Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 There's nothing wrong with it , I just can't see why they didn't loan money from the banks.That's what they do isn't it. What is the UK Govt. doing loaning out taxpayer's money to a company if it's supposedly losing millions. It sounds a very risky strategy to me. Unless of course they knew the said company wasn't actually losing millions at all I haven't seen the accounts but hasn't there been a large writeoff on the balance sheet? That flows directly to the P&L statement. With a large company like that, you can manoeuver the accounts any way you like. £50 million in a £45 billion company is a relatively small amount to move from several operations into one. I'm not saying they've done that but it's possible. I have spent many a day legally adjusting the accounts to show the required numbers. One of the easy dodges is to capitalize expenditure, the problem is that it has to be expensed as depreciation according to GAAP and/or written off, depending when you want the pain. They've got a cheap loan from the government, a wage freeze and no new pension holders. If you look at it from the shareholders point of view the company looks like it's being well managed. from the Unite point of view they've been mugged.
notnow john Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 What's wrong with loaning a company money. I assume that it will be repaid and with interest. The alternative is to let the business close along with all those operations who rely on it for their income. You are now faced with the loss of tax revenue from a number of areas - Income, VAT, corporate, social security etc. Plus the cost of unemployment benefits to thousands On that premise why didn't the government lend money to Comet, Jessops ,JJB sports etc? Why did they withdraw an agreed loan with Forgemasters? Why did they allow 1000 jobs to go at Bombardier by awarding a 1.6 billion contract to a German train maker?
Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 On that premise why didn't the government lend money to Comet, Jessops ,JJB sports etc? Why did they withdraw an agreed loan with Forgemasters? Why did they allow 1000 jobs to go at Bombardier by awarding a 1.6 billion contract to a German train maker? I don' know
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 On that premise why didn't the government lend money to Comet, Jessops ,JJB sports etc? Why did they withdraw an agreed loan with Forgemasters? Why did they allow 1000 jobs to go at Bombardier by awarding a 1.6 billion contract to a German train maker? very good point it doesn't really sound like a govt. that's "batting for Britain" I haven't seen the accounts but hasn't there been a large writeoff on the balance sheet? That flows directly to the P&L statement. With a large company like that, you can manoeuver the accounts any way you like. £50 million in a £45 billion company is a relatively small amount to move from several operations into one. I'm not saying they've done that but it's possible. I have spent many a day legally adjusting the accounts to show the required numbers. One of the easy dodges is to capitalize expenditure, the problem is that it has to be expensed as depreciation according to GAAP and/or written off, depending when you want the pain. They've got a cheap loan from the government, a wage freeze and no new pension holders. If you look at it from the shareholders point of view the company looks like it's being well managed. from the Unite point of view they've been mugged. So basically you're saying we can't really tell if they were telling us the truth about losing millions a day or not and you'd agree the workers have probably been deceived again?
Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 very good point it doesn't really sound like a govt. that's "batting for Britain" So basically you're saying we can't really tell if they were telling us the truth about losing millions a day or not and you'd agree the workers have probably been deceived again? That's exactly what I'm saying.
Zingari Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 That's exactly what I'm saying. But are you saying it meaning that it's a good thing for workers to be portrayed as greedy and bringing the country to it's knees when in fact they probably aren't Or are you saying it's the owners who are the grasping greedy reckless ones prepared to cause chaos in the country by their readiness to close the plant regardless of the consequences? Who are the villains in your honest opinion ?
Harry - LCFC Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 Depends how you define and measure hard work I suppose. Business owners take on a much larger risk and are also responsible for other people's jobs. That's a lot of responsibility. Is it 300 or 10 times as much responsibility? Who knows, how do you measure it? Ultimately I think if you want people to earn more you should concentrate on helping those people up, rather than bringing other people down. Lots of ways you can do that, having some of the best education establishments in the world is a good start. Giving businesses financial incentives to take on and train up apprentices and trainees. Having an open and free market so that anyone who wants to have a go at starting up their own business can do so easily, and so on. Hmmm I hadn't really thought about that. I think I agree that a job with added risk involved deserves extra pay but then you implied this exact idea of a 'risky' job deserving of greater pay was a ridiculous one when you suggested that firemen shouldn't be paid anymore. I personally don't think firemen should be paid much more either and the same goes for CEOs I feel. Responsibility, yep, those in important occupations with a greater impact on others probably should earn a bit more. I agree on the whole but I still get the feeling that those lower down deserve a bit more (although perhaps not as much as I did before). Don't see at as holding others back particularly, dividing up the pie in a fairer way is how I'd describe it.
Smudge Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 But are you saying it meaning that it's a good thing for workers to be portrayed as greedy and bringing the country to it's knees when in fact they probably aren't Or are you saying it's the owners who are the grasping greedy reckless ones prepared to cause chaos in the country by their readiness to close the plant regardless of the consequences? Who are the villains in your honest opinion ? It seems that they have had issues with the Union for some years. I think Unite overplayed their cards and the company were ready for them. I'm not saying the accounts were massaged, i couldn't possibly know but it is possible. All negotiations are exercises in brinksmanship, to win that game, the consequences have to be significant otherwise they are meaningless. I don't think that the workers are the villains at all, they were lead by an inept bunch of negotiators who have egg all over their faces.
Webbo Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I don't think anyone's said that the workers are villains, just the Union. I've certainly got sympathy for the people working there and I don't blame them for wanted to keep the good deal that they had, Personally I don't blame the union for wanting to protect the workers pay and conditions, that's what they're there for, they just went about it the wrong way.
Strokes Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 I don't think anyone's said that the workers are villains, just the Union. I've certainly got sympathy for the people working there and I don't blame them for wanted to keep the good deal that they had, Personally I don't blame the union for wanting to protect the workers pay and conditions, that's what they're there for, they just went about it the wrong way.They could and should have got a better deal for the workers, but they forced the trump card out and got pasted. A poor show from unite, striking should always be a last resort.
breadandcheese Posted 27 October 2013 Posted 27 October 2013 What I can't understand is that if the losses at Grangemouth were fabricated as the accountant employed by the union suggest, why did the union not offer to buy the plant for £1? It would cost Ineos many millions to decommission the plant (which they were prepared to do as they claim the plant uneconomic), so call the bluff and bid a nominal sum for the plant. The union could then run it on the terms that they're after. I wonder why they didn't do this. I wonder what future the plant would have.
Zingari Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 What I can't understand is that if the losses at Grangemouth were fabricated as the accountant employed by the union suggest, why did the union not offer to buy the plant for £1? It would cost Ineos many millions to decommission the plant (which they were prepared to do as they claim the plant uneconomic), so call the bluff and bid a nominal sum for the plant. The union could then run it on the terms that they're after. I wonder why they didn't do this. I wonder what future the plant would have. Good point . The fixed assets (land, plant, machinery etc) have value and are perfectly usable for their designed purpose and will be shown as having a 'value' in the owners report and accounts. They cannot therefore just be bought for peanuts.The owners and unions know that. If however they were forced to sell the owners might be able to do a financial scorched earth job on the place to make sure it would fail. All just conjecture though. Once again I doubt if the whole truth is forthcoming .I think the tories (and it seems most of the workers in the UK) love it when a union is seen to be humiliated like this .
Strokes Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 Good point . The fixed assets (land, plant, machinery etc) have value and are perfectly usable for their designed purpose and will be shown as having a 'value' in the owners report and accounts. They cannot therefore just be bought for peanuts.The owners and unions know that. If however they were forced to sell the owners might be able to do a financial scorched earth job on the place to make sure it would fail. All just conjecture though. Once again I doubt if the whole truth is forthcoming .I think the tories (and it seems most of the workers in the UK) love it when a union is seen to be humiliated like this . If i felt a union was acting in the best interests of its employees and considering long term stability, i would support it as much as any other. For me they seem to try and use things like this as a way of making a political point, they cant wait to strike. The whole affair was a shambles from start to finish.
Zingari Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 If i felt a union was acting in the best interests of its employees and considering long term stability, i would support it as much as any other. For me they seem to try and use things like this as a way of making a political point, they cant wait to strike. The whole affair was a shambles from start to finish. True , good point,but i thought the strike was about protecting pensions and deals already negotiated and in place, not reckless demands for more . As I said before , there seems so much capability by the owners to manipulate the state of the finances. The media ( and it seems the public) just seems to accept the word of the owners that the company is making massive losses . Maybe it is, but I think there's an element of skulduggery going on here. It's always easier to portray the unions as rapacious and with a reckless disregard for the consequences .
breadandcheese Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 Good point . The fixed assets (land, plant, machinery etc) have value and are perfectly usable for their designed purpose and will be shown as having a 'value' in the owners report and accounts. They cannot therefore just be bought for peanuts.The owners and unions know that. If however they were forced to sell the owners might be able to do a financial scorched earth job on the place to make sure it would fail. All just conjecture though. Once again I doubt if the whole truth is forthcoming .I think the tories (and it seems most of the workers in the UK) love it when a union is seen to be humiliated like this . I think you misunderstand my point. My point is that without the change to workers' pay and pensions, the company/site is a distressed asset. It is then cheaper for Ineos to sell the company for £1 than pay for the decommissioning of the site. The union, could buy the site for £1 (similar to other turnaround businessmen, such as Theo Paphitis) and run the company. According to the accountant they got to investigate Grangemouth, this would be bargain of the century as they would ear millions. What could be better than buying the company for a nominal sum, returning it to the workers' ownership and earning millions. So I'm not looking at conspiracy theories, I'm questioning why the union did not look at it as a possibility. The only reason the union didn't suggest this is that they knew that the company needs the changes the management are seeking and a lot of investment to make the company viable. That is why they backed down.
Strokes Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 True , good point,but i thought the strike was about protecting pensions and deals already negotiated and in place, not reckless demands for more . As I said before , there seems so much capability by the owners to manipulate the state of the finances. The media ( and it seems the public) just seems to accept the word of the owners that the company is making massive losses . Maybe it is, but I think there's an element of skulduggery going on here. It's always easier to portray the unions as rapacious and with a reckless disregard for the consequences . I see it as the union got its pants pulled down and is now making excuses for having such a small cock. Ooh its cold ( they did make money really)
Zingari Posted 28 October 2013 Posted 28 October 2013 I think you misunderstand my point. My point is that without the change to workers' pay and pensions, the company/site is a distressed asset. It is then cheaper for Ineos to sell the company for £1 than pay for the decommissioning of the site. The union, could buy the site for £1 (similar to other turnaround businessmen, such as Theo Paphitis) and run the company. According to the accountant they got to investigate Grangemouth, this would be bargain of the century as they would ear millions. What could be better than buying the company for a nominal sum, returning it to the workers' ownership and earning millions. So I'm not looking at conspiracy theories, I'm questioning why the union did not look at it as a possibility. The only reason the union didn't suggest this is that they knew that the company needs the changes the management are seeking and a lot of investment to make the company viable. That is why they backed down. I understood what you meant , I just doubted whether INEOS would sell it for a nominal amount . Could they be forced into selling it for peanuts ? I really don't know. But if they said they were prepared to foot the bill for the decommissioning , it sounds more like they would prefer a scorched earth policy on the site rather than give in to let someone else run it. I know it sounds like they'd be cutting their nose to spite their face , but they did say that's what they'd do, and although you say the unions didn't offer to buy , neither did INEOS offer to sell .Why not if it's losing so much and not viable?
hackneyfox Posted 29 October 2013 Posted 29 October 2013 In an ideal world there would be a ratio of something like 20:1 between a CEOs salary and a workers salary. Do managers in other European countries get paid at the same ridiculous rate they do here and in the US?
lavrentis Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 UNISON and UCU striking tomorrow in relation to the national dispute over the 2013/2014 pay award.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 We (posties) are on strike on Monday (4th) - but from the sound of things most of my delivery office will be turning up for work. Easy decision for me though - it's my day off anyway! A bit undecided on this - not bothered about the pay side of things, just the conditions, things have gotten silly since they moved the mail centre from Meridian to Northampton... absolutely nothing works any more and it's all completely out of synch. Sure all new things have teething problems and I'm all for progressive change, but things should have been thought through better than they have been. Of course that's all just particular to the East Midlands, but it's symptomatic of the mismangement of the company in general. Why anyone would want to buy shares in use staggers me!
davieG Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 We (posties) are on strike on Monday (4th) - but from the sound of things most of my delivery office will be turning up for work. Easy decision for me though - it's my day off anyway! A bit undecided on this - not bothered about the pay side of things, just the conditions, things have gotten silly since they moved the mail centre from Meridian to Northampton... absolutely nothing works any more and it's all completely out of synch. Sure all new things have teething problems and I'm all for progressive change, but things should have been thought through better than they have been. Of course that's all just particular to the East Midlands, but it's symptomatic of the mismangement of the company in general. Why anyone would want to buy shares in use staggers me! Royal Mail workers' strike cancelled - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24749336
absolutelegend Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 is there a union for union workers? they'd never be at work!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 Royal Mail workers' strike cancelled - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24749336 Nice of the CWU to tell us before the media
Webbo Posted 30 October 2013 Posted 30 October 2013 Nice of the CWU to tell us before the media They posted you a letter about a week ago, you'll probably receive it on Tuesday.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.