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

I was thinking the same....they are called private companies limited by [ushares[/u for a reason.

When you read the quote in context its pretty plain to see that the meaning is "shares" as in a public listed company, the discussion was about keeping share prices and shareholder returns at a high price, the context was profit margins vs redundancies vs shareholder investors.

A directors responsibility to shareholders in a listed company is different to that of a private limited company where scrutiny is much lower especially when one person owns by far the majority of shares.

When I have time I will remind you of the rubbish you posted on the Mitchell threads. You closed one down to save your face. Did you see the performance of the police under questioning by the MP's last week?

I closed one because you were being an aggressive a r s e.

Context and nuance, not that I'd expect you to understand either.

My comment was in reply to the inacurate comment from Big G who stated:

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

A private company still has shares which still have a value which increases and decreases depending on the performance of the company valuation.The fact that the public and institutions are not shareholders makes no difference. There are still shareholders who have invested considerable sums for a return or in this case an ongoing loss. It was theses same shareholders that voted to close the plant after the Unite negotiators went all in and lost after discussions with the many many banks that were also supporting the losses.

So Big G was wrong and "duly noted"

Of course they do although in the context of the post which was in response to a previous poster who was meaning public shareholding companies in general, indeed responded to confirm that he didn't mean Ineos, hence as far as I can see and read the context was in publicly listed companies.

Although I have been away last week and not up to date with the Grangemouth story (which I worked on at one point in the 1970s) a private limited liability business like Ineos that has a huge shareholding in the hands of one person you can bet that the remaining one third of shareholders are hanging on his shirt tails expecting handouts every year as he has in all probability promised them (whether individuals or institutions), in a way this is an even riskier strategy than investing in public listed companies, when times are good he is a hero to them, when times get hard just one bad decision can bring the whole house of cards down - I currently work in one such company.

Was it up there with Galloway handing the US Senate Select Committee their s?

I haven't compared McCluskey's salary to anyone's. That was my question to you.
Once again, you attempt to swerve the question. The level of "reliance" McCluskey was not in the question so I don't know why you've brought it up. What is reality, in both your world and mine, is that he represents 1.4m people. It's up to you to provide the evidence and reasoning for your argument, not me. You were inferring he is paid too much. So prove it.


Seriously? Come on, you're not that thick. Of course whether they make money or not is relevant. If the company is making money why should the workers accept pay and condition cuts? Once again you're blindly believing the company's stated position.


Where have I suggested "sitting on its laurels"? You're getting as bad as the likes of Ajw in making things up and not answering questions.
Right finally we get an answer. What if the future view of the business and the market is positive and they'll make increased profits even without reducing wages and conditions? And does the principal of paying higher salaries to attract better directors not apply to workers, supervisors, skilled workers and junior or middle management?


Were they prepared to close it permanently? Or was it a bluff that the unions weren't prepared to call? Why do you continue to believe everything the company states?


Yet you accuse me of myopia?
Can you answer the questions yet about McCluskey? How much are the company paying him? What car does he drive? And how does that (and his salary) compare to other people who represent 1.4m people.


Yes there are some points in there, sadly only one of them addresses a question you were asked, after several opportunities to answer.

No you didn't. Quotes please to prove aggression.?

It was you and some of your leftie chums that resort to abuse when another point of view is put forward. eg your use of the term a r s e when you have lost a point.

There are times I actually miss Wigan Fan. He could be pompous, aggressive and unnecessarily abusive at times but at least he could engage in a coherent argument.

Or you could say this is how it looks:
[uIneos Grangemouth[/u: haemoraging money (£10 million a month) - main source of of oil, the Forties North Sea pipeline now provides half what it used to and is dwindling by the month. Refining in Britain is dying - last year the Coryton refinery in Essex closed after its parent Petroplus went bust. We cannot compete with the much larger refineries in India or Saudi Arabia which are run at a fraction of the cost. The UK industry was built to produce petrol, for which demand has been falling for 15 years. More efficent engines and enviromental controls have led to a rise in demand for diesel that the domestic market refineries cannot meet and they are all old (60's & 70's) The future of refining has been debated in the Commons this summer. The specialist consultancy Purvin & Gertz estimated that the refiners need to invest £5.5bn over the next 10 years just to keep operating "most of which would not generate any return on investment"

[uUnion:[/u When the activist Unite union called its strike this month, it was over the Deans dismissal rather than the more pressing problem of Grangemouth survival. Deans it transpired had used the company time (25%) and resources for his Labour Party ambitions which included the vote rigging scandal at the Falkirk elections. Although the two issues later combined it was the Deans dispute that led to the industrial action that took Grangemouth to the brink.




Well he sure is one tough Tyke. In June the 61 year old took part in the Comrades ultramarathon in South Africa . He finished the 56 mile endurance test in 11 hours. In 2009 he trecked to the North Pole.

I think his history proves he says exactly what he means and only a fool should think he is bluffing. He offered a clear survival plan that needed the workforce to make some contributions and stability guarantees towards their joint futures in return for some serious new investment (£300million) to convert the outdated plant into a new terminal to import super cheap shale gas from the States. He had already negotiated with the banks and the government to underwrite a £125m loan but the intransigent unions, Mr Salmond and Whitehall did not seem to appreciate that Grangemouth was worth a lot more to them than to Ineos who last year made £1.7bn profits on t/o of £27bn and were getting tired of pouring some of this down the Grangemouth drain.

One crucial fact you and the vast majority of the press have omitted from your accounts of Grangemouth is the result of the ballot for a change to working practises. The ballot ended with a majority of ten (10) in favour of accepting the proposals. The management interpreted this as a refusal and issued the closedown threat.

If that's not confrontational, I don't know what is.

This is a typical red herring.

But I admit curiosity: what is the going rate for "a supposed socialist" these days, in the UK?

Does it vary with the level of responsibility or the nature of the job?

And where, if you're able to provide straight answers to these questions, do you conclude all this from? Please quote the ... err, 'socialist bible' or whatever it is to prove your claim.

Your deliberate missing of the point is very clear too.
Mr Paradise was making the distinction that, in his admitted guess, the directors would be seeking to improve dividends and share values for their shareholders rather than for their own gain.
As the directors in this case ARE the shareholders, it is still for their own gain.

We can all split hairs, it doesn't invalidate the point that the directors are seeking to increase their own fortunes.

Yes, imagine that! Someone tasked with input which results in increasing Company profit, and job security for their workforce, should get to share in this financial good fortune with other shareholders.

It'll never catch on.

However, is it not possible that with a Unite membership of 1.3 million, they couldn't find someone a tad more [url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2478046/The-bullies-led-political-Neanderthal-Why-Unite-shown-true-colours.htmlPHOTOGENIC[/url? And will the bold Ed step up and smack down the guys whose votes got him the top job?

One thing is very interesting about Unite - they still have a final salary scheme in place. The members, most of whom will have had their final salary scheme replaced as it simply too expensive to fund, will be paying to support a scheme to benefit union officials that they themselves will never benefit.

What is a rate for a Socialist - perhaps multiples of the lowest paid employee i.e. the Swedish x 12 or Richard Rogers' organisation.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Would you say that covers it?

No, I'd say that is more akin to Communism than the sort of Socialism that we have ever seen in the history of Socialism in the UK.

It is however the view of most Americans that Socialism IS Communism hence their panic at the first post WWII Labour government and the view of most Republicans ever since.

You may need to begin with an understanding of what socialism is and how it differs from communism.

But no, irrespective of accuracy, it doesn't come even close to providing a basis for what "a supposed socialist" should expect to receive as pay in any society, and particularly not in a society that is not organised in such a way.

Mind, "perhaps" is not a sound basis for trying to provide something concrete as a basis for your comment, although it might suggest that you have made the comment without actually thinking about it.