Inneos Grangemouth dispute

[steveo]

Why should people not fight to keep terms and conditions for EVERY employee, even those yet to be employed? Inneos made a profit of £300M last year - how much of that did the "man of the floor" see?

The man on the floor always has the option of starting his own business, or attempting to become a director of one and pay himself handsome bonuses.

I think the pension scheme is also non contributory which makes it very expensive for e the Company to continue with.

 

[Mad Cyril]

If my line of business involved a finite and rapidly dwindling resource such as oil then I would probably be thinking twice about handing out final salary pension schemes.

 

[Benji91]

But that £300M profit is AFTER wages have been paid out, from the tea boy to the Managing Director. That £300M goes direct into the pockets of shareholders (or pension funds or holiday homes in Tuscany....)

Problem is that the shareholders have invested their own personal wealth or their own company's wealth into purchasing shares, of which the money received has probably been used to reinvest in newer technology, resources or any number of things that keep the company competitive.

So who do you pay first, the people using the resources or the people who have given you money to invest in the resources?

If you stop paying the shareholders people start selling their holdings driving down the price and the worth of your company and all the people complaining of having low pay and poor pensions suddenly find themselves complaining of having no job.

 

[Firestorm]

Well I'm pretty sure that far, far, far more are held by institutional shareholders (ie pension funds) than by management.

Maybe, but who has the lions share of the money invested in Pension funds ? ...ooh those who can afford to put wads away in the first place . possibly a shareholder in a company which is paying more to its shareholders as its shafted its workers futures.

 

[Firestorm]

Problem is that the shareholders have invested their own personal wealth or their own company's wealth into purchasing shares, of which the money received has probably been used to reinvest in newer technology, resources or any number of things that keep the company competitive.

So who do you pay first, the people using the resources or the people who have given you money to invest in the resources?

If you stop paying the shareholders people start selling their holdings driving down the price and the worth of your company and all the people complaining of having low pay and poor pensions suddenly find themselves complaining of having no job.

The initial Share sale is the only time the money gets invested in the company. In the cases of the majority of denationalised industries the initial flotation price was low enough to create an oversubscription , thus creating a demand. The majority of share holders then sold within the first month making a tidy sum on their "investment" with the extra money going nowhere near the company. It is an excellent example of the old adage "Money goes to Money" If you could afford to by 1000 pounds worth of (lets say) BP shares (and you didn't need the money for 6 weeks or so) you could walk away with 30% profit a few months later.
If you were one of the tax paying masses without this spare cash, you lost a company you , being a tax payer, had a share in (albeit a very little one)

If Oil and Telcomms had not been denationalised for a quick buck it would be likely that the treasury wouldbe ina damn site better position