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

Behave yourself. It's the ongoing cost of living that is the immediate focus of most people, not the actions of company accountants doing their jobs..

And you'd be the first barrow boy in history not to trouser away a little something from HMRC. Tell me also, just how much of that second hand gear which you flog on Ebay, or out of the back of your van is ethically sourced?

You really are a plonker Cod'ead.

Are you accusing me of acting unlawfully in regards to my taxes?

If so, I would be very careful sunshine, that is way outside the AUP

As for the origins and ethics of the stuff I sell: last time I looked there wneren't many, if any, Savile Row tailors or Jermyn Street shirtmakers that were outsourcing their cutting and tailoring to Bangladeshi sweatshops, unlike many multinationals. As for what is sold from my van, I'm very particular about what I carry. I've checked the provenance of most of our range but there are still some items that I will never keep in stock, let alone offer for sale.

There's none so blind that will not see...

You haven't answered any question put to you at all.

Why do you blindly believe the company's position and not the Union?

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

I'm not sure what relevance your FTSE 100 paragraph or the paragraph about directors has, it's seemingly just an attempt to mask your unwillingness to answer the questions.

How much is the company paying Len McCluskey? Why would they pay someone who doesn't work for them?
What kind of car does Len McCluskey have? How does it, and his salary, compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?

I can't remember the last time I saw a rag and bone man out on the streets. A nicely cut hacking jacket from Gieves and Hawkes would certainly catch the eye atop the cart, although in these straitened times, I'm not sure there's many bespoke suits around, far less appearing on your stock list.

I'm impressed you have a range though. Have you a link to your Winter Catalogue?

Gieves & Hawkes? Don't make me laugh.

Most of Gieves suits are now laser-cut and sewn in China, any bespoke they do undertake would only be at the low end of the spectrum and certainly not the quality of Gieves of old or the true master cutters who didn't sell out to the first hedge fund that came knocking. Yet another example of money getting involved in a business simply to make money, no matter what the cost to quality or reputation

Ineos are a private company, no shares, no shareholders, just directors. Your ignorance has been duly noted.

Yes. You did.



Once again you haven't answered the question. How does McCluskey's salary compare to other people who represent 1.4m people?


That wasn't the question asked. The company's right to make redundancies is not, and has never been, in doubt. The question was SHOULD a company that is running a profit make redundancies, reduce wages and working conditions?


Thanks for proving you don't know what you're on about. But then you do freely admit to being in a different world to the rest of us.


And isn't relevant to anything being discussed, quite apart from being a staggeringly ridiculous statement. Maybe in your own little world it's true.


Yes it is. It's very much the issue. If you, or in this case, the Union & the workers don't believe the company's position that the plant is unprofitable, then why should they take wage and conditions cuts?


Nice attempted swerve. But that's not the position being discussed as you well know. So can you answer the question as to regards the actual position? That the plant was losing money?


Which questions? I answered yours straight away.
In contrast to yourself who has avoided or tried to swerve each question put to you several times now.

Where did I ever mention Ineos in this? My statement was about companies in general - hence the point about directors and shareholders - and not specifically about Ineos. Your ignorance has again been duly noted.

On McClusky's salary what are you comparing to - Cameron's salary of 143k makes McClusky look over paid for the respective levels of responsibility. The idea that 1.4m people are relying on him is simply not reality - most are far more reliant on their employers doing the right thing than they are on McClusky. No bad thing if his performance in this dispute is anything to go by. To put his salary in context how many people does unite employ and what are their revenues - basing it on that might be better way of judging whether he is paid at the correct level.

Why should the workers take a pay cut - because that is the only game in town, the company made that perfectly clear. What bit of that did you not understand? Whether they make money or not was irrelevant and it has proved to be the case. The union have just capitulated and given in to every demand the company requested - so how relevant to the settlement of the dispute was the profitability or otherwise of the company?

Should a company making profits reduce labour costs by salary reductions and redundancies - depends on the future view of the business and the market it is in. An good company should be planning for the future and adjusting accordingly. Yes a profitable company should be looking to reduce labour costs if it sees troubled market conditions in the future - just sitting on its laurels as you are suggesting is a recipe for a nasty shock.

Was the plant losing money - neither you nor I really know the only people who really know is Ratcliffe and his directors. Given the directors were prepared to close it would suggest its a marginal call. I would not trust McClusky to have done sufficient exploration to truly understand the finances of the site - that is just not his style. He is a throw back to the 1970s his ego is much larger than his effectiveness as has been demonstrated but here and at the Labour conference.

So there you go some points for you to get your teeth into - I look forward to your considered responses.

If backpedaling were an Olympic sport...

A private company still has shares and in this case Jim Ratcliffe owns about two thirds. Your ignorance does not need noting as it is there for all to see!

Sick of having your handed to you no the Mitchell thread I see