[arista]

http://news.sky.com/story/1158553/jo...plant-to-close


They have had enough of the unions,


[The move is understood
to threaten up to 800 jobs at the plant.
Workers were given the grim news
at a meeting with Ineos
chairman Calum MacLean following
the passing of a deadline on a
survival plan put to employees
which asked them to accept
changes to pensions and
other terms and conditions.]

[arista]

A New Deal


They were ready to close.
then the unions gave up their power
now they are going back to work
without Unions


Utter Bliss

http://news.sky.com/story/1159539/gr...st-minute-deal

[Livia]

Seems to me that the union put the workers' jobs in jeopardy. Glad it's sorted... must be a terrible strain to think you're about to lose your job.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Seems to me that the union put the workers' jobs in jeopardy. Glad it's sorted... must be a terrible strain to think you're about to lose your job.

yes Feckin
Unity union , no less

[smudgie]

Thank goodness.
Jobs are far too hard to come by yo just have to tighten the belt.

Mind you the average wage at the plant is 55K...can't be bad.

[Kizzy]

How simplistic... There were failings on both sides, I feel there was a standoff rather than any real threat of closure... They knew that forced the unions hand.
Not even unions can now protect the rights of workers, what is the point of contractual obligations between employer and employee if the employer can make significant changes with no repercussion?
Any action threatened in response is seen as jeopardising workers jobs, but what of the rights infringed initially... is that irrelevant?

[joeysteele]

I am pleased a positive outcome has come to this,I do think there were faults on all sides but thank goodness the jobs have been saved.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How simplistic... There were failings on both sides, I feel there was a standoff rather than any real threat of closure... They knew that forced the unions hand.
Not even unions can now protect the rights of workers, what is the point of contractual obligations between employer and employee if the employer can make significant changes with no repercussion?
Any action threatened in response is seen as jeopardising workers jobs, but what of the rights infringed initially... is that irrelevant?

Yes Kizzy
in our Future Unions will go.
We do not need their danger.

This is Utter Proof.

[Kizzy]

It's proof we need them more than ever if anything!
I have no idea why you are so against workers rights being protected arista.

[Verbal]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It's proof we need them more than ever if anything!
I have no idea why you are so against workers rights being protected arista.

Cos he's a Tory, and Tory's don't like Unions. They prefer the working classes to be obedient little ants, working for nothing so that the bosses can earn more.
I've personally no idea why Arista would even be a Tory to be honest.

[Kizzy]

Well it is his choice, to undermine written contracts and current legislation is wrong, and is a huge backwards step.
As is blaming the unions for trying to protect the rights,wages and pensions of employees within Unite.
This is a union who seeks to protect all in the public sector... Try to imagine society for a second without those people... It's horrifying.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well it is his choice, to undermine written contracts and current legislation is wrong, and is a huge backwards step.
As is blaming the unions for trying to protect the rights,wages and pensions of employees within Unite.
This is a union who seeks to protect all in the public sector... Try to imagine society for a second without those people... It's horrifying.

Wrong
The Cogs Turn
Life Goes On.

Like in China for example

[Kizzy]

I can't respond to a 12 word debate...it's just not worth it.
We're not , Russia or North Korea either, what a nonsensical statement arista.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I can't respond to a 12 word debate...it's just not worth it.
We're not , Russia or North Korea either, what a nonsensical statement arista.

True Kizzy
but times are changing.

The Unite Union demanded changes
but the whole site is losing money
so they said sod the Unions - lets shut
this section down.

Then MPs and others got them the jobs back
Without Union Demands.

Utter Bliss

[Kizzy]

Wrong! the owners wanted changes... A pay freeze till 2016, removal of bonus and shift allowances and removal of the final pension scheme.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wrong! the owners wanted changes... A pay freeze till 2016, removal of bonus and shift allowances and removal of the final pension scheme.

Yes Simple because they wanted to Stay Trading
and not close down.


They got their Jobs back
with a pay cut
That is common in a Business
that could Close forever

[Kizzy]

Wrong again, the company is in profit as of 2012, they had investment in 2011 from China and are due tax returns of over 100M if they remain in profit by 500M over the next few years.
This is the only reason for the changes to reduce expenditure on wages to claw as much money back as possible.
There is no way in hell it would have closed down permanently.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Wrong again, the company is in profit as of 2012, they had investment in 2011 from China and are due tax returns of over 100M if they remain in profit by 500M over the next few years.
This is the only reason for the changes to reduce expenditure on wages to claw as much money back as possible.
There is no way in hell it would have closed down permanently.

Not the Whole plant
just that one section would close 100%
that was made clear from day one of reporting.

They Got Jobs Back
Unions can Feck Off

[Kizzy]

What was clear from day one was the part they closed powered the part that powers a huge chunk of Scotland.
Therefore the government shouldn't have allowed this action due to the ramifications for the Scottish economy.
They did get their jobs back yes, the unions arm was forced but it should never should have been... They are not the enemy here.