• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Any Spare Diesel, Anyone?

I made no comment on your stories of gangs as I have no personal experience of them.

Buses sure can get packed alright. Even the higher capacity bendy buses that Boris wants rid of.

You've lost me with your Oyster-phobia. If anything, they're "forcing" people to pay *less* by making non-Oyster payments a pain in the arse.
 
true, I reckon the one good thing about the twisty buses is that if your ever in need of a free journey you can just bunk on them no probs!
 
Originally posted by martin@Apr 27 2008, 08:41 PM
£2 for a bus ride is such capatilist thing to do, and would never be implemented under a genuine Labour government.
Click to expand...
Don't see why? Labour's a capitalist party and always has been.

Anyway, I noticed on the BBC news tonight again that Ineos were repeating their threat to close the plant whilst linking it to a £750M investment programme. The more I look at it, this appears blatant. Ineos are cynically using their own workforce to disrupt the country and pour pressure on the government in order to try and get the tax payer to fund their commercial needs. They only got 16% of their demands last time they tried this tactic (still substantial) but with less jobs at stake, they've doubled their requirements (quite possibly because they can't get the level of credit lending that they've previously been able to rely on to fund their activities?). So such a threat is unlikely to work to the required level in today's environment if it didn't work then, unless of course, it is capable of carrying a heavy political price with it on top of job loss issue. Having seen the way the fuel protestors wobbled Blair, and with the knowledge that you control 40% of the UK's refining capacity, you contrive a non-monetary dispute based around terms and conditions, and thus use your own workforce as a proxy way to effectively strike against and pressurise the government into opening up the public purse. Afterall, you're only asking for a fraction of the total that Treasury has just agreed to refund the irresponsible banks by way of their lost bets, many of whom will be the same organisations that Ineos have previously borrowed from.

I'd imagine Radcliffe would be quietly angry watching the banks be handed over all this money from the taxpayer whilst not being allowed a share of it himself to fund a smaller rescue and investment programme.

Soltuion? Some public money flows into fund Ineos Investment in Grangemouth, pension fund terms are pretty well honoured in full, as they were only a flag of convenience to stimulate your workforce into acting on your behalf, and the plants profits coudl easily accomodate the fund all along? We'll see
 
Warbler
You have a very able mind but it is so fertile that perhaps it sees conspiracies that are not there.Of course there is spin put out by all sides in a dispute, that's what happens nowdays, but I am amazed that you who demonstrates such superb logic in so many of your racing section postings cannot see through it.
[BTW that is not sarcastic.]

1.Have the company not stated that revised pension terms, similar to those of the majority of people in this country, will only be applied to new employees?

2.Ineos is prepared to build a new plant creating new jobs at a total cost of £750m.It may or may not have applied for government grants (surely not demanded) that are available to any company set up a major plant in most parts of the UK. Is that a reason to condemn them?

3.Would it be better if the new plant was not built, therefore not creating additional profits and thus new revenues for HMG?

4.Would you prefer it to be built by a foreign company or by a UK company whose major shareholder is British, lives here and pays taxes to HMG?

5.I haven't seen any detail of a £410m black hole in the pension fund, where is that available.? My own understanding ,admitedly a little outdated, is that Ratcliffe was a stickler for ensuring the workers funds were protected, and supported if necessary.
 
Originally posted by walsworth+Apr 28 2008, 01:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (walsworth @ Apr 28 2008, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Warbler@Apr 27 2008, 11:21 PM
Don't see why? Labour's a capitalist party and always has been.

Click to expand...
Do you always talk out of your arse? [/b][/quote]
:laughing: Such eloquence. Perhaps you'd be so good as to enlighten all of us in possession of inferior judgement as to just what sort of model of production the Labour Party has followed historically?
 
There is no "conspiracy"

The firm is carrying out a policy that is no different to that of hundreds of other companies across all sectors.

It might be less wonderful for new workers than existing ones, but they dont have to work there do they?

Quite why that is a matter for striking is beyond me

Unless i ahve missed something, non of this affects the existing workforce shrug::

Or is it one of those industries that is beholden to the seedy practice of lucrative non jobs being passed down from father to son?
 
The changes to pensions were to affect all workers. It was only during the ACAS talks on Thursday that the management changed its position and said existing conditions would remain for existing employees.

I reckon the union shot itself in the foot by not accepting that compromise.
 
Yes DO

hard to see how they can expect much public sympathy (especiall from the majority of us without wonderful pension schemes)
 

Recent Blog Posts

Back
Top