Yet we shouldn't question the motives of a company willing to shut down a refinery just to show tough they are? Or should people just accept a company's position whenever it is stated without complaint or attempt to change it?

Yes, Mintball has consistently demonstrated that she struggles with comprehension.

Derr!

Or Durr!

The company doesn't have to operate here - what should it have done capitulate to McClusky?



Do you think businesses should run with a negative returns just to keep people in a job - you actually believe that don't you? One thing is for sure if it was your business you would not run it at loss to keep the McClusky et al in their flash German motors

But that's assuming and believing the company's position isn't it? Why do you blindly believe the company but not the Union?

Do you believe a company running at a profit should make redundancies, reduce wages and working conditions just to keep their company director bonuses high?



To answer your questions, no you don't capitulate, you negotiate in good faith.

Why would you think I believe that? What else do I believe? Why don't you tell me? You're good at telling other people stuff aren't you? Is that because you live in the real world but no-one else does? Funnily enough a representative from the company was on 5Live today and even said "we operate in the real world". I laughed so much a little bit of wee came out.



Why? How much are this company paying Len McClusky? Why would they pay someone who doesn't work for them?

What kind of car does Len McClusky have by the way? How does it compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?

Of course it doesn't have to operate here and given the cost of energy in such an energy-intensive business, you have to question why, if they really are losing £10m per month, they have persisted in doing so. They haven't appeared to be sp philanthropic in the past.



Mintball was earlier referring to transfer pricing. It's how companies like Ineos, Starbucks, Pepsico operate, simply to present a low or zero-profit UK operation in order to avoid CT.



Walkers crisps is a prime example: prior to the Pepsico takeover, Walkers bought their spuds from Lincolnshire farmers and flavourings, veg oils, packaging etc from other UK suppliers. The same spuds and sundries are now bought from the same people but are purchased by a Swiss-based Pepsico subsidiary. This subsidiary resells to Walkers at a whopping markup, ensuring that the UK Walkers operation makes minimal profit and avoids paying its fair share of tax to the exchequer.



Do you seriously contend that is an ethical way to conduct business?

As long as its legal, do you think that the thousands of employees who are dependant on Walkers et al for their salaries gives a flying one?



You want ethical? Join a monastery , produce something nice, and feel all is well in the World.

Sorry I'm afraid you don't get to say what is or isn't a red herring here, it is completely relevant, Unite didn't believe (and more than likely still doesn't) the companies position and believes it is brought about by transfer pricing making the figures look how they want them.

When there is no money to fix the road, pay for the NHS, bail out the banks once again, then maybe you'll see the point, Walkers was profitable, walkers still is profitable, the only difference is Pepsico rip off the tax man.

You really are a singularly odious individual.



I would contend that all employees of every company utilising transfer pricing strategies would rather their employer paid their taxes. The net result being either reductions in taxation or improvements in services.

But you do?



Whether Unite believed it or not was and has proved to be irrelevant - we go back, once again, to my original point the company had a defined position that it wasn't prepared to move from. Unite supposedly had a position from which it was not prepared to move thinking it could bully the company into submission. Unfortunately McClusky was found to be so far out of his depth that it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Unite didn't believe Ratcliffe when he said he would close the plant - how wrong they were.



What I cannot understand is why all the workers would an idiot like McClusky decide whether they had a job or not - its plain dumb. When everyone is saying how sad it is they need to look at how much these guys are earning - no wonder some of them were nearly in tears when Ratcliffe announced the closure.

I totally agree with you with regards to ethics of the way some companies do business - until the laws are changed what is the incentive for businesses to do so. If it were my business I would attempt to minimise my tax bill and I would suggest you probably do the same. Companies of this size still pay a huge amount of tax via employers NI effectively a tax on employing people.



There are tax rules regarding transferring prices to minimise the impact of certain behaviours - your example of Walkers will not be quite as you have portrayed.



We all desperately want companies to invest in capital projects perhaps the government should look at ways of incentivising firms to engage in capital projects through tax breaks. Giving taxes to the most wasteful organisation out there i.e. government is perhaps not the best use of the monies. I object to my meagre amount of taxes being used to fund quangos, overseas aid, EEC grants to farmers in Europe so they can undercut our own farmers etc.

The company negotiated in good faith it stated its position - it was known to everyone it didn't move from that unlike the union.



If you look at the FTSE top 100 companies from 30 years ago how many of them are still there - very few why because they have taken your view of we are making profits so everything is rosy and sat on their laurels. The ones that are still their are those that look to continual improve, process improvements can often lead to job losses that is the way of things. What do you suggest in your view of the real world they should do?



The most important people in large businesses are the directors, they are people who are making the crucial decisions about the direction of the business. If you want the best you have to pay - Stuart Rose has demonstrated more than once that he is one of the best retailers in the UK. If you want him he will cost a lot but he will have a huge positive impact on your business. He is but one example