Yes - back to the 70's yet again....
23 October 2013
... Milliminors idiotic prices policy mirroring the failed ideas of the 70's
... Milliminors idiotic prices policy mirroring the failed ideas of the 70's
... then I wrote about about some elements in the Conservative also looking for failed 70's ideas....
But - here this week we have the 70's revival to top them all....
Yes, it is those dinosaurs of the Trade Unions showing that they have learned nothing at all and remain as stuck in the past and as ridiculous as any gold medallion wearing, afro-haired (now balding), flare and platform wearing old disco dancing dads.
Above: The Union's fashion icon....
It would be laughable if it was not so destructive to people's jobs and livelihoods.
In Scotland the Grangemouth refinery has been losing £10million per month and has done so for 4 years. It has pension liabilities of £200m as well.
Despite that dire position the share-holders have kept the site in business and even came up with a plan to save it that actually involved the investment of £300m.
But they need something in return to ensure that the site returns to profitability.
They need reform of working practices, a 2 year pay freeze and pension reform. Pretty much the kind of thing most of us in the private sector has had to suffer in order to save jobs, indeed more recently the public sector too have had to face these realities.
But not UNITE at Grangemouth. The Union wants the investment but have refused point blank to co-operate and agree to the reforms required.
Consequently this week it was announced that the petrochemical division at Grangemouth is to close with the loss of 800 jobs (out of 1370).
The Scottish government is looking for a buyer but who on earth would want to buy that?
This action is exactly what was so destructive to jobs, whole industries and the economy in the 70's and, as back then, it is the ordinary members of the Unions who suffer because of the morons who lead them.
- LOL Tom - so you are happy that the intransigence of the Unions is costing 800 jobs?
You do not mention the £10million pm losses funded by the shareholders. The indirect loss of more jobs linked to the plant. What about all the taxes paid, or was paid, by those 800 employees and how do you think a company can/should pay taxes on a loss of £10million a month?
Better off without that refinery eh?
You really do grasp at anything to defend the morons, the Unions, who destroy the jobs and futures of so many now as they did in the past. - "LONDON (ICIS news)--INEOS plans a bond issue of up to €1bn ($1.37bn) to refinance a significant proportion of its senior debt and further improve liquidity, the chemicals group said on Wednesday.
Lenders had suggested it consider the issuance of new senior notes and term loans, INEOS said.
“INEOS’s trading in 2009 was strong and we have improved its EBITDA performance in most of our businesses as markets have improved,” INEOS's CEO, Tom Crotty, said in a statement. “We have moved into 2010 with trading continuing to improve and we are now in a stronger position to consider our longer-term funding structure.”
Full-year earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) for 2009 were €1.22bn compared to €594m in 2008, and the company was trading ahead of its business plan, it said. Financial performance was expected to improve through 2010, it added..
The sale of INEOS Fluor and the creation of Kerling from INEOS ChlorVinyls have also improved the financial position of INEOS Group Ltd, which currently has a total debt of €7.1bn.
The two disposals were expected to produce a total increase in liquidity of about €300m and a total reduction of net debt (including pension fund liabilities) of €600m, it added. The company has to make debt repayments of €250m this year and €250 in 2011.
Media reports earlier in the week had suggested that the company was considering asset disposals as part of its plans to strengthen its balance sheet and was in talks with Chinese and Middle East investors.
INEOS declined to comment on the reports, but said it was continuing discussions with a range of strategic investors and had no pressing need to do any deals as the business was performing well.
($1 = €0.73)"
http:// www.icis.com/Articles/2010/03/17/9343361/ineos-plans-bond-issue-to-help-raise-1bn.html - Tom - your point is?
You can be thankful that their other operations are being profitable to enable the shareholder to fund the £10m loss at Grangemouth. Their strong trading position does not justify retaining a operation making such a huge loss.
The £300m investment would be to fund the processing of shale gas, something the government is rightly keen on and would see a profitable plant. But they cannot be expected to do this while the plant is being run as inefficiently and costly as it is now. - I am not about to adhere to this £10m/month loss figure, just as I am 'unseeing' as to the notion that trimming the wages would solve all of their problems.
My mote is you beam and your beam is my mote Barry, it was ever thus. - The ultimate defence of the indefensible, ignore the facts because they do not fit what you want to hear.
That in formulating policy is how Labour governments get us into an economic crisis in every period of government they curse us with.
You are true to form Tom. - Unfortunately, Barry, what you fail to mention is the skewed and corrupted political process which the tories and their liberal stablemates are implementing.
H22, environmental policies, the selling off of what is left of our industrial and energy sector including a stupid deal involving our nuclear sector, an obsession with the trivial in an vain attempt to take our eyes off the deep seated problems we face makes me feel slightly sick in the mouth.
All three parties are guilty of doing immense damage to our economy but you fail to recognise that fact. - This is about Grangemouth and the Union dinosaurs Philip.
- Barry, you have but one fact to your name. "Democracy=BAD, Plutocracy-please". Its only your justifiable fear that the Tories are unelectable that makes this whole exercise worthwhile.
"...The dwindling ethanol component of North Sea oil, a strident union's preoccupation with one of Scotland's last final-salary pension schemes and global energy markets all played their role. As did the company's insistence on pursuing the Unite convener in connection with the Labour party vote-rigging scandal in nearby Falkirk, even after the police had concluded that there was nothing to prosecute and the party that there was no one to discipline. So there were pressures from many directions.
But when Mr Ratcliffe decided to answer a 48-hour strike threat with a lockout, government influence of any sort was conspicuous by its absence. Conceivably things could still change, but as he spoke of feeling "saddened" , energy secretary Ed Davey did not sound like he was about to change the game. Mr Salmond talked tougher, but it remains to be seen what he can actually do to try to lure in alternative investors. Seeing as the refinery is nearly half-owned by PetroChina, it could just be that – exactly as with nuclear power at the start of the week – the decisions that matter for Grangemouth now could be made in Beijing.
If Grangemouth goes, reliance on imported gas will be compounded by dependence on foreign-processed fuel for motoring. In the US, concern about "energy independence" is part of the mainstream discourse. Britain is likewise crying out for an energy strategy, but there is no room for that within the market-led thinking that has dominated the field since electricity privatisation almost a quarter of a century ago. Out of ideas, and panicked by John Major's injunction to Do Something, David Cameron had nothing to offer on heating bills, aside from dismantling the sort of green pricing which he once favoured..."
http:// www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/23/grangemouth-oil-shock - I see...
"Union accepts Ineos demands to avert Grangemouth refinery's closure...
...LONDON (Reuters) - Britain may avert the closure of the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical plant after union leaders said on Thursday they had accepted demands from the management in an effort to save 1,400 jobs...
..."The unions have indicated to the company that in terms of their survival plan we have put forward our positive response to that," Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, told the BBC...
...The company has yet to respond to the union's latest stance...."
http: //uk.news.yahoo.com/unions-mull-concessions-save-scottish-refinery-grangemouth-bbc-063655784--finance.html#1VWGTSo - It appears that the Unions have backed down, good. These idiots should have been sensible and realistic in the first place. This episode demonstrates just how they are a thing of the past and have no place in a modern economy.
Eric Joyce, brawling ex Labour MP has an interesting take that is very damning to the Labour Party who were idiotic enough to have supported UNITE. Mind you the fact that UNITE are Labour's paymasters probably says it all.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/grangemouths-will-expose-just-how-much-power-unite-has-over-the-labour-party/
The apparent losses say more about Taxation in the 'Global Economy' than about the effectiveness of the Grangemouth Plant or its labour relations.
From the little I have read about the 300m investment it seems to have necessitated Taxpayer backing. In effect the public purse has to pay Dole to these 800 or subsidise the profitable private company to employ that same 800.
A win-win situation for the company and a lose-lose situation for the public purse.
Given that this company does not pay tax in the UK we are all probably a little better off this way.