Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Grangemouth strike: Swinney moves to reassure motorists

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 April 2008
SCOTLAND should have enough fuel to keeping moving into May despite the threatened Grangemouth refinery strike, finance secretary John Swinney said today.

View Video
He also urged retailers to avoid putting up prices "at all costs".

But in a statement to Holyrood, Mr Swinney said the strike could have a knock-on "impact" on BP's Kinneil plant, which controls the Forties pipeline system.

"While this plant wo
uld be ready to operate soon after the end of the industrial action, there will still be the possibility of disruption to production which is currently 725,000 barrels of crude oil and 80 million cubic metres of gas per day," he said.

"This could place a substantial penalty on upstream production and could affect almost a third of oil producers in Scotland, none of whom are party to the current dispute between Ineos and Unite."

A BP official said tonight that the Kinneil plant, close to the Grangemouth complex, relied on steam and electricity from Ineos for power.

It may be possible to keep the Kinneil plant operating by other means, he said.

But if that was not possible, production would have to shut down, affecting some North Sea oilfields.

"They (the fields) would have to stop producing."

But he added some fields might have the ability to store their output.

In his statement to the Scottish Parliament, Mr Swinney said the Scottish Government still hoped the dispute could be resolved by "constructive and urgent dialogue".

He said he and the First Minister had urged management and unions to take part in talks.

It has also arranged for an independent pensions expert, Stewart Ritchie, president of the Faculty of Actuaries, to "clarify" the issues for the benefit of both sides.

The process of shutting down the plan ahead of this weekend's action began last Friday, and it would take time for the plant to resume production.

As a result of the agreements made at ACAS, resumption of fuel production should take place within days.



The full article contains 336 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

John south of Soutra,

24/04/2008 13:19:20
It appears to me that the union had no intention of reaching agreement and are using grangemouth to flex their muscles
2

Boydie,

Scotland 24/04/2008 13:39:49
It seems rather strange that the Union are fighting for people who are not even members yet, looks like they are picking a fight. Everyone with half a brain realises that final salary schemes are not a manageable business expenses, how can you run a business when you have no idea of what your long term exposure will be? These future employees will be happy to have any pension scheme in place, even if it money purchase, it is a lot better than most people are offered. Looks like we are heading back to the bad old days!
3

JG,

Fife 24/04/2008 13:45:42
I just saw both representatives being interviewed on TV. The Managerial side said they were willing to talk about the situation. The Union guy said the bosses had offered "to take the pensions issue off the table" insofar as it applied to current employees. The Union guy said they were lying! Little wonder ACAS got nowhere with such intransigence!
4

Delboy,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 13:49:23
Don't panic. Everything's going to be fine.....
5

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 13:57:50
I think the union is being unreasonable. Most final salary pension schemes have long since stopped accepting new members so why do they think they should be different?

Not only that but I understand the current final salary scheme at the Grangemouth plant is non-contributory and the current members are now being asked to chip in a little to keep the scheme (and therefore their pensions) viable. Talk about wanting to be featherbedded while not giving a hoot about the rest of the population!

Get real and get back round the table - you'll get no support from me for any action. Or if you don't like it, then leave the company - no-one's forcing you to keep working there.

I filled up yesterday as I was into the red. This is the way I would normally act but I didn't half feel guilty!
6

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 24/04/2008 14:12:48
The anti trade union comments on this forum disappoint but do not surprise me given the backgrounds of the contributors.
7

John south of Soutra,

24/04/2008 14:15:15
Please enlighten me as to my background #6
8

JG,

Fife 24/04/2008 14:20:53
#6
Or mine!
9

help my bob,

Borders 24/04/2008 14:23:39
I have been looking on some sites and have found that tanker drivers could be getting an ear full or be possibly in danger from attack, what measures have the union taken to ensure there safety??????????
If this strike is escalated, they should ensure that diesel supplies are not affected, as this fuel is the life blood of any country, they could stop the production of petrol only, this would leave all services unafected and people could still use public transport to get to work.
As diesel costs 50% less to refine why does it cost more at the pumps????????????
10

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 14:31:38
#6 Love to know what you think my background is. I'm not anti-union and think they have a valuable role to play. But in this case they are being stubbornly unreasonable.
11

on _the_level,

24/04/2008 14:47:58
I can't wait for this to really start to have an effect people will be out wlaking everywhere.

Ive just heard Lothain buses have posted on their site that there will be no buses from Monday.

SNP your a joke

Hope the guys get their final salary sorted but companies just can't afford it mine closed theirs not long since .
12

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 24/04/2008 14:48:41
I think that the Wind Up Merchant is inferring that you are Tory sympathisers.
13

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 14:51:47
#11 So what you're saying is that you'd be happy for them to get their pension even although it meant the demise of the company? What about new entrants then?
14

ratatouille,

scotland 24/04/2008 14:54:42
The union spokesman's comments that Unite "regrets fuel shortages for motorists" demonstrates a sad lack of understanding of what this strike is doing. This isn't just about a few car drivers being inconvenienced: the impact of this strike being unresolved will mean that the Scottish economy suffers long term and more people will lose jobs. So, please Mr McNulty and the MP for the area [can't remember his name but he has spoken a lot on radio Scotland about how the workers are being badly treated] who is so pro-union, think beyond your own interests and what will happen to the rest of us, with and without jobs, when everything here is at a standstill.
15

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 24/04/2008 14:56:29
#10 did you not hear the Ineos representative on Radio Scotland this morning? Talk about double-speak. He consistently refused to answer the question: how much will the closing of the current scheme save the company. I am curious why he would not answer. A fairly innocuous question i would have thought. Anyway, I thought he did himself no credit whatsoever.
16

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 24/04/2008 14:57:38
15

connaughtboy, I agree.
17

JG,

Fife 24/04/2008 14:57:43
#9 help my bob
That's fine if there IS public transport. If there isn't and you can't get to work it seems unlikely that your boss will pay your wages. Then what? What about the prospects of self-employed people who need their vehicles to get around? Who will pay their wages? Public sympathy isn't going to last long in this dispute, I feel.
18

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 24/04/2008 14:57:56
I think the bigger question is whether we should entrust a private company such as Ineos with such an important national facility as Grangemouth?
19

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 15:03:56
#11 What, exactly, does this have to do with the SNP?
20

roadstohell,

24/04/2008 15:08:59
connaughtboy I agree with you, it seems to me that it is INEOS that is "flexing it muscles and holding the country to ransom". The profits that this facility makes for INEOS are astronomical, and the "pension" raid is uneccessary. I think INEOS are using this as a pretext for a "shutdown", in order to show the country who is boss. If chaos does ensue, I would NOT blame the union/workers, BUT the company INEOS.
I would prefer that such a vital national resource were NOT in private hands, the stakes are too high for everyone. I say NATIONALISE Grangemouth, let the boss of INEOS squat down in rural Surrey in his mansion, and plot his plots, but ensure he does not jeapordise the people and economy of this land.
Aye, Nationalise the place.............
21

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 15:45:00
#21 Maybe one day when you've actually researched how pension schemes work and what safeguards are in place for present members you'll look back and realise what a load of twaddle you've typed.
22

Venachar,

24/04/2008 16:02:57
Connaughtboy

When was the last time a Union ever made a penny for anyone?

More likely they lost money for their members - remember the miners! Yeh they are proud, Yeh they can hold their heads up, but it doesn't feed people, help with the costs of educating your kids or improve yourself generally.
That carry on split up families for a bloody pricipal!

If that is the type of morons they have at Grangemouth then God help us. My great grandfather was a founder member of the boiler makers union. He didn't drink or smoke and any money he had went into books for his own education. He would be laughing at these dilberts in Unite.

Private enterprise works, the state does not. If you wish to live in a nationalised country then I suggest that you emigrate to China or North Korea the last bastions of socialism.
23

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 24/04/2008 16:03:39
Did anyone else see a news article in the past couple of days, related to this dispute, in which a director of Ineos stated they were taking the union to court for either a slanderous or libellous statement, following a claim by Unite that the company had creamed off the equivalent of US$40 million? It seems to have disappeared.
24

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 24/04/2008 16:04:43
Oops.

I meant to write US$40 million from the pension fund.
25

CowtownSweetheart,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:09:20
#11 your comment about Lothian busses is an out and out lie. They have posted a notice on the website which states that with assurances of supply, bus service will continue as scheduled.
Nice try. All we need is sheep like you to cause a panic and make the situation worse for everyone else.
not to offend sheep.
26

Mr H 2u,

Embra 24/04/2008 16:17:01
#27 - you're an eejit - blame the BBC news site;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7364936.stm

At lunchtime they had a quote from Lothian Buses saying that there would be no buses from Monday as BP had told them that retail garages were being prioritised over public transport.

The Beeb updated it a couple of hours later to reflect the change.
27

Goader,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:23:39
#23 Maybe you should find out the facts before you make comment. The figures do not add up regards the saving to the company. This is why the company representive avoided the question on the total savings if the proposals went through. The company picked the fight not the workers. Come back in a few weeks when this Billionaire wins the tax breaks or funding he is really looking for, he is the guy pointing the gun.
28

CowtownSweetheart,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:28:29
#28, I didn't see the poster quoting the BBC. Or coming back and retracting the comment. but I'm the idiot? Go ahead, on with your panic then...
29

Knapdarlich,

Stirling 24/04/2008 16:43:49
IRN - what rubbish you spout about their final salary pension scheme and the impact of a reducing membership! The very essence of a Defined Benefit scheme is that the pension a retired worker will receive is set by the number of years of accrued service and their final salary - that's why it's called a Final Salary scheme.

As time goes by the balance moves from active to deferred or retired members and yes, the transfer of money into the scheme declines and the outflow to pensioners increases, but ultimately it falls to the employer (INEOS) to fund any defecit that develops, or to enjoy the windfall of any surplus that exists when the scheme is finally closed. The INEOS pension scheme is currently in surplus.

Make no mistake, the terms enjoyed by these guys and girls would be the envy of most anyone else working in the "real" world; £40 to £60K per year, a non-contributory pension accruing at 60ths, free life insurance and a shift pattern that gives them more days off than they actually work! Amazing!!

Almost as good as being an MP - another group of self-serving, self-righteous so-and-sos.

Meanwhile union action has already led to the lay-off of hundreds of non-INEOS support staff at the site; people on far more modest salaries that can ill-afford the union members' self-indulgence.

The brothers and sisters can be proud of themselves....I don't think.
30

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 16:46:39
#29 I wasn't commenting on the ability of the company to afford it or not but on the nonsense about how a scheme with no new members coming into it will result in a lower pension for existing members.

#27 & #30 I can assure you that the LRT site DID state that there would be no services from Monday onwards at that stage in the afternoon. That is why their latest announcement says "We are NOW assured....". Don't call people liars for reporting the truth of the time!
31

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 16:58:43
thought of the day.
let the workers of the world UNITE !!
how can one man with a personal fortune of £3.3billion
bring a country to its Knees?
easy its unfolding before our very eyes!!
scotland support your fellow workers in their fight against the egotistical elite.
32

Yada,

24/04/2008 17:02:51
I love this site. It's the only place in town where the conspiracy theorists and the hard of thinking are allowed to run off at the mouth without being locked up.
1, INEOS' profits are none of your business or mine or BBC Scotland's (especially BBC Scotland's)
2. How many of you are in a final salary scheme and how many of that ever-shrinking number are in a non-contributory scheme. This must be the last one left in the world.
3. UNITE is absolutely d-e-l-i-g-h-t-e-d at the disruption this is causing. The joker who's orchestrating this piece of sadistic nonsense probably fancies himself as the next GS. Watch the names when it's union election time. Certainly he does not regret for one second the harm he's causing.
4. Negotiation is about negotiating. Which means you gain a bit and lose a bit. I've been a union member most of my working life. In this case there is little doubt that the company is in the right and the union is flexing its muscles, reason unknown, but if it wins that plant will shut within five years. It needs a shedload of money spent to bring it up to 21st century standard and that isn't going to come from the tooth fairy.
33

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 17:22:46
#34 lets analyse this a bit further
this dispute has very little to do with pensions.
if it did it would be resolved by now.
INEOS were trying to save £3million per year.
they have already lost 10 times that amount before the strike begins.
grangemouth are one of a handful of their sites that have any union recognition.
the owner jim ratcliff doesn't like unions or what they stand for so he is trying to break said union.
that is what this is all about.
34

Knapdarlich,

24/04/2008 17:30:27
I wonder if ordinary (union) members thought it would get this far, or if they believed (or were encouraged by the "outraged" over-zealous to believe) that the company would back down and it would never come to this?

If so, it would appear to have been a serious misjudgement, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of their complaint.

The thing is, now that their bluff has been called, where do they go from here, and what might the company's response be?

There are nuclear options on both sides, neither of which would be good for any of us, and certainly not for employees.

I think the main risk is that if things get even more out of hand and INEOS decide that Grangemouth is not a secure place to invest the millions that are needed, big chunks of it will close sooner rather than later with only the most profitable parts remaining. Even those might be under different ownership.

#18 - makes a plea for nationalisation!??! Well yes, that might happen, but not perhaps in the cosy way you might have in mind; any buyers of the Grangemouth factory would be far more likely to be Russian or Chinese (either being effectively state enterprises)than good old Gordon 10p.

How would INEOS employees enjoy it then when they're given their redundancy notice or the option of re-applying for their own jobs under terms dictated by a new, less generous management?

This is self-destrutive madness.
35

itsmeisntit,

STOCKPILING 24/04/2008 17:36:07
# 11
``I can't wait for this to really start to have an effect people will be out walking everywhere.``

think it will be running not walking & some fighting for that stale loaf ....

there wont be anywhere to walk ,it will be closed - Mad Max here we come !!

36

worker 443,

scotland 24/04/2008 17:40:22
#34 and various other green eyed monsters

Try this word j-e-a-l-o-u-s-y. Strive to improve your own terms and conditions rather than bringing others down to your level. These workers are only fighting to keep their rights.
37

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 17:48:37
well said 38

the INEOS collective aren't asking for anything more than what they already have.
i don't think anyone would take in effect a 6% paycut without a fight.

no 34
if you have been a union member for a while the management must love you!
38

Knapdarlich,

24/04/2008 17:53:50
#38 - I agree, workers are only fighting to keep their rights....sort of....because the 24 carat gold-plated pension they enjoy at the moment isn't a right, its a priviledge. Its easy to get these two things somewhat mixed up!
39

Venachar,

24/04/2008 18:02:28
#38/#39

#34 will be in a job when you dumb smucks will be out on your ar*e and living off benefits. That is if you are not on them already for the last 25 years.

How is saving for your retirement a 6% paycut its still your money. Oh shucks I forgot - less fags and beer. Never mind you can always beat the wife up on a saturday night whenever your football team gets beaten, neanderthal!
40

Venachar,

24/04/2008 18:25:27
IRN

Did your mate never tell you that people in final salary schemes die too! They don't live for ever, the fund stay there for surviving pensioners.

Defined benefit or money purchase schemes have nothing to do with the incumbent workforce. They are doing exactly what you say they should not - going on strike and inconveniencing other people.

Just because some of us have lived and worked in the big bad world away from the UK and are able to refute your arguement does not make us "internet toughguys", maybe we've just been in some places where being a union rep or even a member is not healthy. This position taken by Unite could be pyrrhic.
The world is competitive, here is an example. lets take holiday not mentioned so far, well Japanese workers will be exceptional if they take 14 days per year. America I think get to about 20 in total. How many days hols do people in Britain take each year.

Unite and the union members at Grangemouth can do what they like as long as it is done democratically, that is their choice.
However when the morons lose their jobs due to their own stupidity do not complain!


41

Knapdarlich,

24/04/2008 18:41:37
#42

Illogical? Strange? Yes - barking mad. However, just to what extent does this action have on an INEOS employee? They work a shift cycle so the most any individual employee will loose is probably 1 shift's wage. However, walking out means everything has to be shut down for safety purposes, then restarted and it seems that this will take weeks. So, for the sake of the loss of 1 day's pay the union member can inflict a month's worth of harm to their employer - that's outstanding leverage for very little personal penalty.

The economy and society? I really don't think the union is much concerned about these - or at least in so far as they are, these concerns are secondary to self-interest.

My guess is that this dispute has very little to do with the details of the case; its about principles. The local union want to maintain a common set of T&C for all their members (current and future) because this eliminates the potential for internal dissent within their own ranks. God knows what Unite's central agenda might be - maybe they just don't like the fact that the company owner is an extremely successful entrepreneur and would like to give him a "doing", maybe they just wanted to have a fight with someone (anyone) to try to curtail the inexorable movement from DB to DC pensions. Who knows.

I would agree with you that what their employees earn is irrelevant if the impact of this action was constrained within the company's fenceline, and to their own employees, but clearly that isn't the case.

Personally I strongly believe that any action should be appropriate to the threat, and that assessment should extend beyond the limited confines of "self". The union actions here appear to be grossly dis-proportionate, and dismissive of the impact on non-INEOS personnel (other workers on site, contractors, HM Revenue & Customs, local economy etc).

I also strongly believe that if you're going to take industrial action, you need to have thought through the full implica
42

Venachar,

24/04/2008 18:47:41
IRN

Funny thirty odd years ago I got Y900 to the pound. Now I get Y190 or so. That makes everything 4 times more expensive in Japan.

Thirty years ago I bought my first house as a first time buyer. The same level of house costs 10 times now. Outwith most young peoples range.

Who's economy did you say was better?


43

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 18:50:38
#41
never been on benifits in my life
don't smoke drink very little
never beat my wife.
but i do work in you've guessed it GRANGEMOUTH
so if anyone is allowed to air their opinion in a civilised manner it is the unionised work force in grangemouth.
44

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 18:51:24
#42 Not in the least jealous as I have already retired on a final salary pension BUT for all the years I worked I contributed to it and for the last number of years I had to pay a larger percentage to ensure the fund wasn't compromised. I saw it a VERY small price to pay to ensure my financial well-being beyond the work place and would happily have paid even more in contributions to achieve that.

It's what called looking to the future and playing the long game. What the union is about now is short sighted.
45

Tris,

24/04/2008 18:51:58

#11

"SNP your a joke"

If it's the SNP that's a joke, why is it the negotiations were taking place in London?

Oil, industrial law and pensions are all reserved matters. It's really difficult to see what the Government in Scotland can do about them...



46

Venachar,

24/04/2008 19:07:57
#48

Fine, nice to hear from someone who owns up to working there.
Perhaps you can explain in simple terms why to most people Unite and the members are taking such action, when your remuneration stays the same, albeit shifted about a bit. It would probably be better for you in the long run as well.

BTW I am a Clydesider who's family built ships for over 100 year for the Lithgows and Scotts, so am reasonably familiar with what unions have done for quite some time.

I'll be unequivocal I think you are wrong and your union are behaving like throwbacks to the 70's.

Please show me and eveyone else I am wrong.

47

McX,

24/04/2008 19:44:52
#48 theleftwing

The link below has a photo of Jim Ratcliffe, the private billionaire who owns Ineos and doesn't like any publicity.

http://tinyurl.com/6d8vpt

This link has information on the man who stands to gain most from this attack on your pension and future colleagues.

http://tinyurl.com/645w5s
48

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 20:01:06
no thanks i've just had a meal.
49

McX,

24/04/2008 21:01:45
No probs, quite understandable.
50

Angus Ogg,

24/04/2008 21:06:36
#48

Not sure what you are trying to achieve, apart from succeed at having you and your colleagues earn the public opprobrium of an entire nation.

If I came round to your home and put a wheel clamp on your car, because I was unhappy with my work conditions, what exactly would you say?
51

,

24/04/2008 21:29:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
52

WL,

livingston 24/04/2008 21:35:51
Swinney should be happy; the higher the fuel orice the nore VAT he receives.
And as for the strike: sack the strikers and bring the soldiers in.
53

,

24/04/2008 21:51:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

theleftwing,

bo'ness 24/04/2008 21:53:32
#51
a bit of background a personal view.

ineos have certainly won the heart and minds of a nation
for the last 18 month up until this went public ineos were adament there was nothing to negotiate.

when the strike is called all of a sudden they appear on tv etc stating they are bending over backwards to accomodate the union when in reality they have conceeded very little apart from timescale.

little known fact grangemouth was on the brink of strike action 2 years ago, 6 months after Ineos took over when they were not complying with the TUPE agreement for transfer of employees from bp to ineos.

on the remuneration -6% is not basically the same its -6%

if this is lost then there will be further erosion of the terms and conditions until what has been gained over the years is lost.





55

theleftwing,

24/04/2008 21:57:16
#55

i'd say don't be slly form a collective and negotiate with the management!!

#57
soldiers are good at making things go bang not prevent it.
56

,

24/04/2008 22:04:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
57

,

24/04/2008 22:08:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

theleftwing,

24/04/2008 22:10:31
#60
his wealth rose by £2 billion in 2007 its not only grangemouth that is being squeezed.
suppose he deserves it for all his efforts keeping the country going.
59

,

24/04/2008 22:13:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
60

theleftwing,

24/04/2008 22:20:56
#65
all his own work apparently
his employees are all rather lazy, sit about all day drinking tea and eating do-nuts thats what i'm led to believe.
61

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 24/04/2008 22:31:12
I am puzzled by the anti-union comments here. I think its a trust issues, the management have breached one of the tenets of the compact between staff and the company. The staff are what make their profits, the board obviously not, they could be transplanted anywhere and ruin another business.

Its a shame, the credit crunch has revealed how amateur many of the scions of UK business really are, they now have to run the businesses they buy and not use them as cash registers.

If the company needs money to fund expansion, that is what markets, investments and the owners (ie shareholders) supply. The pension scheme for the workers is part of their 'compact of trust' with their staff.

Maybe there is a need for anti corporate incompetence legislation ?
62

theleftwing,

24/04/2008 23:45:37
last thought of the evening

just saw mr grotty on tv this evening
made statement saying we have offered to remove all pension proposals from the table except the new employees not gaining entry to the existing fund

sounds good eh?
forgot to add 3 important words in his excitement
for 3 months
wants to pospone strike
surely they can't strike in july.
headlines- i can see it now
more disruption, holiday season
flights grounded
greedy workers force cancelation of ordinary scots holidays.
oh the manipulation of the media.

good night.

63

Sassy Sassenach,

Kent 25/04/2008 12:36:16
Unite are right. Company DC schemes are, by definition, worse schemes than DB schemes, since they shift the investment risk from the employer to the employee. In other words, when the markets go down, so does your pension. They are also lousy value for money, as anyone who has contributed to a personal DC for the past 25 years will know. Any other form of savings would have performed better.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.