[Closed] Grangemouth refinery dispute

Do I regret not signing? - no for the reasons given above. I fully realised the potential outcome.
Will I reconsider to help save the plant/site? Quite possibly.
Am I happy to take a hit in T's and C's? Yes but it needs to be done fairly.
Will I look for another job? Yep, moral is going to be truly crap if we keep going as it has been for months now due to management attitudes.
PS they ain't closing the refinery, please quote your facts correctly before asking emotive questions.

El bent wtf you on about. And sorry I meant the petrochemical bit.
But I was interested in the decision making.
Not blaming people.
Personally I would have signed and looked to move on when it suits me.
I've had to go through this at Cooper Cameron in the 90's

So if you were due to retire in March and due to one of the changes you would not be able to retire for another 5 years would you still sign?

Vs the company closing the site today then yes.
As now you get retired anyway.

But I am sure there is a lot for you to consider and it's not as simple as it sounds

Ernie -

I doesn't work like that. Unite like all trade unions is a democratic organisation, it can't simply agree to less favourable terms for its members. Any decision has to be made by its members.

That's simply not true. I've watched union reps sign their members up to things that don't benifit anyone else other than the rep without any vote taking place. Admittedly I was on the companies side negotiating with the union so was very happy for that to happen, but there's no neccessety for a rep or area rep to poll before agreeing or not. This was with Unite union in the south west.

Edit, and to quote LD above,

I am now intrigued to see that the union is promising to sign me up for these and other changes without consulting me.

people who are fighting - not out of greed - but to preserve already hard-won conditions of employment that had previously been agreed to.

Hmm. I don't think it's that simple. As employees they are working in a commercial market place. There can be no guarantees. If there isn't the money then the previously agreed conditions have to change. That's how the current system works. No-one has a right to a job or a particular salary.

It would be nice if we did, mind, but it has been tried and proven difficult to make work!

Re this dispute - surely the workforce doesn't really hold many good cards nowadays with the global economy. Very easy for a company to just shut up shop and go somewhere else.

That's simply not true. I've watched union reps sign their members up to things that don't benifit anyone else other than the rep without any vote taking place. Admittedly I was on the companies side negotiating with the union so was very happy for that to happen

Yes it's true. Trade unions are democratic organisations which can't simply agree to less favourable terms and conditions of employment without the involvement of their members.

The fact that you have known corrupt union reps doesn't change that. I have also known a corrupt union rep, and like the ones you knew he too was glove in hand with management. The history of trade unionism is littered with management stooges which have stitched up their members. Scabs, traitors, and self-serving turncoats, are nothing new. And management isn't free of odious characters either.

The final decision at Grangemouth will rest with the workforce.

[url= http://news.stv.tv/scotland/244784-grangemouth-ineos-shareholders-meet-after-vote-on-new-workers-contract/ ]Grangemouth shareholders meet after vote on new workers contract[/url]

Quote :

[i]The company which runs the crisis-hit Grangemouth oil refinery are to meet with shareholders after a ballot over new contracts for workers.[/i]

Unfortunately it's those hard won benefits the unions negotiated that makes UK companies so uncompetitive in the global market. The company I work for is the same, great holidays and pension and other benefits, but I'm under no illusions that the benefits will likely be at risk at some point in the future. I think the unions would do far better working with companies to recognise the vastly different world we're now in compared with when these benefits were negotiated, and find ways to enhance the companies competitiveness whilst minimising the deterioration of benefits. instead we get the same old strategy of stubbornly fighting the inevitable and advancing tide link King Knute. No point in having great benefits if your company goes bust.

Unfortunately my experience of Union reps is not positive. They only have their own interests at heart and not the interests of their member and are just hell-bent on sticking it to the management whatever the cost.

And yet even the area rep (and this guy was responsible for all of the Airbus guys at Filton for starters) advises me personally, that my factory rep was free to sign up to something without consulting the members first.
I think I'll take his word for it.

I think I'll take his word for it.

Because he was so trustworthy ? 😀

According to you the geezer was totally corrupt........remember ?

I've watched union reps sign their members up to things that don't benifit anyone else other than the rep

I do a lot of work now with German machine suppliers and their unions work very differently. When I asked a union rep who the enemy was, he said I was, as a manager. I responded that I felt we should be working as a team so as to beat our real enemies, our competitors. He looked somewhat surprised.
The Germans have always operated in this way, and I'm in no way saying that management is good and unions bad, but I am saying that the two should be aligned to a common end goal. Company success.
I think the rifts too deep to be able to fix in any realistic time scales though, hence the bludgeoning approach you'll see from both sides.

Ernie, local factory rep signed up, not the area rep. He just told me it was ok for the factory rep to do so.
Area rep was Andy McDowel, if you're a unite member, ask him the question.

tinybits I can't comment on what a union rep chose to tell you or didn't tell you. You obviously take a critical attitude towards trade unions as many people do, specially those like you who are involved in management. You can say what you like about what you claim to have experienced I'm never going to be in a position to challenge you, even if you claim that a union rep had a dump on your desk.

But the reality is that trade unions are among the most democratic institutions in our society, whatever some individual trade unionists might or might not do.

And it is also a reality that the management at Grangemouth has very clearly stated that the reason the closure was announced was because [i]the workforce[/i] was not voting to support the changes in terms and conditions. On this occasion at least, I would take management's word.

tinybits - Member
The Germans have always operated in this way, and I'm in no way saying that management is good and unions bad, but I am saying that the two should be aligned to a common end goa

The adversarial nature of British Unions and Mangement serves no-one. Germany for one (and Denmark was mentioned in the OpenDemocracy article IIRC) have workers reps sitting on the boards, so it's not a case of the Unions defending workers against management decisions, it rarely gets that far as the workers have input in the decision making process. Which makes so much freaking sense!

*All of the above is 'as I understand it' - more than happy to be corrected!*

I'm not arguing at all about the fact that at Grangewood, the workforce was the one voting, not the workforce through a union, however, as per on the past page, while the Unions almost always consult, they don't [i]have[/i][i] to. That's all I'm saying.

I do have a bad view of unions, I've watched while a union would not move an inch, eventually sending a whole company down the pan, all jobs lost and I can't help but think, how did that help the members.
On the other hand, I've watched a megalomaniac MD ride roughshod over employee rights, without a care in the world where a union would definitely have helped.
As I said above, I think a model where both 'sides' work towards a common goal would be the best, and I've not seen that in the UK sadly
Edit: Lifer spot on!

What I fail to see is that its losing Millions a week and yet some how they can stay open if the employees
give a loss of pay and change there Pensions.
Maths don't add up and think the unions should go to company's house.

Just been on Sky news, 120 contractors are being layed off.

wise words from lifer and tinybits. 'Us and them' mentality too entrenched in some people.

However, LD makes it clear that there is far more to this than what is reported in the mainstream media i.e. every news outlet seems to be lazily re-reporting what the PR-briefed Ineos management are spouting. Particularly noticeable was Callum McLean emphasising on TV the other day how much site staff are paid in relation to the average scottish wage.

It appears as though the Unions backed down..

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184[/url]

Oh look, it was just a big game of hardball after all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184

See - I'm confused now. ernie_lych was adamant that it was the workforce, not the Union, that had to accept or turn-down the deal on offer. So - how did Unite manage to ballot the membership so quickly in order to agree to the new T&Cs today?

Some scary numbers in the bbc report, 2000 contractors laid off and millions in grants and loan guarantees? Not sure if that is right.

"The Scottish government has indicated it will support the company's application for a £9m grant to help finance the terminal and the UK government has given its prequalification approval for a £125m loan guarantee facility."

[quote=bigjim ]Some scary numbers in the bbc report, 2000 contractors laid off and millions in grants and loan guarantees? Not sure if that is right.

£9M in a grant from the Scottish Govt. (actual money up front)
£125M in a loan guarantee from the UK Govt. (standing behind a potential loss as they did with the banks)
2,000 Contractors laid off. But due to be taken back on again once the plant is operating??
I think BP made some commitment too.

About time the unions reassessed their role in the workplace? Less grand standing and trying to defend the conditions of very well paid employees in dying industries and back to their roots defending those who are getting totally (and illegally) shafted.

I hope this makes them realise they do not run private industry (thank god no one was stupid enough to nationalise Grangemouth) and there is a big difference between looking after their members and playing politics.

I however doubt much will change other than the unions will get weaker and the people who really need union support won't get it (no Kudos in protecting Eastern European veg pickers).

So thanks to unite the taxpayer has been conned in to stumping up millions of pounds the workers get the deal they didn't want. Minus the £10k sweetner.
How can the union fukwits stay in a job they have been a total disaster and been played like suckers
And before anyone comes on here saying what could they have done then anything would have been better than this catastroph
Ineos have got away with murder and the union were more than useless

BTW, in the '80s the town I live in was a serious unemployment black spot. I was on the dole for nearly 2 years. Then it was announced that Ford, a large car manufacturer, were to open a plant making electrical bits for their cars, employing over 1000 people. However, they only wanted to deal with one union and selected the IEEE, being an electrical plant made some sense. However, the biggest union in Ford UK was the TGWU who did not find this acceptable so threatened to close all Ford's UK operations if the chosen union wasn't them. The factory and the jobs went to Spain. Better being on the dole than not being in the T&G, eh?
Still, at least I was managing to pick up odd bits of contract work. On one site I was covering for someone on long term sick. until the union found out, and found out that my Ts&Cs were different to union staff, because I wasn't employed by the company, I was employed by an agency. So, out I went. Still, at least the union were protecting someone's rights, although i never found out who. Maybe ernie can explain.
Now, things are different and I work for a large organisation, and the union negotiate my wages. They negotiated a less than then inflation three year deal, effectively dropping my wages in real terms. there was no consultation, just a letter explaining what a wonderful job the union had done in securing a real terms cut in my salary. I would have raised this at the agm, but there was no agenda so it was hard to get things on to the agenda for discussion. Still at least i got a nice shiny magazine every so often telling what a wonderful job the union were doing by helping me get by by consuming fewer of the world's precious resources and stopping me from getting angry by expressing my displeasure at the lack of consultation or discussion.

scotroutes - Member
See - I'm confused now. ernie_lych was adamant that it was the workforce, not the Union, that had to accept or turn-down the deal on offer. So - how did Unite manage to ballot the membership so quickly in order to agree to the new T&Cs today?

I refer the Gentleman to my previous comments and LD's and BigButSlimmerBloke's

LD - Member
.......I am now intrigued to see that the union is promising to sign me up for these and other changes without consulting me.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member
.....Now, things are different and I work for a large organisation, and the union negotiate my wages. They negotiated a less than then inflation three year deal, effectively dropping my wages in real terms. there was no consultation, just a letter explaining what a wonderful job the union had done in securing a real terms cut in my salary. I would have raised this at the agm, but there was no agenda so it was hard to get things on to the agenda for discussion. Still at least i got a nice shiny magazine every so often telling what a wonderful job the union were doing by helping me get by by consuming fewer of the world's precious resources and stopping me from getting angry by expressing my displeasure at the lack of consultation or discussion.

Sorry tinybits, but what you are suggesting is that ernie_lynch was wrong. I refuse to accept that and demand to know how they managed to ballot the workforce so quickly!!!

It must have been done by the night pixies, it's the only explanation.

On a more serious, and none point scoring note, I'm pleased that the place hasn't shut. OK, it may have less favourable employment conditions, and other benefits reduced, but it beats the hell out of no work at all, and will give the employees time to work for other work if they wish, on their own terms and without flooding the market place with labour.

Seems to me that it was all strong-arm tactics by INEOS to get money out of government...but yet the Union is still the bad guy? Strange.

Sancho - Member
So thanks to unite the taxpayer has been conned in to stumping up millions of pounds the workers get the deal they didn't want. Minus the £10k sweetner.
How can the union fukwits stay in a job they have been a total disaster and been played like suckers

Player/game. And a very strange analysis.

And before anyone comes on here saying what could they have done then anything would have been better than this catastroph

What do you suggest they should have done?

I do like that Ineos make the plays from start to finish, set the agenda, drive the media message, lie openly to all concerned, and get exactly what they want by means of blackmail, while causing huge damage to the economy... And yet Unite are the bad guys. At the very worst you can say they've failed to prevent Ineos from doing exactly what they want, but was that ever possible? Similiarly you can say they've played the role Ineos wanted them to, but could they do anything else?

stumpyjon - Member

About time the unions reassessed their role in the workplace? Less grand standing and trying to defend the conditions of very well paid employees in dying industries and back to their roots defending those who are getting totally (and illegally) shafted.

The irony is, this is exactly how this all began. How can people still think the industrial action was about working conditions?

Ineos got what they wanted by playing on the union reps desire to be seen as power brokers. From the safety of knowing that they themselves would never lose their jobs they gambled with the livelihoods of the workers they were supposed to represent and failed, utterly and miserably. They were shown up as wee laddies completely and utterly out of their depth and should be remembered as the people who let their egos run away with themselves ushering in a new age of employment relations that will set the cause of working people back 50 or 60 years. "Know your enemy" - Ineos did, the unions didn't, they really failed to understand who and what they were up against. if the union had stepped back and though about what was going on, they might have played a different game, instead they, well what's the point, we all know what they did.

See - I'm confused now. ernie_lych was adamant that it was the workforce, not the Union, that had to accept or turn-down the deal on offer. So - how did Unite manage to ballot the membership so quickly in order to agree to the new T&Cs today?

Eh ? Why would they need to ballot the membership ? Are you seriously suggesting that Unite has agreed to something against the wishes of the workforce ? Are you saying that if they held a ballot the workforce would reject it ? From the news reports I've seen no one else appears to believe this theory, and it has been reported that the workforce have accepted management's conditions.

You obviously have an extremely narrow definition of the term democracy. Presumably you believe that it begins and ends with a ballot.

I said previously that it's important to remember that the position taken a trade union is always dependent on its members, I strongly maintain that. I also strongly maintain that there are no institutions in our society that are more democratic than the trade unions. They are certainly immeasurably more democratic than the Tory and Labour parties.

EDIT : I believe that the ballot which initially rejected the management plan was organised by Ineos itself, not Unite. The ballot simply confirmed that Unite negotiators were representing their member's wishes. There was no need for a ballot.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member

Ineos got what they wanted by playing on the union reps desire to be seen as power brokers.

As evidenced by?

[i]Unfortunately it's those hard won benefits the unions negotiated that makes UK companies so uncompetitive in the global market.[/i]

How do you think that the Germans, Dutch and Scandic's cope then , as they've far higher costs than us.

I do like that Ineos make the plays from start to finish, set the agenda, drive the media message, lie openly to all concerned, and get exactly what they want by means of blackmail, while causing huge damage to the economy... And yet Unite are the bad guys. At the very worst you can say they've failed to prevent Ineos from doing exactly what they want, but was that ever possible? Similiarly you can say they've played the role Ineos wanted them to, but could they do anything else?

And they even got a cheaper gas contract out of BP who have never done us any favours since the sale. Jim has won on all accounts through careful planning and the ultimate bluff call! The union were played superbly but I don't think they ever had a chance of winning. Glad it's keeping going but no-one has won here other than JR.
Oh and still haven't heard a thing about Stevie Deans's fate.

Ineos clearly had an agenda and they got everything they wanted and more.

up until last week they would not have had government money etc and the workers would not have been through all the stress of being finished etc.

but the union were utterly infantile in this.
Their aim was to look after their members and they failed on every count, they utterly stiffed their members by going cap in hand agreeing to evertyhing Ineos wanted and losing any credibility in the process.

i dont blame the union for what happened but they were incompetent and have been shown up. What could they have done? jeesus try not playing bluff with the company and playing with the workers futures, try looking at the big picture and how easy it is for this company to shut down the site walk away and set up in another part of the world, they tried to get sympathy from the rest of the country, using ads in the papers etc they were just plain stupid, and instead of insulting their employers they should have seen what could have happened, realised they had little bargaining power and gone for a better settlement of the workers conditions, etc, instead of what we saw which was something from the 70's.

Sancho - Member

gone for a better settlement of the workers conditions, etc,

When should they have done that?

from the start by realising a lot earlier on what ineos were looking for.
not rocket science really

Sancho - Member

from the start

From the start of [i]what?[/i] You still seem to think there was some ongoing negotiation about conditions and pensions. Ineos could have had that conversation if they'd chosen, instead of going directly for the blackmail option- but a union can't negotiate by themselves. Only one side could have made that possible.

It's silly to say Unite should have negotiated better, when there was no negotiation at all.

Folk that are blaming the Union have to realise that the company was working on a simple FIFO approach.

They'd decided what they were going to do, and the staff/Govt/Scotland etc could FIFO.

Northwind, I take it you believe that Unite got the best deal it could for its members then that is fine
Personally I disagree and feel they let their members down with a catastophic series of negotiations with the company.

the dispute has been going on since 2008, but it all was happening in earnest since early September so plenty of time to sort it all out and never mind the dispute with Stephen Deans.

and Im not blaming the union, Ineos had an agenda the union should have done more for their members. I feel the members were let down by the union.

Sancho - Member

Northwind, I take it you believe that Unite got the best deal it could for its members then that is fine

No, I think there was no deal at all. That's the difference between ultimatum and negotiation.