the scale that could be argued as trying to avoid widespread panic that might affect share prices, local community etc. and at the other end of the scale it could be viewed purely as a gagging order. Up to others how they choose to interpret it, depends on your perspective I suppose.

[oaksoft]

Tomorrow?

That was a quick 7 days.

He was probably using my patented arithmetic method.

Ask Duke......

[oaksoft]

No. It tells me that I'm a nicer human being than most people on here...

If that's even remotely true then frankly we're all fecked as a species.

[flyingscot]

At the weekend I heard that it was £44k at Grangemouth, now its £55k. No doubt when the liquidators have their first press conference it will be around £66k...

Interesting to note that he workers were to take a pay freeze and have pensions reduced - what were the sacrifices being made by the senior management team?

I naively thought that management and staff representatives entered into negotiations at ACAS. It would appear that the billionaire and millionaires at Ineos simply said take it or leave it. To now place the company straight into liquidation thus denying the staff even their redundancy with no livelihood of finding sustainable employment is morally bankrupt.

Their behaviour during this has been ruthless and rather reprehensible IMO

In the end, what is the point in accepting the conditions and working under that regime. If they do it once they'd do it again and all that.

May as well close it, go and get oil jobs elsewhere or hope it gets reopened and bought by a new owner.

[faraway saint]

In the end, what is the point in accepting the conditions and working under that regime. If they do it once they'd do it again and all that.

May as well close it, go and get oil jobs elsewhere or hope it gets reopened and bought by a new owner.

I'll assume this is a wind up?

[oaksoft]

I can't speak for the union, but I don't think it is difficult to imagine why they might have a grievance over the manner in which INEOS have approached this matter.

It seems to me that this is one situation where the Devil isn't in the detail. The terms of the company's 'rescue plan' (this assumes that a rescue was required - something we hadn't heard a great deal about prior to the issue arising in respect of the shop steward, despite the fact that one would have assumed a matter of such significance would have been more apparent) aren't really the issue in many respects. It is apparent that INEOS piggy-backed this armageddon scenario on the matter of the dispute surrounding the steward, and then decided to issue this Hobson's Choice ultimatum to the workforce. Is that a reasonable form of negotiation? I wonder how each of us would feel if presented with that scenario when we arrived at work in the morning, or opended a letter that landed on the doormat.

I can't comment on the proposals to cap salaries and remove the final salary pension, but I can tell you right now that if my employer hit me with a proposal that would radically impact on my established terms and conditions, and only gave me a matter of days to decide whether I was opting in or otherwise, I would expect my union to represent my interests and attempt to negotiate a reasonable outcome. This is where the betrayal lies. The workforce, contractors, and community surrounding the plant have invested in the plant, be that through their labour, loyalty, or trust. To my mind, they deserve a minimum level of respect for this, and this is why I talk of social responsiblity. I am not naive, and know what the imperatives of private commerce are, but this does not absolve these organisations of all moral and social obligations. If we were to accept this as a reasonable position, then we couldn't be looking back on the highland clearances or the cotton plantations with the abhorrance that most of us feel.

As with everything there's probably blame to be shared amongst both sides but it would take a very harsh person to not feel some sympathy when they look at the face of that worker in the papers this morning.

Some of those employees will end up unable to ever find another job. Some because of their age. Some because they are tied to their mortgage.

Some will lose their houses.

What troubles me is the reports of the head man smirking during his announcement.

A man who clearly knows he has a lot of power right now.

BUT a few things of interest.

1) He's probably been told to shut the plant by people above him so it's probably not really his power to wield.

2) Like most "captains of industry" the man has probably never succeeded in creating a successful business from nothing. He's almost certainly walked into an already successful company through a fast track management scheme courtesy of an MBA or suchlike. Anyone who would smirk at a time like this is clearly a bastard but TBH he's not even a successful self-made bastard. He's almost certainly been an employee for his entire life just like those guys on the shop floor who actually do the work. which made him rich. He's no more self-reliant than any other employee. I'm not sure what he thinks he can feel smug about in that context but it's himself he's deluding. In short, he's not really different from the people he's looking down his nose at and abusing.

It's also interesting to see how much animosity there is on this thread.

Comments suggesting these people deserve to get shafted because they have the audacity to earn more than many on here smacks of jealousy.

We certainly have a fair share of arseholes prepared to take pleasure in other people's misfortune.

I feel for the employees losing their jobs. Many of them will struggle now because of someone else's pissing contest and that's clearly not right.

I've been in this position before and have much empathy with their situation.

[murray street]

What if someone dies in the next week? How will we know? Free shullistine!

lol, ;-) feckin cracker

Edited October 24, 2013 by murray street

[Bud the Baker]

I've plently of sympathy for those indirectly affected by people on £55k refusing a pay freeze.

I see SD amongst those who likes this post, touch of schadenfreude here but surely not?

I don't concentrate on my work at 10.25pm on a Sunday. No reason for him to either.

Maybe the reason some of the guys at Grangemouth are well paid is that they were at their work at 10.25 on a Sunday night - let's just hope some sort of compromise can be worked out so that as many people as possible can keep their jobs.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Bud the Baker

[Seaside Nipper]

I see SD amongst those who likes this post, touch of schadenfreude here but surely not?

Maybe the reason some of the guys at Grangemouth are well paid is that they were at their work at 10.25 on a Sunday night - let's just hope some sort of compromise can be worked out so that as many people as possible can keep their jobs.

quite.

Working late shifts , working on call , working various shift patterns 24/7............end result a total salary package built on shift allowances and bonuses then used and presented out of context to discredit those people who earned it......shameful, as are a lot of the tactics used around this dispute, but,sadly, totally predictable.

I mean what the feck did Unite think they would achieve by badgering and heckling banks who deal with INEOS, their suppliers , the home village of Jim Ratcliffe and leafletting all the local shops and his hotel and it's customers. Well a great tactic , well played, if alienating the man and his key players completely from their 'social responsibility' was the end game. Honestly , it's the tactics of playground squabbles all this.

We have two sides firmly entrenched in their view and their own end game. All this brinkmanship and posturing is pure noise, the colateral damage is unfortunately possibly people's livelihoods.

There will imo be a recovery fix applied, there is no way that the economic footprint of Grangemouth will be allowed to be lost. What is going to be equally tiresome now though is watching all those involved scrambling for the moral high ground and the political point scoring no doubt forthcoming.

[Howard Hughes in BlueSuedeShoes]

Phrases like pay freezes and pension cuts are always dramatic. But what about the detail? Apparently, a Grangemouth operator is on £55,000 basic per year plus shift allowance. I imagine their pension is also very generous.

That sort of salary is upper management in most walks of life and freezing it would be perfectly legitimate, indeed encouraged, especially in hard times.

I gave no sympathy at all for someone earning £55k being told their pay is being frozen.

So you're basing your adamant opinion on what is, effectively, non-confirmed fact? Wouldne like to be on trial for my life wi' you in the jury, big fella.

[beyond our ken]

You'll find the average wage is much lower, and only a small percentage of the higher paid will be technicians. You will also find that the contractors will be on average earnings or slightly more.

It's also worth remembering that refnery and chemcal process work is highly technical, as well as being physically and mentally demanding. These guys deserve this wage

[saint in exile]

As with everything there's probably blame to be shared amongst both sides but it would take a very harsh person to not feel some sympathy when they look at the face of that worker in the papers this morning.

Some of those employees will end up unable to ever find another job. Some because of their age. Some because they are tied to their mortgage.

Some will lose their houses.

What troubles me is the reports of the head man smirking during his announcement.

A man who clearly knows he has a lot of power right now.

BUT a few things of interest.

1) He's probably been told to shut the plant by people above him so it's probably not really his power to wield.

2) Like most "captains of industry" the man has probably never succeeded in creating a successful business from nothing. He's almost certainly walked into an already successful company through a fast track management scheme courtesy of an MBA or suchlike. Anyone who would smirk at a time like this is clearly a bastard but TBH he's not even a successful self-made bastard. He's almost certainly been an employee for his entire life just like those guys on the shop floor who actually do the work. which made him rich. He's no more self-reliant than any other employee. I'm not sure what he thinks he can feel smug about in that context but it's himself he's deluding. In short, he's not really different from the people he's looking down his nose at and abusing.

It's also interesting to see how much animosity there is on this thread.

Comments suggesting these people deserve to get shafted because they have the audacity to earn more than many on here smacks of jealousy.

We certainly have a fair share of arseholes prepared to take pleasure in other people's misfortune.

I feel for the employees losing their jobs. Many of them will struggle now because of someone else's pissing contest and that's clearly not right.

I've been in this position before and have much empathy with their situation.

Probably the fact that he'll walk into another big job at HQ or be headhunted by another mob who want him to weild the axe elsewhere. As for INEOS being loss-making - gie's a break!! It's all creative accounting.

[Drew]

As with everything there's probably blame to be shared amongst both sides but it would take a very harsh person to not feel some sympathy when they look at the face of that worker in the papers this morning.

Some of those employees will end up unable to ever find another job. Some because of their age. Some because they are tied to their mortgage.

Some will lose their houses.

What troubles me is the reports of the head man smirking during his announcement.

A man who clearly knows he has a lot of power right now.

BUT a few things of interest.

1) He's probably been told to shut the plant by people above him so it's probably not really his power to wield.

2) Like most "captains of industry" the man has probably never succeeded in creating a successful business from nothing. He's almost certainly walked into an already successful company through a fast track management scheme courtesy of an MBA or suchlike. Anyone who would smirk at a time like this is clearly a bastard but TBH he's not even a successful self-made bastard. He's almost certainly been an employee for his entire life just like those guys on the shop floor who actually do the work. which made him rich. He's no more self-reliant than any other employee. I'm not sure what he thinks he can feel smug about in that context but it's himself he's deluding. In short, he's not really different from the people he's looking down his nose at and abusing.

It's also interesting to see how much animosity there is on this thread.

Comments suggesting these people deserve to get shafted because they have the audacity to earn more than many on here smacks of jealousy.

We certainly have a fair share of arseholes prepared to take pleasure in other people's misfortune.

I feel for the employees losing their jobs. Many of them will struggle now because of someone else's pissing contest and that's clearly not right.

I've been in this position before and have much empathy with their situation.

Aye.

I'm not mindlessly banging the drum for the union here, it should be said, nor am I suggesting that they have covered themselves in glory, but I cannot grasp what could possibly be wrong or misguided in looking to negotiate a better deal for you members. That is what they are there for, after all.

Some people are deriding UNITE for recommending rejection of the INEOS 'survival plan' as it resulted in the loss of jobs (though we now know that circumstances might have changed). They balloted their members on the subject - a wholly legitimate and sensible action that will be written into their constitution. The Union might reasonably have expected that the company would agree to meet with a view to negotiating a way forward. It is known as industrial relations. That INEOS had other ideas/plans is not something that can placed at the door of UNITE. The former's approach throughout this dispute has been one of eye-popping arrogance and disregard for established custome and practice.

UNITE have most likely made a bollocks of certain aspects of their approach, but I'm not one for Union bashing as I benefit from many work-related benefits and protections that trade unionists have fought for over the decades - many at great personal cost to themselves. I have also been a steward and a H&S rep back on the day, and I now hold a management post in my current place of work, so I'm neither blinkered nor naive either.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Drew

[flyingscot]

I'll assume this is a wind up?

Nope. What is the point of accepting the cut in conditions because the owner threatens to put you out a job? If he is willing to do it now, what about in 2 years when the same stunt occurs? You'd be better off hoping new owners come in or looking to find something new especially if you are skilled.

[faraway saint]

Nope. What is the point of accepting the cut in conditions because the owner threatens to put you out a job? If he is willing to do it now, what about in 2 years when the same stunt occurs? You'd be better off hoping new owners come in or looking to find something new especially if you are skilled.

Sorry, hoping wont pay the mortgage.

While, as Drew has said, unions have been responsible for improving terms and conditions for many people the current T&C's are not sustainable so, like many others on the country, something has to give. Lets not forget that approximately 6 times the number of people that would lose a job in this plant would also lose theirs or suffer serious consequences.

Many people have seen their standard of living drop in the last 4 or 5 years with wage freezes, less hours etc but still have a job.

Sorry, something of less I'd better than all of nothing.

[Seaside Nipper]

Aye.

I'm not mindlessly banging the drum for the union here, it should be said, nor am I suggesting that they have covered themselves in glory, but I cannot grasp what could possibly be wrong or misguided in looking to negotiate a better deal for you members. That is what they are there for, after all.

Some people are deriding UNITE for recommending rejection of the INEOS 'survival plan' as it resulted in the loss of jobs (though we now know that circumstances might have changed). They balloted their members on the subject - a wholly legitimate and sensible action that will be written into their constitution. The Union might reasonably have expected that the company would agree to meet with a view to negotiating a way forward. It is known as industrial relations. That INEOS had other ideas/plans is not something that can placed at the door of UNITE. The former's approach throughout this dispute has been one of eye-popping arrogance and disregard for established custome and practice.

UNITE have most likely made a bollocks of certain aspects of their approach, but I'm not one for Union bashing as I benefit from many work-related benefits and protections that trade unionists have fought for over the decades - many at great personal cost to themselves. I have also been a steward and a H&S rep back on the day, and I now hold a management post in my current place of work, so I'm neither blinkered nor naive either.

fair post..........

Trouble spot warning............ too much fence sitting might just get you a splinter somewhere a wee tad sair.

[Thorizaar]

So you're basing your adamant opinion on what is, effectively, non-confirmed fact? Wouldne like to be on trial for my life wi' you in the jury, big fella.

The figure came from the guy running the plant a week or so ago. It's repeated in The Herald today. This figure hasn't been disputed as far as im aware so happy to accept it as fact until someone says it isn't.

I was on jury duty last month, so you're ok for the time being.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Thorizaar

[Thorizaar]

I see SD amongst those who likes this post, touch of schadenfreude here but surely not?

Maybe the reason some of the guys at Grangemouth are well paid is that they were at their work at 10.25 on a Sunday night - let's just hope some sort of compromise can be worked out so that as many people as possible can keep their jobs.

£55k is their basic wage. Working Sunday nights will increase their basic wage substantially. Their excellent wage has nothing to do with working Sundays. Edited October 24, 2013 by Thorizaar

[Seaside Nipper]

Ouch !!

100 plus laid off by Babcock's this afternoonat Grangemouth ..............fallout continues. This added to over 100 Scaffolders who btw on their way out lobbed their Unite cards on the Officials desk, thanks very much !!

Don't see this kind of detail making any part of Unite's soundbites.....................