Grangemouth Plant Closes

[Saracen]

I'm aghast. How dare ordinary people earn a living wage. I bet they get a bonus too. And expense accounts. And shares. And taxpayer handouts.

It's a McTravesty.

So that's what Labour politicians mean when they want everyone paid a living wage .... £55-80k.

Given the national average wage, I'm not sure many people would regard that as the wage of "ordinary" people. Strikes me more as the wage of the top 10%, maybe top 5%.

So much for the "working" man needing union muscle to avoid being exploited by greedy corporates. I'd guess about 90% of the country would be delighted to be exploited by a wage like that.

Still, I'm delighted that it seems the plant is saved (for now), and the investment going ahead. Or rather, I note, the consultation period for the investment is going ahead. Reading between the lines, the investment itself is not yet a done deal.

I wonder how much of a dog Unite has in that 'consultation' fight? My best guess is .... none at all. Or less. They'll be lucky to be in the room .... holding people's coats and fetching the coffee. Ineos now has utterly the whip hand over the union, and by the way, the workers. The latter now know that it's £55-£80k (or whatever) less the 'revised' pay and pensions, or £0. I wonder if they'll feel inclined to call Ineos' bluff any time soon .... or test their patience?

Of course, it's also possible that this has all been a superbly-played strategy by Ineos (or the investor(s) calling the shots) and that the 'closure' was never the aim, but rather a ploy to castrate Unite. In which case, it worked like a dream.

[peterb]

Ah well, they won't see much of that £80K if unite had their policy implemented:

UNITE is committed to:

The reintroduction of a progressive tax system with higher tax rates of at
least 75% for the most wealthy in society;

So that's OK then

Just as a matter of curiosity, I calculated that someone with an annual income of £80K will pay about £27K in tax and NI contributions. Someone earning £50K will pay about £14K in tax and NI. That is at current rates of tax and NI.

[Saracen]

UNITE is committed to:

The reintroduction of a progressive tax system with higher tax rates of at
least 75% for the most wealthy in society;

And would the last well-paid person to leave the country please turn out the lights ..... because those of us left here sure as hell won't be able to afford the energy bills.

Heaven save us from ideologically-driven ignoramuses.

[directhex]

And would the last well-paid person to leave the country please turn out the lights ..... because those of us left here sure as hell won't be able to afford the energy bills.

Heaven save us from ideologically-driven ignoramuses.

No country could survive such ridiculous rates!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_...y_of_top_rates

[csgohan4]

Funny how their tactics here which Unite don't dispute comes down to just bullying and harrassment. If you have a bunch of thugs come round to your home hounding you, that is just plain wrong Unite or not.

Clearly they protect their own interests, themselves rather than the people they support

[Saracen]

Funny how their tactics here which Unite don't dispute comes down to just bullying and harrassment. If you have a bunch of thugs come round to your home hounding you, that is just plain wrong Unite or not.

Clearly they protect their own interests, themselves rather than the people they support

Well, assuming the reported allegations, and the way they are characterised, are correct, it may be, as McClusky asserts, be legal but I'd say just barely, and it's certainly obnoxious.

If McClusky feels it's okay to hound and intimidate "bad employers" at their home, and therefore implicitly intimidate their families, with a "leverage team", how would he like it if management started sending a "security team" to hound and intimidate him and his family, and union staff and their families, because in the employer's eyes, they're a " bad union".

I know how he'd react. He'd be screaming from the hilltops, and diving in front of every camera he can find, blathering on about bullying and employer thugs intimidating his family. But don't worry, Len McHypocrite, it's fine really because you're a "bad union". So that's okay then.


Which reminds me, prior to the climbdown, I couldn't turn a TV news program on without McClusky being on it, but since the humiliation, he seems to have found a Himalayan cave or Trapist monastery to hide in. It reminds me of Police Federation reps during the Plebgate saga. For a couple of weeks you couldn't watch Newsnight, Daily Politics, etc, or even the evening news, without Police Federation (which, after all, is basically a union) reps being on it demanding Mitchell go, and asserting he was "maligning and impugning" the reputation of those police officers, simply by disputing their account. After all, police officers wouldn't be lying, right?

Well, I know a few police officers that are absolutely livid with the Federation over Plebgate. They feel, with good reason, that a handful of disgraceful officers, and a politically motivated Federation campaign has left them ALL in a bad, and largely underserved, light with the public.

But do we see any Police Federation reps showing their faces on TV now? No, and a couple of the journalists, like Andrew Neil, have commented that they've been asked for interview as Plebgate/Plodgate evolves, but "noone was available".

Riiiight!

That"s because they're all in that Himalayan cave with McClusky.

Isn't it strange how they can be media whores one day, and camera shy the next? :rolkeyes:

[csgohan4]

Selective attention and exposure, milk it when it suits and deny all knowledge/ availability when it doesn't.

The sad thing is, it's human nature to remember mostly the bad things people do. So the Falkirk scandal, the hounding of so called 'bad employers' and bluffing and selfishness from the unions of the Grangemount incident will all be forgotten.

The tabloids like daily mail, the Sun will all gloss this over with anti government messages and sing praises to Labour and rain down hell on those that don't give unsustainable payrises.... Sigh, selective media, not particularly informed and you can tell this from the average IQ of 'regular' Tabloid readers

[santa claus]

Revenge is a dish best served cold.

[deejayburnout]

I work at Fife Ethlene plant that directly feeds Grangemouth with ethylene and we had no worries about the plant closing down permanently. There were loads of rumors flying about but no one thought it would shut.

If Ineos did close it, they would have shut it for a few month, paid everyone off and reopened it with all new staff working at the terms and conditions that ineos wanted which would have been far lower than what it is at at the moment.

There would have been loads of guys who would have snapped the job.

I think ineos were calling there bluff and it worked. Silly workers.

I would rather freeze my pay for a few years and loose a little shift allowance, than loose my job completely. Ok the pension thing is crap however these guys are on 60k plus a year at least.

Trade unions have there uses and are good for empowering the workforce but half the time they are nothing but political puppets and do more damage than good. The shop stewards at my last work would call for strike action all the time.

[TheAnimus]

The pension thing is really difficult. The problem is that the cost of a defined benefit pension scheme is unknown.

The average age has been increasing.

Pensions are a gamble, they have huge risk, but we've got a situation where people think of them as a 'right'. Now that is stupid, because of the risk, someone has to pay for it.

I think it would be interesting to see if you offered someone a bigger pension but they would have to be euthanised at the end of it, would they take it.

[santa claus]

I think it would be interesting to see if you offered someone a bigger pension but they would have to be euthanised at the end of it, would they take it.

Good heavens, where do you get these thoughts from? It's as if the chemical balance of your brain has been disturbed by, erm, chemicals. A much better idea would be to bump off the weak ones, the itinerants and the homosexuals. Oh no, I just fell into the "sooner or later someone will mention the nazis" trap

[wasabi]

A much better idea would be to bump off the weak ones, the itinerants and the homosexuals.

****

Not unless something in their lifestyle has an effect on £££pension X number of pensionable years.

****Yes, I get you're badly attempting sarcasm. I love the way lefties seems to think the rules of economics, supply and demand don't apply when it contradicts their fluffy smug worldview.

[TheAnimus]

Good heavens, where do you get these thoughts from? It's as if the chemical balance of your brain has been disturbed by, erm, chemicals. A much better idea would be to bump off the weak ones, the itinerants and the homosexuals. Oh no, I just fell into the "sooner or later someone will mention the nazis" trap

I'm not saying that at all.

You have a the productivity component, how much of their life they have been productive, and how much they choose to defer.

You then have the inactivity duration.

You can't magic something else in there. What is currently happening, is that this generation is being taxed to pay for a lot of it. This means that either they cut back on things they want now, or their pension provisions for tomorrow. It is not just unstainable, it is grossly unfair, to fund someone else's pension, we take from people who will never be able to have such luxury.

It truly is making the poorest pay for the richest.

Now you can pretend that isn't how the situation is, but you know you'd be lying to yourself.

[santa claus]

What we need then is a modern day Robin Hood; someone to redress the balance; someone seething in a cauldron of hatred.

In the meantime I hope you're contributing toward a pension scheme; you can't expect tomorrow's yoof to support you.

[Saracen]

What we need then is a modern day Robin Hood; someone to redress the balance; someone seething in a cauldron of hatred.

In the meantime I hope you're contributing toward a pension scheme; you can't expect tomorrow's yoof to support you.

Fact remains, though, there's a problem with pensions, and it's far from confined to Grangemouth.

As I'm sure you know, pension expectations are based on actuarial calculations, some of which in turn are best-estimates based on historical data, like life expectancy. The problem arises when advances in medical technology and health care results in those life expectancy predictions being way off when you qualify for your pension, compared to when you started paying in.

Exactly how this bites depends on the nature of the scheme, but whether you have an individual pot of money, or whether you contribute to a large scheme, when you get a HUGE change in the likely number of years that pot, or scheme, is going to have to pay out for, then one of several things is going to happen :-

- you have to pay more in to preserve the ability to get paid out, or
- you will get paid out a lot less, per year, or
- you get paid what you expect, for the original expectation, then it stops, OR
- you get someone else to subsidise the pension payouts.

Failing that, the scheme goes bust, and people get squat paid out after that.


So .... when, according to reports, the affected staff were earning in the region of £55k to £80k, exactly who is expected to pay to cover the shortfall?

After all, if you look at 2011/2012 HMRC Income Distribution figures, either of those figures puts them in the top 5% of earners. If you use IFS figures, which are a bit more granular, at £55k they are in the top 3% of earners, and at £80k, that's the top 2%.


Hence (I presume) Animus's point. The ability to pay out WILL fall short because of changed life expectancy. So, either more goes in, or you only get out the amount calculated by those actuaries. You don't, of course, have to euthanase people when the money runs out. You can just stop paying their pension, and they can make do with the pittance that the large numbers of people that have never earned enough to have significant work-related pensions have to manage on.

As was pointed out, this shortfall is not going to magically self-correct, and things have changed.

[csgohan4]

Fact remains, though, there's a problem with pensions, and it's far from confined to Grangemouth.

As I'm sure you know, pension expectations are based on actuarial calculations, some of which in turn are best-estimates based on historical data, like life expectancy. The problem arises when advances in medical technology and health care results in those life expectancy predictions being way off when you qualify for your pension, compared to when you started paying in.

Exactly how this bites depends on the nature of the scheme, but whether you have an individual pot of money, or whether you contribute to a large scheme, when you get a HUGE change in the likely number of years that pit, or scheme, is going to have to pay out for, then one of several things is going to happen :-

- you have to pay more in to preserve the ability to get paid out, or
- you will get paid out a lot less, per year, or
- you get paid what you expect, for the original expectation, then it stops, OR
- you get someone else to subsidise the pension payouts.

Failing that, the scheme goes bust, and people get squat paid out after that.


So .... when, according to reports, the affected staff were earning in the region of £55k to £80k, exactly who is expected to pay to cover the shortfall?

After all, if you look at 2011/2012 HMRC Income Distribution figures, either of those figures puts them in the top 5% of earners. If you use IFS figures, which are a bit more granular, at £55k they are in the top 3% of earners, and at £80k, that's the top 2%.


Hence (I presume) Animus's point. The ability to pay out WILL fall short because of changed life expectancy. So, either more goes in, or you only get out the amount calculated by those actuaries. You don't, of course, have to euthanase people when the money runs out. You can just stop paying their pension, and they can make do with the pittance that the large numbers of people that have never earned enough to have significant work-related pensions have to manage on.

As was pointed out, this shortfall is not going to magically self-correct, and things have changed.

Unfortunately Unite and a good proportion of people are either ignorant or selfish. They want to keep the same pensions as they are either by forcing through unsustainable changes meaning their jobs will at risk with the company at risk of liquidation, but hey that didn't stop Unite did it? or force others to pay for their pension, new starters, tax payers e.t.c.

There is no more lets do what's best for everyone, but everyone man for himself, which leads to greed, anger and the dark side of the force


But to fair Greed has many faces, we all want money for our kids , good family e.t.c