Grangemouth petrochemical plant to close

[Stu160]

Good for you Neil.

Personally , i thought you were like me, and spend far to much money on haircuts.



Stu

[mwmackenzie]

Good for you Neil.

Personally , i thought you were like me, and spend far to much money on haircuts.



Stu

It really cannot be cheap to keep cutting the ginger out! And as a married man with kids, no Lotus or motorbike I am jealous of your lifestyle Neil,very Jealous you 'lazy, workshy scoundrel'

[Scuffers]

Furgus, Neil's T&C's don't bother me, but if he cited them as a reason for the dispute in this thread then is is only natural that people will want to know what they are to make a judgement. If he then wishes not to disclose them that's fine - but why say it in the first place as it makes his case a bit hollow.

DING!!!

Same here, if your going to cry about some great injustice, then be prepared to back it up, otherwise, as said, it's all a bit hollow.

[pete]

Furgus, Neil's T&C's don't bother me, but if he cited them as a reason for the dispute in this thread then is is only natural that people will want to know what they are to make a judgement. If he then wishes not to disclose them that's fine - but why say it in the first place as it makes his case a bit hollow.

DING!!!

Same here, if your going to cry about some great injustice, then be prepared to back it up, otherwise, as said, it's all a bit hollow.

Sorry, you make post on the internet based as far as I can tell on what you have seen on or in the news. Someone with a greater knowledge than you suggests there may be more to the story than you are being led to believe.

But the next step is not them telling you their Ts and Cs. For starters for that to have any impact they'd have to contextualise it, compare it to industry and societal norms.
After all if you are to judge them then you are going to need all the facts aren't you?


In reality the next step doesn't exist, if someone chooses to not tell you their Ts&Cs than that is where it stops, you don't even have the right to ask, let alone start name calling when they don't tell you.

[Scuffers]

with respect, I never mentioned T&C's or asked for a detailed breakdown of them.

and no, I am not just going off press reports, as I said before, I know some of the people who were contractors on that site (alas no more), what they tell me is somewhat at odds with both press and Unite reports.

Look, whichever way you cut it, by their actions, they have let Unite stuff them.

[robin]

Unless of course the employer was going to go down this route one way or another, and Unite presented themselves as a convenient scape goat.

Cheers,
Robin

[Scuffers]

Unless of course the employer was going to go down this route one way or another, and Unite presented themselves as a convenient scape goat.

Cheers,
Robin

Don't think that's even open for question?

Ineos has already put there position forward before the falkirk farse, if unite were doing their job as representing the workers rights etc, they should have been negotiating about the plans.

Only unknown now is what consetions they may have been able to negotiate, as opposed to a total capitulation and running away.

[robin]

My guess is none.

[pete]

they have let Unite stuff them.

Management have stuffed the staff, not Unite. Unite were unable to stop management. And the union is the staff, that's what it means.

The staff didn't screw themselves, they got outmaneuvered.

[Scuffers]

they have let Unite stuff them.

Management have stuffed the staff, not Unite. Unite were unable to stop management. And the union is the staff, that's what it means.

The staff didn't screw themselves, they got outmaneuvered.

so, calling a strike over Stephen Deans really was in the workers interests?

Yes, as is well know, Ineos had already laid out their plans and what they wanted, this almost got agreed at Acas, right up to the point that the falkirk farce.

One bit that stands out for me is that Ineos were asking for a garrentee on no strike action for 3 months whilst this was being talked over, Unite screwed this, and now have had to agree to 3 years no strike deal, so actually, yes, they have gone backwards.

Look, you cannot ignore commercial reality, demonising the management (or specifically Jim Ratcliffe) is never going to get anybody anywhere constructive is it? things had to change, refineries and plants are shutting all over Europe for a reason, Ineos saw an opportunity to re-configure the plant and use cheap US shale gas to extend the life of the plant, Unite and co should have been in on this, not jeopardizing it.

where we are left now is with Unite retreating with their tail between their leggs, management not having to negotiate, and worst of all, a shed load of resentment all round with a corresponding lack of trust that's hardly going to help anybody in the years to come.

Sadly, reading the Unite press releases and interviews, they clearly don;t give two hoots and are swaning on as usual claiming some great role in the solution.

do you really think Len McCluskey gives a monkey's about any of this? no, he's too busy trying to strong arm the labour party into submission.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... s.22602121

as dor Unite being the workers, did the workers agree to the thugs being dispatched to the managements homes?