commonrail:
he means going on strike,which…in the case of grangemouth would have meant closure.at the end of the day,if the money aint there,you can`t have it.
The problem is that the workers can’t then say that in the case of their financial liabilities.While ‘closure’ in most cases actually translates as work for zb all or the threat of the sack which is one of the oldest employers tactics in the book going back through the ages.
but not in this case.
Who knows in this case.
I assume the company figures where available for everyone concerned to scrutinise.even the likes of George Galloway didn’t deny the company losses.
Galloway isn’t exactly the brightest union leader.It wouldn’t be the first time that government taxation policy related to road fuel has wrecked the economy.Maybe those petro industry workers should re apply for jobs with the gas and electricity generating industry where no doubt employment opportunities and terms and conditions would reflect the profit margins in that sector.
commonrail:
he means going on strike,which…in the case of grangemouth would have meant closure.at the end of the day,if the money aint there,you can`t have it.
The problem is that the workers can’t then say that in the case of their financial liabilities.While ‘closure’ in most cases actually translates as work for zb all or the threat of the sack which is one of the oldest employers tactics in the book going back through the ages.
but not in this case.
Who knows in this case.
I assume the company figures where available for everyone concerned to scrutinise.even the likes of George Galloway didn’t deny the company losses.
Galloway isn’t exactly the brightest union leader.
you can say that again
would you agree that a company that is making heavy losses would have to make cuts
commonrail:
he means going on strike,which…in the case of grangemouth would have meant closure.at the end of the day,if the money aint there,you can`t have it.
The problem is that the workers can’t then say that in the case of their financial liabilities.While ‘closure’ in most cases actually translates as work for zb all or the threat of the sack which is one of the oldest employers tactics in the book going back through the ages.
but not in this case.
Who knows in this case.
I assume the company figures where available for everyone concerned to scrutinise.even the likes of George Galloway didn’t deny the company losses.
Galloway isn’t exactly the brightest union leader.
you can say that again
would you agree that a company that is making heavy losses would have to make cuts
As I’ve said the ‘losses’ probably have more to do with government taxation policy in taxing road fuel more than the product is actually worth and those who work in the industry being expected to pick up the bill for the inevitable results of that.In just the same way that British workers were expected to hold income increases at less than the price increases caused by the fuel price rises supposedly caused by OPEC quotas.When we were actually self sufficient in oil and government taxation formed the largest proportion of the cost of fuel at the pump.
Regardless of that history shows that sacrificing terms and conditions based on figures provided by the employers and under threat of closure is generally a mugs game.
Carryfast:
It’s just another example of the way in which the working class and the unions have lost the plot.Employers want to drive down terms and conditions using the typical old tactic of take it or leave it and if you leave it we’ll throw you on the dole.Meanwhile the unions haven’t got the rank and file unity,bottle or the legal right to organise and take action on a general strike basis.So it’s just another case in the long term of workers being scared into accepting lower terms and condition under threats by management and the unions being too weak to do anything about it with an economy to match.
Yup, at the end of the day, the political motivation behind the lock-out are obvious. They just want working men grateful for crumbs, pure and simple.
commonrail:
he means going on strike,which…in the case of grangemouth would have meant closure.at the end of the day,if the money aint there,you can`t have it.
The problem is that the workers can’t then say that in the case of their financial liabilities.While ‘closure’ in most cases actually translates as work for zb all or the threat of the sack which is one of the oldest employers tactics in the book going back through the ages.
but not in this case.
Who knows in this case.
I assume the company figures where available for everyone concerned to scrutinise.even the likes of George Galloway didn’t deny the company losses.
Galloway isn’t exactly the brightest union leader.
you can say that again
would you agree that a company that is making heavy losses would have to make cuts
As I’ve said the ‘losses’ probably have more to do with government taxation policy in taxing road fuel more than the product is actually worth and those who work in the industry being expected to pick up the bill for the inevitable results of that.In just the same way that British workers were expected to hold income increases at less than the price increases caused by the fuel price rises supposedly caused by OPEC quotas.When we were actually self sufficient in oil and government taxation formed the largest proportion of the cost of fuel at the pump.
Regardless of that history shows that sacrificing terms and conditions based on figures provided by the employers and under threat of closure is generally a mugs game.
commonrail:
he means going on strike,which…in the case of grangemouth would have meant closure.at the end of the day,if the money aint there,you can`t have it.
The problem is that the workers can’t then say that in the case of their financial liabilities.While ‘closure’ in most cases actually translates as work for zb all or the threat of the sack which is one of the oldest employers tactics in the book going back through the ages.
but not in this case.
Who knows in this case.
I assume the company figures where available for everyone concerned to scrutinise.even the likes of George Galloway didn’t deny the company losses.
Galloway isn’t exactly the brightest union leader.
you can say that again
would you agree that a company that is making heavy losses would have to make cuts
As I’ve said the ‘losses’ probably have more to do with government taxation policy in taxing road fuel more than the product is actually worth and those who work in the industry being expected to pick up the bill for the inevitable results of that.In just the same way that British workers were expected to hold income increases at less than the price increases caused by the fuel price rises supposedly caused by OPEC quotas.When we were actually self sufficient in oil and government taxation formed the largest proportion of the cost of fuel at the pump.
Regardless of that history shows that sacrificing terms and conditions based on figures provided by the employers and under threat of closure is generally a mugs game.
yes or no
As I’ve said any union worth it’s salt would take the idea of ‘cuts’ based on ‘losses’ with a pinch of salt.In just the same way that terms and conditions never usually rise automatically in direct proportion to profit increases.It’s obvious that the logical conclusion of the idea of the choice between keeping a job through continous erosion of terms and conditions or the dole will eventually mean an end to redundancy terms and pay and a wage structure based on workers having to accept ever more draconian cuts in terms and conditions.
The answer to your question in this case would have been either the terms and conditions stay the same or it’s a mass redundancy situation.Acceptance of reductions in terms and conditions to stay in a job will just result in a situation of workers eventually looking for another job just the same as if they’d have taken redundancy but without the redundancy money and having to work the same for less in the meantime while they’re looking.That’s assuming that the financial pressures of working for zb all don’t lead to it being untenable to keep the household budget afloat before that point.IE working for the privilege of being effectively bankrupt.While at the same time setting a precedent that will eventually lead to the removal of the choice of redundancy in the case of employers forcing down terms and conditions on the basis of ‘keeping the company afloat’.
Which part of if the employers can no longer afford to maintain terms and conditions of the workforce then,from the union’s point of view,it’s time to start thinking about redundancy not reductions in those terms and conditions,don’t you understand.Which then just leaves the question in many cases of the reliability of the figures provided by employers to the union anyway.
Multi national company says ‘the money isn’t there’ and ‘this site is making a loss’. Now that couldn’t possibly be creative accounting could it? No way - that sort of thing isn’t done is it? Companies never credit the profits to their European division and the losses to their UK division… or was that something to do with not paying any corporation tax last year? Or might it be more to do with trying to get some taxpayers’ money (ie YOURS) out of the Government, in exchange for keeping a so-called unprofitable operation going?
Unions are a fantastic idea, set up centuries ago to protect the most vulnerable workers who lived in utter squalor and who were genuinely oppressed.
They still have a place in modern society but in places like Grangemouth where the plant workers are earning far more than those in their community and where jobs are in desperately short supply their overly-aggressive stance was suicidal. If you live in Grangemouth, working in the plant is a bloody good job. Losing 10% of that good job is better than losing all of it.
The unions main problem is that they are corrupted by power-mad little men who are obsessed with their own self-importance. It’s called Arthur Scargill syndrome . They need to pick their fights better and occasionally lift their heads from out of the sand and look at the world around them. This often means looking globally and a lot of these blokes just don’t have it in em’ I’m afraid.
weeto: According to the press, 50% of the work force wanted to accept what was offered to save their jobs! Wether that’s true? Who knows.
They were wrong to call a strike with a 50-50 split,seems that unite had a personal vendetta against the company, because of 1 man who happens to be a union rep!
Yep correct, the ballot was split roughly 50-50 .The result was quite telling in that the 50% that voted to accept the terms where mostly the office staff ,the ones who would have the best idea of the real state of play at the company ,the ones who voted no where the ones on the “shop floor” having union reps shouting in their face at every opportunity
The answer from the union’s perspective is ( should be ) who gives a zb.
IE the question is irrelevant because from the union’s point of view it’s not there to keep a loss making firm in business.If an employer can no longer afford to pay it’s workers what it owes them in real terms then it’s time for the union to advise it’s members to call it a day and start thinking about redundancy.The union should never be in the business of sacrificing terms and conditions for whatever reason given by the employer.If the workers want to go against that then it’s obvious that there’s no place for unions because they are now too weak to be a credible force.
As for those who think that the unions were too powerful during the 1970’s it’s obviously now gone past the stage of telling them to be careful what they wish for to they’ve got what they wanted now wait and see the results of that on the future of the British working classes.
commonrail:
on the other hand you had ford…union kept on putting in for inflation busting pay increases until they moved it to Belgium.
end result
derelict building site
The so called inflation busting pay increases were actually all about maintaining terms and conditions in real terms in an environment of price led inflation.Those who believe the all the bs tory propaganda have got what they wanted and the facts speak for themselves in an economy in which wages are falling in real terms compared to prices.
Short memories?
After the Ford workers walked out in the 1970s they demanded- and got- I believe 17%. Our old mates the TGWU then put in a claim for 60%.
The laughter could be heard on Mediterranean beaches!
Then Ford moved most of their production abroad. I bet the Ford stewards had red faces, but not as red as the bozos at Transport House.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Short memories?
After the Ford workers walked out in the 1970s they demanded- and got- I believe 17%. Our old mates the TGWU then put in a claim for 60%.
The laughter could be heard on Mediterranean beaches!
Then Ford moved most of their production abroad. I bet the Ford stewards had red faces, but not as red as the bozos at Transport House.
It would be interesting to find out the exact circumstances and reasoning for a 60% wage claim ‘if’ it actually happened.While 17% pay increases need to be looked according to the rate of price led inflation at the time resulting from the government’s failure to use our self sufficiency in oil to insulate us from world market oil price increases and the harmonisation of prices which took place when we joined the EU.As for the transfer of production from the the UK at that time it was mostly about UK production being transferred to Germany where wage costs were actually higher.
However if truck drivers think that it was such a good pay rate the option of working on a car production line was always there at the time for anyone who wanted it.I doubt the average driver would be able to handle a week of the job.
. They need to pick their fights better and occasionally lift their heads from out of the sand and look at the world around them. This often means looking globally and a lot of these blokes just don’t have it in em’ I’m afraid.