Well I do hope the unions are proud of themselves. Are they still living in the 1970s up there?
What does the Panel think?
|
80% of Scotland's usage, I think I read.
Still, come independence I'm sure they'll be able to import it at a reasonable price. Not to mention need to replace a £1bn loss to their economy.
Seems to me that Unite need shooting.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 13:26
|
Around 800 jobs will be affected by the closure from the total of 1,370 currently employed;(plus a further 2,000 contractors). Associated supply chain probably means up to 9,000 jobs are related to Grangemouth.
Grangemouth supplies around 70% of Scotlands fuel demands, but as there is currently 20% over-capacity in Northern Europe, supply will not be the issue. Impact on teh eocnomy is another thing.
The figures quoted by the owners say that Grangemouth needs £310m of investment and is currently losing £10m per month. I’d assume that both were inflated.
|
Clearly BAz is straight into the usual employer good/union bad narrative.
Should the staff just roll over and comply. however unreasonable the emloyers demands? I suspect a deal could have been done on pay etc - the union had called off a planned strike and were ready to negotiate. The killer was withdrawal of a decent pension scheme, including accrued rights, and its replacement with a poor quality defined contribution system.
There's more to this than meets the eye I suspect - private equity playing hardball. How much of the alleged £10m/month loss is down to way Ineos has structured debt etc? I'd echo John Major's comment yesterday re Gas/Electric that govt has a duty to intervene if the market is not working. Should, as reports suggest, there be a domino effect of other plants closing then surely there's a point at which the capacity to refine our own oil becomes a matter of national security.
Actually, according to reports, while the chemical plant is to be closed the refonery may yet be saved - by intervention of Scottish Gov if necessary.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 13:36
|
>> There's more to this than meets the eye I suspect - private equity playing hardball.
>> How much of the alleged £10m/month loss is down to way Ineos has structured debt
Carry on, completely ignore the fact they have debt that needs restructuring.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 13:46
|
>> Carry on, completely ignore the fact they have debt that needs restructuring.
>>
Debt is passed around like the parcel in the kids party game, only in reverse. The parcel contains nothing nice.
Funny thing is that with possible exception of Guy Hands/EMI the PE squillionnaires are never holding the parcel when the music stops. And what did for hands was refusal of stars to be treated like other employees in thses cirs.
|
>> the PE squillionnaires are never holding the parcel when the music stops
Of course not, they pay Fund Managers to make sure that they're not.
Have you noticed how everybody talks about how evil PE Funds are when the sticky stuff hits the whirly thing, yet when they are investing they are welcomed as saviours?
|
>And what did for hands...
What did for Hands? The guy is worth £150m! I don't think ANYTHING did for Hands.
Don't forget that for these people it is virtually never personal. And I say "virtually" only because I guess it must have happened at some point.
They don't care about individual assets other than the part it plays within the overall picture of their fund.
|
>> What did for Hands? The guy is worth £150m! I don't think ANYTHING did for
>> Hands.
He took a cracking loss on EMI though!!
|
>>the union had called off a planned strike and were ready to negotiate
I think this was at the point that Unite realised Ineos were not bluffing.
The plant has already been shut down in anticipation of a 24hr strike (apparently at an additional cost of around £20m to the company) so 'calling off the strike' was at least partially disingenuous.
As usual the truth will lie between the stories from union and management - if Ineos were trying to engineer a closure then they've played a blinder by having the union do the job for them after initially suspending Steven Deans for allegedly using Ineos time/facilities for undertaking union business - even if this was likely the case, suspension seems an unnecessary sanction while investigating the case.
|
>>private equity playing hardball.
Private Equity Funds do not play hardball, or softball for that matter. They simply do whatever they believe will bring more value to their investment fund where each individual asset is playing a part within that Fund's goals and strategy.
If you think they should have done something different, then whatever that was it would have, in their opinion, achieved less long term value for the Fund.
That would be against the law and they would be sued by their investors and probably fined by various bodies should it be proven that they did it knowingly.
|
|
How did this plant get in this situation in the first place? Mismanagement or blame it all on the workforce? Almighty cock up.
|
>
>> Should the staff just roll over and comply. however unreasonable the emloyers demands?
This dispute started in 2008, when the unreasonable Employers asked the employees to contribute towards their fixed salary pension scheme (like everyone else in a pension scheme of any kind does)
Reasonably the 40k a year workers went on strike immediately.
Meanwhile 5 years later........
|
B.P Used to run Grangemouth and Baglan Bay in Wales.New broom sweeps clean and the problems began.
Either management came in with a heavy hand and the union miscalculated the consequenses.
|
>> B.P Used to run Grangemouth and Baglan Bay in Wales.New broom sweeps clean and the
>> problems began.
>>
>> Either management came in with a heavy hand and the union miscalculated the consequenses.
Ask yourself why BP sold them off?
|
|
I have never been in a pension scheme that hasn't had the T&Cs altered while I have been a contributor. Even the State Pension has had the age one can start to draw it changed. I'd incline to having a job on a reduced salary and changed pension terms than neither. No winners here I think.
Last edited by: Meldrew on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 14:45
|
|
Zero mentioned the 40 grand salaries which is fair enough.Chemical plants aren't the healthiest of places to work in.Mate of mine got cremated a few days ago cancer.I know at least five people who died of the decease working in one and others who have treatment included me.Can't be proved where the illness is from but it makes you think.
|
>>Can't be proved where the illness is from but it makes you think.
One in 3 people get cancer (and over 2/3 of them will die from it) so it can be difficult to see 'hotspots'.
The difference is with specific types of cancer that we know relate to certain factors, eg. mesothelioma from asbestos, small cell lung cancer from smoking, bladder cancer from smoking and certain chemicals.
As Bill Hicks said (before dying from pancreatic cancer at 33)... "Non-smokers die every day".
|
I have been out and about around Edinburgh and Fife today and have not seen any panic buying at petrol and diesel stations, I have also seen deliveries of fuel in progress.
Regardless of who engineered this situation I think the union has been left holding the blame.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 14:58
|
Clearly BAz is straight into the usual employer good/union bad narrative.
Pretty much! After living through the 70s and seeing the destruction done to the UK car industry and then into the 80s and the politicisation of the Coal Industry, followed by its destruction, then being made part of a plant closure by a US corporation as a result of local UK union antagonism, my view may be jaded somewhat! Oh-- and the complete ham-fisted incompetence of the NHS unions in my wife's place of work. it's the "I have a right to a job and I want more money and I won't compromise and I won't change " attitude that is so outdated and destructive in these global times. I've seen factories 6 miles long flattened and work gone overseas just down the road from here. I'm afraid employers do have the upper hand, whether we like it or not at the moment.
|
Personally I have never worked for an employer with a pension fund. Several friends do and think its the best thing since sliced bread. If it meant keeping my job I would have voted to accept changes in my employment T & Cs.
I can appreciate it must be really annoying to join a company and then your employer changes the T & C's. But the age when you can draw the state pension changed, and the estimated amount I can get from my tiny private pension goes down every year. I've not contributed into my private pension for almost 20 years I cannot wait to start drawing it in a few years aged 60. That £15 a week is going to make a big difference. Thinking about it, less than that because I've already taken, and spent, the 25% tax free lump sum when I was 53!
|
>> If it meant keeping my job I would have voted to accept changes in my employment T & Cs.
It happens.
I was in a final salary scheme that was replaced in 2010 by defined contribution. The effect on me was effectively to reduce the accrual to my expected pension by about 2/3 (no time for invested contributions to grow for a person near retirement).
I also had allowances reduced by about £4,000 a year.
Sometimes you have to decide to deal with the world as it is, and get on with it, even if the employer is acting unreasonably. Most don't, they just act logically, or try to.
|
>> >> If it meant keeping my job I would have voted to accept changes in
>> my employment T & Cs.
>>
>> It happens.
Happened to me several times. You look long term at future salary, not what you can grab in the next two years (before the host you are feeding on dies)
Strangely Unions never think long term.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 16:18
|
|
I think that Scotland in general is lagging behind the "Real world" when it comes to industrial relations. It seems to me to be a hard line socialist country (almost Marxist) that has yet to realise that times have changed. Why did the name Gordon Brown just come to mind. :-)
|
What a load of crap, ON.
I think you'll find London and England have more strike days per capita.
|
>> What a load of crap, ON.
>>
>> I think you'll find London
Dont think so old chap, banking and shop workers dont have strikes.
|
>> >> I think you'll find London
>>
>> Dont think so old chap, banking and shop workers dont have strikes.
>>
I don't have the figures but I can think of Posties, Teachers, Tube Drivers, West Ham defenders......
;-)
|
>> >> >> I think you'll find London
>> >>
>> >> Dont think so old chap, banking and shop workers dont have strikes.
>> >>
>>
>> I don't have the figures but I can think of Posties, Teachers, Tube Drivers, West
>> Ham defenders......
>
Post office, teachers are NATIONAL not an exclusive london thing.
West Ham have no strikers. And fulham fans are in no position to gloat.
|
>> Post office, teachers are NATIONAL not an exclusive london thing.
>>
Teachers are differently organised in Scotland & England.
Clearest message from the 2011 numbers, the most recent I have been able to find, is that most strike days , by a fair way are public sector workers. Maybe that's the real grouping who need a reality check
Ducking for cover now....
|
|
Total UK public sector employment decreased for the tenth consecutive quarter in the first quarter of 2012, by 39,000 to 5.899 million. With that many employees it is not odd that they feature high in a chart of strike days, really!
|
>> Strangely Unions never think long term.
>>
Or wider picture - if there are other jobs in the same industry or if the business is in profit in an expanding market then the workforce can play hardball.
If the opposite is true, as, it seems, in this case, then compromise would have been a better idea.
While it's easy to criticise from outside and far away, as Baz said this brings back an awful lot of memories from the heavy industries of the 70s and 80s, including the faults and hard approach from the management side.
|
>> >> Strangely Unions never think long term.
>> >>
>> Or wider picture - if there are other jobs in the same industry or if
>> the business is in profit in an expanding market then the workforce can play hardball.
>>
>> If the opposite is true, as, it seems, in this case, then compromise would have
>> been a better idea.
Perhaps not in that business but across the wider O&G industry there's plenty of money knocking about. I know a few that have left to go into it, I think the lowest payrise was 30%, 70% wasn't unheard of. How many of them will end up there I don't know but hopefully they'll find work in it.
|
>> >> If it meant keeping my job I would have voted to accept changes in
>> my employment T & Cs.
>>
>> It happens.
>>
Mines still final salary although it is changing but we do get to keep all benefits accured upto the point of change over.
|
Process workers earned £50,000 - salary+shift money + Pension - overtime on top!
Higher skills earned more, lots more in some cases.
Old plant losing money - new opportunity £300m put in to import and use Shale Gas.
Union would not countenance a cut of 10% and ceasing Final Salary Pension.
Ineos walks, 10,000 Scottish jobs affected.
All UK Oil cos have ditched generous pensions - Ineos are probably not angels but
a job @ 90% of last year's pay + pension beats the dole - everyday of the week.
Last edited by: Falkirk Bairn on Wed 23 Oct 13 at 16:58
|
Rock and a hard place, really.
I don't really know Scotland, but generally skilled manual labour in an expensive market has a number of problems;
Administrators and managers can change roles in a week. Skilled manual labour cannot.
Administrators and managers can usually find employment elsewhere since everywhere needs admin & mgmt. Skilled manual labour is by definition narrow in focus. Re-employment, or redeployment for that matter, is much tougher.
Admin/Mgrs tend to have a better flow of information from the company and are frequently considered for promotion to higher station anyway - and if not true, that is certainly how they perceive themselves. Skilled labour is not and do not.
The ones who should be ashamed are the likes of the Unite leadership who use workers trapped in difficult situations to further their own progression and beliefs from a position of comfort and security. And to an extent the owners/board who know how the unions will react and therefore manipulate them, again at the expense of the workers.
If the leader of Unite is so convinced of a cause, why doesn't he step down from Unite and join the local work force and the payroll?
The fastest way to rid the earth of idiots like Len McCluskey would be to build a direct relationship with the workers. The trouble is Unite is aware of that, as the TGWU was, and so on the rare occasions its tried, the unions will scupper it.
|
I am an exiled Scot . Going back to Scotland to visit my brother living outside Glasgow (he runs a cycling business) is really like going back to the 1970s as far as workplace attitudes are concerned.
The Scots have a sense of entitlement that vanished post 1980s in England...
and If anyone doubts who is largely responsible in this situation, they should read the blog of the Labour MP for Falkirk.. he's got no doubts at all.
"As I wrote in my last blogpost (below) Unite’s convener at Grangemouth, Stephen Deans, put an enormous amount of time and effort into trying to sort the local parliamentary selection – effort which should have been put into planning for the crunch talks which Ineos has been signalling for months. Trade union organisers all over Scotland can see that. Pat Rafferty, Unite’s dimwitted Scottish Secretary, stressed that the proposed strike was not about pay, the future, jobs – no, none of that stuff. It was about Deans himself. Now Rafferty is trying to argue the wider industrial case but he’s missed the bus. And, by the way, that bus was probably made during a period when Unite (under Rafferty) for once wasn’t on strike at Falkirk’s other main industrial employer, ADL the ‘Olympic’ bus-maker who puts Falkirk on the world map.
Scottish Labour is horribly out of its depth. Again. Ed Miliband needs to send in the cavalry with a ‘clarifying statement’. Again. There is a very serious economic crisis at Grangemouth. I, and other MPs, have lobbied UK ministers to help Ineos with investment. The unions need to engage with the situation properly – not fanny around making stupid political gestures. Labour MSPs need to get engaged too. But they won’t be led to it by Lamont, Gray or Findlay."
ericjoyce.co.uk/2013/10/2081/
|
|
How many pension funds had to re-think their strategy when Gordon Brown (as chancellor) removed their tax concessions?
|
|
I saw Stephen Deans name mentioned and that issue. I wonder how much the issue clouded the whole dispute?
|
Eric Joyce...hmmm...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Joyce (expenses, assault involving alcohol, extra marital affair with a 17yr old, loads of other stuff, etc. etc.)
Surely, somewhere, in one party or other there must just be a nice, pleasant, honest and decent person trying to be a good and responsible elected member of parliament.
Anybody any clue who it is? Because I think I might move there and vote for them.
|
>> Anybody any clue who it is? Because I think I might move there and vote
>> for them.
This bloke maybe?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24634352
|
>> Eric Joyce...hmmm...
Heh heh... I too had an alarm signal flash up when I saw the name. But in everyone's defence, it's rough up North and it's dead rough in the House. Nothing unusual about louche MPs.
Met quite a few MPs over the years, ministers too, usually while working as a hack so not being treated with kid gloves. All I can say is that some are quite personable and some (not necessarily the same ones) seem to me to be honest in their fashion. They also tend to be haggard, overworked and unglamorous.
|
In a previous role I had to present to the House from time to time. I rarely met anybody I was impressed by.
To be fair though, there were some. Just not many.
Although, as you say, a fair number were personable.
|
>> Met quite a few MPs over the years, ministers too, usually while working as a
>> hack so not being treated with kid gloves. All I can say is that some
>> are quite personable and some (not necessarily the same ones) seem to me to be
>> honest in their fashion. They also tend to be haggard, overworked and unglamorous.
>>
I can't say that I've had a huge amount of dealings with them but of the the two they both were the opposite of their public personna. One supposed to be, and I thought of, as hard working and comfortable was from my impression quite shifty and looked very awkward. Like a school boy on firs day at school. The other exactly the other way around.
|
Just as an aside. I've been on a Zero hours contract for 40 years. Some times you work.. Some times you don't.
What chuffing pension. Oh! I remember the glimmer of one..................or was it two? Stopped paying in yonks ago when I was robbed by the f.fees and the e CON omic down turn/s
Never trust a Union man or more importantly never trust a man in a position of power that hasn't turned Tuppence into Threepence.
Kindest regards,
Hobgoblin.
|
The union representing workers at Grangemouth's petrochemical plant could be set to agree to the "survival plan" set out by majority owner Ineos.
About half the workforce at the complex had rejected new terms and conditions proposed by Ineos, prompting the firm to announce the plant's closure.
Subject to agreement by the workforce, Unite may now accept the changes in a "last-ditch effort" to keep it open.
From the latest Beeb coverage.
Why on Earth would Ineos backtrack at this point?
This is surely a sad attempt for Unite to try and gain the 'moral highground' out of the vacuum they are at least partly responsible for creating for their members.
|
|
There will be immense pressure from the Scottish Government on Unite to sort this out - this will be a pre-independence arm-wrestling - Chinese will probably buy it at a bargain basement price and the workers will go back on worse pre-strike conditions....Union buffoonery again
|
>> There will be immense pressure from the Scottish Government on Unite to sort this out
>> - this will be a pre-independence arm-wrestling
I think the Scottish Government will try to exert massive pressure on both parties to get a deal as they have a very vested interest in doing so, not just for the jobs currently under threat but the whole idea of them having any chance of winning the Independence referendum could well go out of the window with the closure.
Ineos have already said that if the chemical plant goes then the refinery becomes even more at threat as it will have to flare off it's gas by product rather than send it to the petro-chemical plant which will add to it's costs as it will lose the income from the gas as it, literally, goes up in smoke. If the refinery goes so does the source of steam and power used to bring the oil ashore from the Forties field pipeline array.... If the Forties field shuts down, or has to massively reduce production, this will drive a coach and horses through the pro-independence lobby's argument of an economically self-sustaining Scotland using the revenues of 'their' North Sea oil reserves. With a major global over supply of petrol and diesel and American sources of petrol currently available on the world markets at barely much more than our wholesale refining prices there could be an economic argument to mothball the Forties array if it has to cease production.
This is a very high stakes game that is being played here, a country's whole future, and that of it's Goverment's ruling party, could hinge on who blinks first.
|
The independence argument is flawed IMO - even more so now. If this does not close now it might in the near future!
It does not sound positive for Grangemouth - if a deal can be done it might only buy them time.
|
|
Brinkmanship gone too far IMO.
|
The TV people were interviewing the workers as they streamed away from the meeting. The consensus in a series of one liners, seemed to be that it was 'disgusting'. They didn't specify who or what was 'disgusting'. The management? The Offer? The trade unions? The work force?
I think the workers must quite literally be mad.
By the by, I had forgotten how strong the accent of the man in the Scottish street is.
|
|
I really need subtitles for most of those who were interviewed. As you say Duncan, there is a consensus that something is disgusting but nobody is quite sure what!
|
>>
>> By the by, I had forgotten how strong the accent of the man in the
>> Scottish street is.
>>
Does "strong" have any real meaning with reference to accents, or does it just mean unfamiliar?
Perhaps a scotsman would say I had a strong RP accent, and find me unintelligible without subtitles?
|
Strangely enough, I commented about the Scots accent to my wife - we are both Scots. Almost unintelligible.
UNITE have conducted a classic case of how to screw up your negotiating position and leave yourself with nowhere to go.
I would imagine a key INEOS clause will be : no strikes, no industrial action -- over anything... Given the current strike is all about UNITE's convenor, that will go down well..
Stand by for hardball from the management.
|
|
I see on Sky News that Len McClusky is in Grangemouth doing some serious backpedaling on behalf the local union reps who seem to have vanished from the TV screens.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 11:29
|
>> Does "strong" have any real meaning with reference to accents, or does it just mean
>> unfamiliar?
>> Perhaps a scotsman would say I had a strong RP accent, and find me unintelligible
>> without subtitles?
There is a huge variation in Scots accents, just as much as in England. Glotal Suaciehall St is very differrent to 'Prime of Miss Jean Brodie' Morningside. The almost Irish lilt of Barra changes to the harsh almost Scandinavian accent of Ness and north Lewis as you progress up the Hebridean chain.
|
|
My kids can switch between my soft London and a soft version of the local Fife accent at will. Our London contingent say we have a Scottish accent and we think they have an distinct Thames Estuary sound. I lived in the west of Scotland for many years and have trouble with a strong Glasgow accent.
|
>>
>> I lived in the west of Scotland
>> for many years and have trouble with a strong Glasgow accent.
I can cope with most accents but there was a lass from Belfast worked with me for a while c1990. She was from the Loyalist side of the city and was almost incomprehensible at first. Got tuned in after a few weeks but my constant 'pardon' must have got on her wick for a bit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 12:22
|
>> a strong Glasgow accent.
>>
Yes, but what does "strong" mean?
Is it an absolute term, such that a visting Prof Higgens from Mars would classify it as strong ?
|
>> >> a strong Glasgow accent.
>> >>
>>
>> Yes, but what does "strong" mean?
>> Is it an absolute term, such that a visting Prof Higgens from Mars would classify
>> it as strong ?
>>
When I wrote 'a strong Glasgow accent', to be honest I meant - almost unintelligible.
Last edited by: Duncan on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 13:17
|
>> When I wrote 'a strong Glasgow accent', to be honest I meant - almost unintelligible.
>>
I think it depends on a number of points. If the accent just involves odd words we can either translate easily (my bath v a southerners baath) or can fil in from context. When several words in a row are, to our ears, oddly pronounced and/or where dialect creeps in then the brain gives up the battle.
Scottish English uses some words that don't travel over the border, for example outwith or retirral, similar with Ulster - which on the proddy side is sometimes called Ulster Scots.
|
>> >> When I wrote 'a strong Glasgow accent', to be honest I meant - almost
>> unintelligible.
>>
Who are you callin' unintelligible, pal
Choose a windae, yer leavin'
The accent is only the first bit, the attitude is the rest
Last edited by: commerdriver on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 13:30
|
At school there was this Scottish lad who joined mid-term, I think we were about 14 at the time. I don’t know what part of Scotland he came from but he had this really think accent. The form tutor assigned him to me to act as his buddy, this involved showing him around and helping him to settle in. I couldn’t really understand what he was saying a lot of the time and in extreme cases had to ask him to write things down. It was difficult to keep a straight face at times, I can remember feeling a bit awkward about it.
After a few weeks I began to understand him almost perfectly, a few things would still catch me out, but my ear was obviously tuning in to him and maybe his accent had softened a bit as well. It was funny though on one occasion since to help him integrate myself and another lad organised for the tutor group to go bowling and then McDonalds. I can remember him going up to the counter and obviously having difficulty making the staff understand what he wanted. He would come and grab me to interpret.
I wish I had kept in touch with him, no idea where he is now.
|
>> Yes, but what does "strong" mean?
>>
Are you todays duty pedant?
|
>> Are you todays duty pedant?
>>
Can I send you by keyboard to clean the spluttered tea out of it.....
If I could give that three thumbs I would.
And adding my own pedantry should that be today's?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 13:26
|
>>And adding my own pedantry should that be today's?
I don't know. I am struggling to get past the conjunction at the beginning of your sentence.
|
I have lived in Falkirk most of my life...on the TV several employees were interviewed. I understood a few but there were 3/4 who were unintelligible - even on replay!
Rab C Nesbit would have been 100 x easier to understand.
See
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab_C._Nesbitt
for Rab's background
|
Pendant alert...help needed!
I registered a course with the title 'A Driver's Role'.
It came back duly passed inspection a registered but as 'A Drivers Role'
Who is right please?...my inspecting body waste no time in finding fault with me so I'd love to turn the tables!
Pat
|
|
Think you are right Pat - the A at the beginning suggests you are referring to a singular diver? In which case driver's is correct useage.
|
I reckon there is at least 10 pedants on here and while I appreciate the vote of confidence Richard, I would love to have a full house before I send it back and demand a certificate in 'proper' English!
Pat
|
>> I reckon there is at least 10 pedants on here and while I appreciate the
>> vote of confidence Richard, I would love to have a full house before I send
>> it back and demand a certificate in 'proper' English!
>>
>> Pat: you called?
"A driver's rôle." for the REAL pedant, although the "ô" is rarely used, even in standard English.
"A driver's role" is how most reasonable pedants (are there such individuals?) would write the phrase. :-)
I agree with our resident scribe that misuse of the apostrophe is to be deplored.
See here for support! www.apostrophe.org.uk/
|
|
Some of the stuff that goes around at work would make you cry. Senior managers in suits seem to be the worst.
|
You are right Pat.
There are sluts and slovens around who will tell you apostrophes are unnecessary and should be dropped. Don't give them the time of day. They are slobs who want us all to be slobs so that they won't stand out as slobs.
|
S'pose tha's reet tha know's.
Your's pedantically
North Y'shire.
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 16:06
|
Never mind the apostrophe, where's the circumflex?
I'm minded of a recent story in the paper about the lack of a comma.
A resident asked the local council two questions.
1) Can I put up a shutter?
2) Do I need planning permission?
The answer was sloppily written by the council. They intended to say "No, Planning Permission is required. They actually wrote "No Planning Permission is required."
The consequences were legal and expensive for the council.
Yes, I'll go with "driver's", incidentally.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 16:09
|
|
Never mind the apostrophes, is it safe - or even legal - for Richard's singular diver to be wearing Pat's pendant?
|
|
That's a hanging offence.
|
|
D'oh... No 1 rule of pedancy - don't make spelling mistakes!!
|
I'm no oracle on this stuff but I think you are right. It is the role taken or possessed by a driver (singular). Were it about an aircraft with two or three pilots working together it might be "The Pilots' Role" but note that even in the plural the apostrophe is still present.
But somebody else will be along in a minute to nominate me to re-take the brush up your grammar course I took in 2002 (and recently found my notes from)
|
Four down, six to go!
Come on WilldeB, you can't sit on the fence like that;)
Pat
|
|
Is it the role of the driver, or the role of the drivers? The apostrophe goes after whichever it is, or no apostrophe if it's a shortened version of "The drivers role down the hill" :)
|
To take the brush up your what, Bromp?
Pat's original version is right. ' Drivers' ' would be plural - so incompatible with 'a'; ' drivers ' is simply wrong.
An accent on 'role' would also require italics, since English doesn't use the circumflex. My 1998 Chambers has 'role' without the accent first, which means it prefers it. (It puts 'criticize' before 'criticise' for the same reason, but lists spellings of equal merit alphabetically.)
|
As a late entry pedant to the site, I agree. It's "A driver's role"
I have no axe to grind on "role" - unless it is referring to his lunchtime sandwich.
|
That's eight, so where's CG when you need him?
There's bound to be another one...Cliff?
I've just prepared 15 certificates for Saturday's course, and of course, they had to say 'A Drivers Role to comply with the accreditation, so I may just wait until Monday to point out their error!
Pat
|
>> accent on 'role' would also require italics, since English doesn't use the circumflex.
Yes. 'Rôle' is a French word. The English word is role. To use a French word when there's a perfectly good English one is, er, a bit poncy really.
|
>>Yes. 'Rôle' is a French word. The English word is role
Really? The English word is rôle too, so does not require italicising. The French word, complete with accent, has entered the English language, so inter alia does not require the italics.
Pat, stick with your apostrophe.
As for a strong accent; I suggest RP represents no accent, so the further away from RP you land, the stronger the accent.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 18:15
|
Thanks mapmaker and everyone else, I'll have to assume CG is AWOL, I think.
I know my grammar and spelling can leave a lot to be desired when I post on here but I class this forum as enjoyment. When I'm working I like to make sure I do it correctly and always check if I'm not sure.
I didn't check this before submitting it but then again, I find you all having a very good influence on me with your pedantry and I learn a lot...although it pains me to admit it:)
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 18:29
|
As a closet pedant, I have to step in during CG's non appearance and agree that the apostrophe is required in cases of the possessive..........as in Pat's ' role ' .
In fact, both my bike mate and I have been known to bring up the matter in shops and such places. Use of the word ' less ', when ' fewer ' is correct, grates as does the misuse of the word ' loose ' by otherwise seemingly intelligent people !
Bah !
Ted
|
>>
>> As a closet pedant, I have to step in during CG's non appearance and agree
>> that the apostrophe is required in cases of the possessive..........as in Pat's ' role '
>> .
>>
>> In fact, both my bike mate and I have been known to bring up the
>> matter in shops and such places. Use of the word ' less ', when '
>> fewer ' is correct, grates as does the misuse of the word ' loose '
>> by otherwise seemingly intelligent people !
>>
>> Bah !
>>
>> Ted
Ted, you are so right! Welcome to the "standards" club!
|
Oh well, this thread is as good as anywhere if I'm ever going to say it, and I won't go on about it ever again, here.
You might recall me whinging feebly the other day about a specific error that is seen everywhere, including this forum.
The error is using "it's" when it should be "its". This jars with me, and unfortunately for my over-delicate sensibilities you see this mistake everywhere these days. It's not hard to get it right, I wouldn't have thought, but apparently I'm wrong.
I'm sorry for my obessions.
I also have to have knife blades facing the right way on the table, and will always flip them if they are wrong, wherever we are, and if I turn around in one direction I often find I've turned "the wrong way" and have to turn back again before completing the circle and moving on with my life.
I appreciate it's all entirely my problem.
|
>> I appreciate it's all entirely my problem.
Indeed. But its good to be able to find something to wind someone up about.
|
Yes, very nice. I thenk yow.
|
|
So what about switched plug sockets where there is nothing plugged in yet the switch is in the On position? Gets me every time... other than that I'm normal!!
|
I have to put my left shoe on first and take it off first. Don't know why but I know I'll have a bad day if I don't. Can't wear green underpants either. Bad luck green underpants. Even a bit of green stitching would be enough to make them unsuitable.
Oh, and of course when getting undressed I have to take my watch off first and when getting dressed put it on last.
Can't have the front wheels of my car other than in the straight ahead position either when it's parked, unless it's parked facing downhill when they must be turned to the kerb or if parked facing uphill they must be turned away from the kerb of course.
Can't bear to hear the ratchets on a handbrake either, must push the button in, which is a real problem with Merc as it has a foot operated handbrake and no button. Quite disturbing.
Apart from that I'm not superstitious or OCD at all.
Well, apart from crossed knives. Can't have crossed knives in a drawer, or even in a washing up bowl naturally. Wouldn't be right that...
Or come to think of it, I just can't get on or off a bike except from the left. Wouldn't do at all to get on or off from the right.
;-)
|
>> Oh, and of course when getting undressed I have to take my watch off first and when getting dressed put it on last.
I'd take it off first and put it on last too. Would you put it on before being dressed (anyone)?
>> Can't have the front wheels of my car other than in the straight ahead position either when it's
>> parked, unless it's parked facing downhill when they must be turned to the kerb or if parked
>> facing uphill they must be turned away from the kerb of course.
Common sense... and the law in some place like San Francisco.
>> Can't bear to hear the ratchets on a handbrake either, must push the button in, which is a real
>> problem with Merc as it has a foot operated handbrake and no button. Quite disturbing.
But some cars with a ratchet suggest not pressing the button to put it on as well. Think Mazda and maybe Ford manuals said this.... I'd depress the button and engage it and then make sure it is pulled up when the button is up. The electronic parking brake on the current car might cause interesting parking situations for the next car - e.g. Mazda6 with manual parking brake!
EDIT: Apologies to discuss/rant on motoring items in non motoring! :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 26 Oct 13 at 00:02
|
>> Would you put it on before being dressed (anyone)?
Yes. When I wore a watch I never took it off. At night it was my only garment. Still glance involuntarily at the inside of my left wrist sometimes.
|
>> The French word, complete with accent, has entered the English language,
... losing the circumflex in the process.
>> so inter alia does not require the italics.
No it doesn't. French words are bad enough, French words in italics are even worse.
I have strong views on these matters, but questions of style and fine meaning tend to be personal and not everyone has to agree with them. I have developed these strong views over many years of being edited by people who often seem to be illiterate foreign teenage cretins. Years of pain and being made to look an utter prat to a readership usually of critical, pedantic goddam intellectuals. That would make anyone develop strong views.
|
>> As for a strong accent; I suggest RP represents no accent, so the further away
>> from RP you land, the stronger the accent.
There's RP and RP Mapmaker. A former colleague speaks perfect RP, strangled vowels and all, as you might expect from a product of Winchester School and Cambridge. For a large segment of the population he sounds to have a 'posh' accent to extent that the perfectly sensible advice he offered was, in their eyes, devalued.
|
>> For a large segment of the population he sounds to have a 'posh' accent to extent that the perfectly sensible advice he offered was, in their eyes, devalued.
Not a very large segment surely? 'The medium is the message' only to those of low, brutish intelligence. People with brains listen to the message itself and judge it on its merits. This applies in all directions across all social classes or accent categories.
|
>> Can I send you my keyboard to clean the spluttered tea out of it.....
>>
My apologies for the damage, Bromp. I have been out all afternoon and have only just discovered that I have prompted Pat to request a grand reunion of the pedants. Maybe a smiley would have been in order in my gentle prod at Cliff. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 24 Oct 13 at 18:50
|
|
Just to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to its origin, it appears from this morning's Glasgow Herald that the plant is to reopen immediately. A victory, not for any of the protagonists, but for common sense IMHO
|
|
I see the union rank and file are calling for the resignation of the top three local union officials.
|
>> I see the union rank and file are calling for the resignation of the top
>> three local union officials.
>>
They weren't the only ones though, were they?
The Unite union leadership could have stepped in...but didn't. Local workers could have spoken up..but didn't (or if they did not vocally enough).
What a ridiculous situation they got themselves in...all down to the 'head in sand' mentality of a union.
|
>> the plant is to reopen immediately.
The Grangemouth petrochemical plant near Falkirk is to stay open after a new deal was struck with workers.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24671184#
|
|
can we change the thread title now?
|
|
Ineos have won all round, a renegotiated (better?) deal with BP for the Forties pipeline steam and power supplies, A £9 million grant from the Scottish government towards a new gas plant to process cheap imported American gas (can I have some for my boiler?), and £125 million loan guarantee from the UK government. No strikes for three years and a cheaper workforce.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 25 Oct 13 at 15:44
|
>> Ineos have won all round
Hopefully the workforce will recognise that this in turn will mean their jobs are more secure, and over the medium to long term may remain that way.
Well played by Ineos.
Poor showing from Unite.
|
Dart Technology want to extract coalbed methane in Falkirk - 5 miles from refinery.
Looks like permission will be turned down.
Is this one set of rules for one oil company and another set of rules for another?
|
"15000 employees worldwide and INEOS is a global manufacturer of petrochemicals, speciality chemicals and oil products. It comprises 15 businesses each with a major chemical company heritage. Its production network spans 51 manufacturing facilities in 11 countries throughout the world."
No way INEOS were going to miss Grangemouth if UNITE wanted to play silly games.
|
A couple of days ago I was toying with the notion of persuading FMR to dash off a business plan, borrowing a few million quid and settling down to a few years of profitable asset-stripping and production of bad toxic substances along with a lot of under-the-counter red diesel.
Now I have missed my chance. Damn! But I suppose I would have got bored even before the ball was properly rolling. The accountancy would have been a nightmare too. Just as well perhaps.
|
|
Some talking head from Unite (talking in the usual staccato way that Union leaders prefer) was talking on PM - he was spinning so fast it's a wonder he wasn't giddy. Seem to think it was a victory.
|
>>Are you todays duty pedant?
>>Grangemouth winners and loosers
Erm, would that be "losers" then ?
Do we get paid for this pedantry stuff? Reckon I could make bob or two...
;-))
|
>> Erm, would that be "losers" then ?
>>
>> Do we get paid for this pedantry stuff? Reckon I could make bob or two...
>>
>> ;-))
>>
You won't earn a living as a pedant if you can't tell the difference between a typo combined with a crap spellchecker and a rubbish speller like me. :-)
|
|
The pedant's happy hunting ground that ON
|
I'll have to oil my "a" key as well !
;-)
|
RP,
You should have heard George Galloway talking about it on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday. He sounded like Dave Spart without the latter's reasoned intelligence.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 25 Oct 13 at 19:20
|
this is the Unite Web Page currently displayed.
www.unitetheunion.org/how-we-help/list-of-sectors/manufacturing/grangemouth---ineos/
Grangemouth, the powerhouse of Scotland’s economy, stands idle today. Ineos owner Jim Ratcliffe bears full responsibility for this. Unite and the 1400 people working there oppose this closure.
But Ineos is waging a campaign of fear against its employees. It is attacking the workers’ union, Unite, and their representatives. It has avoided paying a penny in tax for four years. Its finances are a mystery.
Now it risks destroying good Scottish jobs. This climate of fear has been created to try to force working men and women into signing away their rights and the pensions for which they have saved all their working lives.
This is a company that is out of control. This is holding Scotland to ransom.
Unite worked tirelessly to drag this company to the negotiating table only for management to walk away just as a settlement was at hand.
Grangemouth is now in serious danger because of management behaviour.
Grangemouth is a world class facility. Its workforce serves our country honourably. These men and women deserve better.Unite is determined to stop Ineos ruining Grangemouth.
|
>> Now it risks destroying good Scottish jobs. This climate of fear has been created to
>> try to force working men and women into signing away their rights and the pensions
>> for which they have saved all their working lives.
>>
>> This is a company that is out of control. This is holding Scotland to ransom.
>>
>>
>> Unite worked tirelessly to drag this company to the negotiating table only for management to
>> walk away just as a settlement was at hand.
>>
>> Grangemouth is now in serious danger because of management behaviour.
>>
>> Grangemouth is a world class facility. Its workforce serves our country honourably. These men and
>> women deserve better.Unite is determined to stop Ineos ruining Grangemouth.
>>
They live in a dream world..a bit like the BBC really.
|
>> Some talking head from Unite (talking in the usual staccato way that Union leaders prefer)
>> was talking on PM - he was spinning so fast it's a wonder he wasn't
>> giddy. Seem to think it was a victory.
>>
I suspect the local union officials are trying to spin themselves into retaining their union jobs.
|
|
The workplace conveners have had the boot....reckon lots will be quitting Unite from the site now....what's the point in being a member... Wonder what will happen to the UK Government's credit guarantees is the Scots vote for independence...
|
>>if the Scots vote for independence...
>>
More chance of winning the lottery. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 25 Oct 13 at 19:44
|
|
Am I mistaken, or does Unite have the TGWU churning around in its guts (so to speak)? If so, it's my union. Mind you I'm about 50 years behind in paying my dues.
|
|
Yes - I am very friendly with one of their retired Shop Stewards...decent, honest and moral - even if he does want to topple capitalism....type of bloke you'd want on your side in a crisis.
|
|
The days of unions having any real clout in the private sector are long gone. Only the public sector workers can down tools now and still have a job to come back to afterwards. Private companies will either have to shut up shop or shift the entire operation abroad.
|
|
.....and given what happened in the 70s who can blame them ?
|
Unions still have their place and are needed in some sectors.
Most important decision union members can make is when they vote for their shop stewards, the good ones of which wear two hats.
One, to be strong enough to represent the members, and to negotiate sensible terms and conditions.
Two, to maintain discipline in the ranks, to stop idiots taking sickies or the P, to ensure the workforce provide a quality days work for decent Ts and Cs.
Rare to find people with the right balance who are not for sale.
Company running a healthy profit from a loyal well motivated well renumerated workforce means good prospects all round, and most importantly looking after the satisfied customer, the most important person in the company.
|
|
Excellent post GB. Totally matches my opinion.
|
|
Sounds very much like one of the roles of a senior NCO in the armed forces.
|
|
Working where I do - Standard question for anyone with employment problems is whether they're in a trade union (and we do get lots) - Rarely do callers answer yes (unless in public service) - a huge proportion have no concept of what an Union...
|
>> Most important decision union members can make is when they vote for their shop stewards
Spot on but for many, me included sometimes it's too much faff to wade through election statements between differing brands of 'activist' members. Getting the right people in the frame would be a start.
Our last guy was quite good on personal cases but not a tactical player in current world of office closures. More focus needed on members wishes and less on getting one over on management or ministers. If a relocation project has got as far as lease on new premises being signed then it's going to happen and union need to be getting best deal for members either re-locating or redeployment/redundancy. Reluctant to do that 'cos it admits defeat on the principle.
|
Not to far in the future Grangemouth wont' have a union.Once management have their foot in the door and the Union is weakened staff status will be offered to the workforce.
And employees will accept to keep their jobs.
|
|
Question: if the plural of "trade union" is "trades union", is the plural of "shop steward" "shops steward"? Discuss.
|
>>Question: if the plural of "trade union" is "trades union"
It isn't.
The plural of "Trade Union" is "Trade Unions". Unless it is a single Union uniting many trades, then it could be "Trades Union".
|
>> Unless it is a single Union uniting many trades, then it could be "Trades Union".
Like Unite. My trades union. Joined it (or rather the TGWU) to get a labouring job in a closed shop off the Caledonian Road back in the 17th century. Not long after the Great Fire of London actually.
|
A bit of background information about the dispute.
tinyurl.com/nd8hg9e (Daily Mail)
|
I see the Unite rep has finally done the decent thing and resign.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-24716429
|
|
Resigned to avoid report publication (Tuesday)..
|
It was said in the press that the UNITE Rep (full-time Union / Ineos work but paid by Ineos) had conducted non UNITE / Non Ineos work during Ineos paid time and misusing a Ineos owned Computer and services (e-mail).
He asked for time to consider matters after last Thursday's meeting before another meeting on Tuesday - but resigned today.
In the 60's- 80's it was quite common for the employer to pay for Union staff in their workplace.
The last bastions of this are in the Civil Service, very few with Private employers.
|
Grangemouth to close - No FM2R
