Oil Refinery Workers

[tpbury]

981 got sacked by Total - a French company which would never be able to do this in France.

 

It looks like this lot have been royally shafted as some have been made redundant whilst other workers have been taken on by a different contractor (presumably cheaper or with higher kickbacks to the execs).

 

I just compare this to their comrades at the RMT who walked out for 5% - these oil refinery people seem to geuinely need representation but aren't getting it. Wonder if RMT workers will contribute to their cause (well I'm sure they would if it meant walking out on full pay again).

[Johnny Bognor]

981 got sacked by Total - a French company which would never be able to do this in France.

 

It looks like this lot have been royally shafted as some have been made redundant whilst other workers have been taken on by a different contractor (presumably cheaper or with higher kickbacks to the execs).

 

I just compare this to their comrades at the RMT who walked out for 5% - these oil refinery people seem to geuinely need representation but aren't getting it. Wonder if RMT workers will contribute to their cause (well I'm sure they would if it meant walking out on full pay again).

 

 

...but weren't they on unofficial strike and isn't this a sackable offence?

 

Normally the unions have to poll their membership when they want a day off.

[View From The Top]

...but weren't they on unofficial strike and isn't this a sackable offence?

 

Not all but all were sacked.

 

I suppose a tory fascist such as yourself approves of such action. In fact, I'm willing to lay odds on you having crack one off about the bosses sticking it to the workers.

[Thedelldays]

you cant do what you want and expect to walz back into work

[Johnny Bognor]

Not all but all were sacked.

 

I suppose a tory fascist such as yourself approves of such action. In fact, I'm willing to lay odds on you having crack one off about the bosses sticking it to the workers.

 

You couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Firstly, I am not a fascist. I would describe myself as an anti-socialist whose politics are somewhere in the centre.

 

Secondly, I am a fan of the free market (and this includes movement of workers) - therefore I would equally like to see the workforce leave en masse and go and work elsewhere, thus sticking it to the employer. This would force the employer to get their act together.

 

I employ 50+ staff and I have had one resignation in the last 12 months - this was for someone emigrating with their other half. If I was such a ****, you would expect them to be leaving en masse. The fact is, if you treat and pay your staff well, you retain them. A good and motivated workforce is the best asset a business could have.

 

People leaving a business on mass is proof of a badly run business. If the employees of Total voted with their feet and left in droves, who would be sticking it to who? Total would lose masses in profit if they were unable to refine and then be forced to re-think.

 

So I am not for the employer at any cost - I am for good employers whilst bad employers can **** off. Likewise, I am for good employees and bad ones can **** off too.

 

However, I am against workers forcing employers to change through striking as this goes against a free market. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. If this happens on masse across the whole economy, employers will be forced to improve, whilst employees will be happier in their employment.

 

Simple really.

 

To get back on topic, unofficial strikes are illegal and the employees concerned should be punished accordingly, which prompted my initial response. Out of interest, would you expect an employer to be punished if they were acting illegally?

Edited 19 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[1576]

You couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Firstly, I am not a fascist. I would describe myself as an anti-socialist whose politics are somewhere in the centre.

 

Secondly, I am a fan of the free market (and this includes movement of workers) - therefore I would equally like to see the workforce leave en masse and go and work elsewhere, thus sticking it to the employer. This would force the employer to get their act together.

 

I employ 50+ staff and I have had one resignation in the last 12 months - this was for someone emigrating with their other half. If I was such a ****, you would expect them to be leaving en masse. The fact is, if you treat and pay your staff well, you retain them. A good and motivated workforce is the best asset a business could have.

 

People leaving a business on mass is proof of a badly run business. If the employees of Total voted with their feet and left in droves, who would be sticking it to who? Total would lose masses in profit if they were unable to refine and then be forced to re-think.

 

So I am not for the employer at any cost - I am for good employers whilst bad employers can **** off. Likewise, I am for good employees and bad ones can **** off too.

 

However, I am against workers forcing employers to change through striking as this goes against a free market. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. If this happens on masse across the whole economy, employers will be forced to improve, whilst employees will be happier in their employment.

 

Simple really.

 

To get back on topic, unofficial strikes are illegal and the employees concerned should be punished accordingly, which prompted my initial response. Out of interest, would you expect an employer to be punished if they were acting illegally?

 

Never liked you really!

[tpbury]

You couldn't be further from the truth.

....

 

To get back on topic, unofficial strikes are illegal and the employees concerned should be punished accordingly, which prompted my initial response. Out of interest, would you expect an employer to be punished if they were acting illegally?

 

Largely agree with you. However - RMT official strike - makes me hate them and think they're a bunch of sponging stnuc. This oil lot - feel sorry for them and feel they're being shafted and have little option as they're probably on short term contracts and are seeing those being undermined by sharp practice from a company from France - the land of strike whenever you like.

[Calvin]

Everything seems to get sacked nowadays...

[Johnny Bognor]

Largely agree with you. However - RMT official strike - makes me hate them and think they're a bunch of sponging stnuc. This oil lot - feel sorry for them and feel they're being shafted and have little option as they're probably on short term contracts and are seeing those being undermined by sharp practice from a company from France - the land of strike whenever you like.

 

My original point was a question, with a little cheap dig at the unions thrown in. I then get acused of being a fascist and insulted that I get a hard on if anyone is sacked. I would have preferred for someone to enlighten me with the facts in this situation.

 

If Total were out of order (and I'm playing devils advocate here), then why didn't the Unions take this up? Why was it left to the workers to go out on wildcat strikes? If people are on short term contracts, then are they not taking a massive risk when they walk out on a wildcat strike?

 

If there is a case for Total to answer (and I don't know the facts) then I think the Unions have a lot to answer for (as do Total for being a crap employer). They are paid to look after the interests of the employees and it looks like they have failed on this occasion, if employees feel that they have to take matters into their own hands.

 

Its another example of Unions not being there when it matters whilst others stir up trouble when it doesn't. Meanwhile the union leaders get fat on the proceeds.

 

If I was working at that plant, I would be looking to move elsewhere once things were resolved and work for someone who truly values my input. This would be the ultimate two finger salute to any crap employer.

Edited 20 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Wiltshire Saint]

981 got sacked by Total - a French company which would never be able to do this in France.

 

It looks like this lot have been royally shafted as some have been made redundant whilst other workers have been taken on by a different contractor (presumably cheaper or with higher kickbacks to the execs).

 

I just compare this to their comrades at the RMT who walked out for 5% - these oil refinery people seem to geuinely need representation but aren't getting it. Wonder if RMT workers will contribute to their cause (well I'm sure they would if it meant walking out on full pay again).

 

I don't see why you're bringing the RMT into this. It seems like you're using one group of people's misfortune to make some cheap shot at another group of people.

 

You say the oil workers "genuinely need representation". So you are agreeing that unions are a necessary thing, but then go on to slate the RMT union for representing it's members.

 

On London Underground, bosses are threatening to tear up an agreement aimed at safeguarding jobs, and has refused to rule out compulsory redundancies. 3000 jobs are at risk.

 

TfL is also threatening compulsory redundancies as part of a £2.4 billion cuts package.

 

The dispute is not just about pay (although there would be nothing wrong with that even if it were the singe issue). The above two quotes suggest that job security is also an issue, the very thing you are complaining about with the oil workers.

 

Seems strange to me that you would support one set of workers yet dismiss another set when their situations are not that different, the main difference being the RMT ballotted members and had the backing of the majority (London Underground workers: 2810 for strike action and 488 against and Transport for London workers: 60 in favour and 15 against)

[bridge too far]

.......... Meanwhile the union leaders get fat on the proceeds........ .

 

Can I just take a moment to correct you on this point. My ex-husband was a full-time official in a Trade Union (as Regional Secretary). I can assure you we never 'got fat'.

 

Indeed, to my chagrin, he stopped poaching and turned gamekeeper and earnt double the salary he was getting from the Union.

[Rattlehead]

How is talking about your personal situation in any way "correcting" Johnny Bognor on his point? It doesn't "correct" him at all.

[bridge too far]

How is talking about your personal situation in any way "correcting" Johnny Bognor on his point? It doesn't "correct" him at all.

 

It corrects the assumption he's made that union leaders 'get fat on the proceeds'. I do admit that 'the proceeds' are not explained. I took it to mean their salaries paid for by union members.

[Johnny Bognor]

It corrects the assumption he's made that union leaders 'get fat on the proceeds'. I do admit that 'the proceeds' are not explained. I took it to mean their salaries paid for by union members.

 

 

Well if the union dues don't contribute to this.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1158150/Trade-union-chief-used-399-night-Waldorf-suite-save-35-minute-journey-home.html

 

What does?

 

You could call it getting fat on the proceeds.

 

6 figure salaries, £800,000 grace and favour homes, you have got to give it to these union guys, as it makes your average corrupt MP look quite humble really.

 

The fat cat union leader stays at the £400 per night Waldorf and the Union respond by saying:

"The union has now confirmed that Mr Simpson used the hotel, and astonishingly has justified it by claiming that staying at the Waldorf was vital to his status as a union leader. "

 

Status as Union leader? Is he not supposed to be working on behalf of the workers? Do the workers stay at the Waldorf then? Being a union leader should not be about status, should it? Are you OK with this?

 

Oh well, never mind, as long as the workers are OK.

 

Union leaders - biggest hypocrites of all!

Edited 20 June, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Johnny I can assusre you that's not the norm! Honestly!

 

We struggled to bring up 3 kids on his full-time official's salary and had a very modest standard of living.

 

It used to be the case that some unions paid their full-time officials the average salary of their members.

 

But some took the view that, to attract the most competent to negotiate with very highly paid employers, a bigger wage was needed.

 

More than that I don't know - I'm not married to him any more

[TopGun]

My original point was a question, with a little cheap dig at the unions thrown in. I then get acused of being a fascist and insulted that I get a hard on if anyone is sacked. I would have preferred for someone to enlighten me with the facts in this situation.

 

If Total were out of order (and I'm playing devils advocate here), then why didn't the Unions take this up? Why was it left to the workers to go out on wildcat strikes? If people are on short term contracts, then are they not taking a massive risk when they walk out on a wildcat strike?

 

If there is a case for Total to answer (and I don't know the facts) then I think the Unions have a lot to answer for (as do Total for being a crap employer). They are paid to look after the interests of the employees and it looks like they have failed on this occasion, if employees feel that they have to take matters into their own hands.

 

Its another example of Unions not being there when it matters whilst others stir up trouble when it doesn't. Meanwhile the union leaders get fat on the proceeds.

 

If I was working at that plant, I would be looking to move elsewhere once things were resolved and work for someone who truly values my input. This would be the ultimate two finger salute to any crap employer.

 

IMO Johnny is right. The "oil lot" as mentioned are actually construction workers, not refinery operatives. They were employed as contract staff as is usual in construction to fulfil elements of a build project. That part of the build has ended.

 

That there are foreign employees on other ongoing parts of the build should have no reckoning at all. Under EU law and by virtue of expertise. You don't hire a plumber to build you a wall. Unite and GMB recognise that which is why they have not sanctioned the unofficial action.

[tpbury]

I don't see why you're bringing the RMT into this. It seems like you're using one group of people's misfortune to make some cheap shot at another group of people.

 

You say the oil workers "genuinely need representation". So you are agreeing that unions are a necessary thing, but then go on to slate the RMT union for representing it's members.

 

On London Underground, bosses are threatening to tear up an agreement aimed at safeguarding jobs, and has refused to rule out compulsory redundancies. 3000 jobs are at risk.

 

TfL is also threatening compulsory redundancies as part of a £2.4 billion cuts package.

 

The dispute is not just about pay (although there would be nothing wrong with that even if it were the singe issue). The above two quotes suggest that job security is also an issue, the very thing you are complaining about with the oil workers.

 

Seems strange to me that you would support one set of workers yet dismiss another set when their situations are not that different, the main difference being the RMT ballotted members and had the backing of the majority (London Underground workers: 2810 for strike action and 488 against and Transport for London workers: 60 in favour and 15 against)

 

I suppose I'm just pi ss ed off about abuse of power, whether it's the RMT, Thatcher's government or the rack of MPs (and local councillors, MEPs) urine taking tactics as highlighted by Private Eye over 30 and more years. I really do feel that RMT members are on a very good deal at the moment and shouldn't want any more - they're turkeys voting for Easter.

 

It seems the 'oil lot' are maybe just scared about having actually finished their part of the project, when another part of the project is taking on people. In which case, I'd say 'you knew the deal when you signed up - find another contract'.

 

It still goes back to abuse of power - RMT have power and wield it in order to garner more power. The 'oil lot' have little power and are trying to get a fair deal.

 

BTW I recently started a new job 200 miles from home after being made redundant 8 months ago.