The bottom line is we are talking about people's jobs. Scotland's heavy industry, Ravenscraig, coal mines, Linwood, most shipyards are gone, although I fully expect that Grangemouth will continue,



I'd expect shortly that there will to be an announcement from Ineos welcoming the new and constructive attitude from the Unite Union ..... a moratorium of at least 6 months on the petro chemical plant closure.....and a photo opportunity of the Great and the Good in the rain, for all to express complete confidence in the future of Grangemouth......its strategic importance to Scotland....and a small impromptu press conference as each eagerly disclose their own crucial parts in resolving this debacle.



Ratcliffe will of course use the next 6 months to scew many more tens of millions out of a Uk/Scottish Government than has been whispered down a telephone line already, prior to confirming a permanent future for all of the plant....greatly improving his balance sheet to the chorus of shareholder's approval....and the remaining workforce will have long memories of their Unions complete routing.

By someone whose business practices are about as savoury as as a pile of dog poo?



Amazing what some people seem ready to applaud.

You trumpet that as if it's a good thing

This is completely irrelevant in this case. The company laid out their position, unless you think you can push them around - which McClusky quite clearly did - where the profits lay in the group is a complete red herring.



The company has done exactly what it said it would do - which would suggest the plant generates the poor returns the management suggested. Ratcliffe maybe a lot of things but a fool doesn't appear to be one of them.



A no strike agreement appears to work in the large car manufacturing plants so I am again unsure as to why all the concern, not surprised mind!!



At the end of the day if employees are not happy working for Ratcliffe no one is stopping them finding another job.

Plus ...consider this ...



Because the oil that the refinery uses is low in ethane, the byproduct that it sells to the petrochemical plant is allegedly dearer than they could buy-in from the US.

OK, that has a ring of plausibility about it.



But Ratcliffe is saying that if the petrochemical plant doesn't get £300m spent on it to be able to process the US product, then the refinery will also likely have to close.

Huh?

Is he effectively saying that the refinery that supplies something like 70% of Scotland's petrol will have to close if its byproduct customer doesn't [ustop[/u buying that byproduct from it?

That does NOT have a ring of plausibility about it.

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

... which the union did not believe, saying that 'create accounting' was the reason that the company claimed it was losing money when it was not in reality.







No, it's not. Any more than the use of vertical trading (if I remember the term correctly) is one of the reasons that domestic fuel bills are so high and the companies get to claim they're paying a fortune to wholesalers when they're actually pretty much paying it to themselves.



If the company is using creative accounting to manipulate its finances so that it can claim to be far worse off than it is, in order to shove down pay, pensions, terms & conditions etc, then it is light years away from being a "red herring".







Because it's a stonkingly brill market for someone hunting a job, isn't it? You don't live in "the real world", do you?

We shall see what transpires but I'll be surprised if Ratcliffe goes down the workforce-consultation route that is common in the Japanese-originated car plants.

It doesn't seem to fit his style at all.





Aaah, I love the smell of Victorian Britain in the morning ...

I'd agree with that. Admittedly only going from my own experiences and observations but in both public and private sector workplaces, what I've seen, backs up your point. Management is either too friendly and unwilling to confront people doing something wrong, or treats people like sh|t. Often, in large organisations, both at the same time! The higher/middle management will treat people very badly and almost be looking for confrontation and something that's wrong however minor. And the Junior management will be too friendly, especially with certain people, and not pull people up who aren't doing their job.

Scarily similar in looks and management styles...

Perhaps.

Have you tried a picture of Simon Cowell with a wig on and compared him with the guy Mark who ran the Grosvenor (or Grovesnor as he used to call it)?

Separated at birth I would say.

lol

Your struggle with comprehension shows yet again - the point about it being a red herring is this - it is irrelevant whether the company is moving money around it had a stated position that it made as a condition of the investment. McClusky being bouyed by the bullying of Milleband at the Labour conference told Ratcliffe to put up or shut up and was duly shown to be well out his depth. The fact he was prepared to risk so many jobs on such bravado should have anyone with half a brain questioning whether he is fit for purpose.