Grangemouth: welcome compromise or total capitulation?

[Serial_Apologist]

My impression, from following the course of this dispute, is that managements in future will forever know that if trade unions ask their members to vote on any management-imposed issue regarding conditions of employment, and members return a decision not to management's liking, all management need do is close down the affected parts of the business, and the democratically reached decision will be reversed. Simple as that.

To me this makes a mockery of trade unions defending jobs and conditions of work, whatever the issue, from wages to H&S to contracts of employment, and smacks of abject capitulation in the face of business dictatorship. Is this what the British Way Of Life has now come down to when The Squire brandishes his shooting stick? Did anyone see the owner's sickening response on today's lunchtime news, that his only regret was the fear and upset the trade unions had caused many people? Whatever came of the idea of worker occupations to defend plants, such as successfully carried out once at the Govan shipyards? Or the call to nationalise essential services to the economy threatened with closure by their private owners and shareholders with more money than their generosity is worth?

[ahinton]

My impression, from following the course of this dispute, is that managements in future will forever know that if trade unions ask their members to vote on any management-imposed issue regarding conditions of employment, and members return a decision not to management's liking, all management need do is close down the affected parts of the business, and the democratically reached decision will be reversed. Simple as that.

To me this makes a mockery of trade unions defending jobs and conditions of work, whatever the issue, from wages to H&S to contracts of employment, and smacks of abject capitulation in the face of business dictatorship. Is this what the British Way Of Life has now come down to when The Squire brandishes his shooting stick? Did anyone see the owner's sickening response on today's lunchtime news, that his only regret was the fear and upset the trade unions had caused many people? Whatever came of the idea of worker occupations to defend plants, such as successfully carried out once at the Govan shipyards? Or the call to nationalise essential services to the economy threatened with closure by their private owners and shareholders with more money than their generosity is worth?

Whilst I take your point, I would be surprised if every employer in a situation such as that which you outline in your opening paragraph would respond by closing down the affected parts (or, as in this case, all parts) of the business; that would be the most drastic step that I do not imagine many employers would want to choose to take.

I did not see the owner's response on today's lunchtime news and do not pretend to know the facts of this particular case so I cannot and indeed should not comment on it beyond what I've written above and, although I can at the same time understand in principle the questions that you ask in your second paragraph, I cannot imagine a situation in which outright permanent closure of all or part of a business as a dirct desponse to such a disagreement between workforce and management is likely to prove to be of ultimate benefit to private owners, shareholders and the like in most cases.

[french frank]

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

Well, well, well ...

[Mr Pee]

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

Well, well, well ...

I thought this news was precisely what the thread was about. <erm>

[french frank]

I thought this news was precisely what the thread was about. <erm>

Was it? First time I looked they'd just announced closure. The update was 17.45.

Sorry if I missed the point :-)

[Dave2002]

Whilst I take your point, I would be surprised if every employer in a situation such as that which you outline in your opening paragraph would respond by closing down the affected parts (or, as in this case, all parts) of the business; that would be the most drastic step that I do not imagine many employers would want to choose to take.

I did not see the owner's response on today's lunchtime news and do not pretend to know the facts of this particular case so I cannot and indeed should not comment on it beyond what I've written above and, although I can at the same time understand in principle the questions that you ask in your second paragraph, I cannot imagine a situation in which outright permanent closure of all or part of a business as a dirct desponse to such a disagreement between workforce and management is likely to prove to be of ultimate benefit to private owners, shareholders and the like in most cases.

Welsh mine owners - start of last century?

[ahinton]

Welsh mine owners - start of last century?

Sure - but I was talking about now, rather than then - and, even then, how prevalent / commonplace was what happened to them in the way that it did? In other words, how many other employers brayed about closing their business down completely if the employees did not play ball and would have carried out their threats to do so, often against their own and their shareholders' interests?

[Dave2002]

Sure - but I was talking about now, rather than then - and, even then, how prevalent / commonplace was what happened to them in the way that it did? In other words, how many other employers brayed about closing their business down completely if the employees did not play ball and would have carried out their threats to do so, often against their own and their shareholders' interests?

My point was that there has been a history of employer/owner nastiness over the centuries, and I think the possibilities are still there today. I don't know why the INEOS management acted the way it did - in the long term it doesn't follow the best results come from hardball. I don't actually know enough about the INEOS situation to know whether there was any sensible dialogue between the work force and the management, and indeed whether the current outcome is the best that could have reasonably been achieved.

[ahinton]

My point was that there has been a history of employer/owner nastiness over the centuries, and I think the possibilities are still there today. I don't know why the INEOS management acted the way it did - in the long term it doesn't follow the best results come from hardball. I don't actually know enough about the INEOS situation to know whether there was any sensible dialogue between the work force and the management, and indeed whether the current outcome is the best that could have reasonably been achieved.

I don't either; it sounds odd to me.

[jean]

The difference between then and now is surely that now many businesses are international, and the owner can close down his operations in one country completely and carry on more cheaply somewhere else.

[Dave2002]

The difference between then and now is surely that now many businesses are international, and the owner can close down his operations in one country completely and carry on more cheaply somewhere else.

Quite.

Arguably we as a localised society may then benefit, though working conditions for those doing the work elsewhere may be poor. Poor safety standards, low wages etc.

There is more about INEOS here - http://www.ineos.com/Company/

It appears to me that INEOS is sufficiently high tech. that threats from low wage economies should be relatively small, but maybe I got that wrong.

Jim Ratcliffe and others in power within INEOS have the ability to exercise their authority when deciding when, where etc. to operate plants. It's not clear to me though that there was a such significant threat to Grangemouth/INEOS that it would necessarily run uncompetitively, and therefore need to close. Many large international companies simply tout around amongst different countries looking for the best financial deal, grants, contracts, development money etc. - and this seems to have been a practice for decades.

It does seem odd, though I still only know a little bit more than a few days ago. I can't say that Jim Ratcliffe is/was wrong though I wouldn't want to play against him at poker.