Most are aware of the Grangemouth situation which has been prevalent over the last few weeks and the outcome of the “rescue plan” as announced by Ineos,Unite and many others including Westminster
What started as a matter of one man became something which gave another man the opportunity enact a situation which held Scotland to ransom by threatening to close Scotland’s biggest industrial site unless the workforce complied to Ineos demands of new contracts and pension settlements,basically saying that unless the worker’s and their unions capitulate Ineos will close Scotland’s oil refinery with immediate effect and send Scotland into the dark ages before Boxing Day.
The reasons for these Dickensian type ultimatums were allegedly that Grangemouth was running at a loss which is strongly disputed,as a senior accountant stated in the Daily record last week which alleges Ineos are making a 7 million a year profit this year,6 million last year and that “he wouldn’t have signed off Ineos accounts” which makes most raise an eyebrow at the very least.
What is even more unusual is the £134 million cash injection from Westminster to Ineos claims of loss making and infrastructure demands.Especially when Ineos had just wrote off £390 million pounds worth of equipment and infrastructure from Grangemouth,which meant they were released from loans of £464 million to other Ineos companies.
In turn that made Ineos a cool profit of £69’000’000 net on the write-offs,while at the same time pleading poverty and holding out the begging bowl for more taxpayers money from Westminster,all the while declaring their workers need to accept new contracts or lose their livelihoods.
In all honesty it’s looking as if The Grangemouth situation was ideological and not financial as we were led to believe and there seems to be a pattern if you delve deeper down the rabbit hole.
Follow the White Rabbit…..
Lets look at Ineos and their track record from conception 15 years ago to become the United Kingdoms largest
privately owned company in such a short time span and how it correlates with the Grangemouth situation.Firstly the rise to dominance was no mean feat in itself but lets look at Runcorn as a prime example of how it all works in Alice’s Corporate land.
In 2001 Ineos bought the Runcorn chlorine plant from ICI in what was described as a Northern Rock 120% mortgage deal in a 350 million dollar agreement,which in all reality meant Ineos were paid to take the plant off ICI’s hands,then Ineos demanded £65 million in taxpayers money because the site in a bad condition,whist at the same time asking for extra Government money to keep the site open and running at an acceptable level.
Then with what seems to be the Alice in Corporate land ethos the workforce were cut from a number of 2013 at the time of takeover down to a number of 938 by 2009,also the wage bill was cut from £63,000,000 in 2001 down to £38,000,000 by 2009,which with inflation and the rise in the cost of living is a massive cut in annual salaries to the workforce.
Some might say “This is how capitalism works” or “they have to be competitive” but I disagree strongly with that if we correlate it with Execs salaries/dividends from 2001 and the rate of the last known dividends in 2009.
Which becomes even more apparent when we look at the total directors remuneration,which in 2001 stood at £302,000 and rose to 679,000 by 2009 according to records
So as is evident by what we can see at Runcorn that corporations have a work model of buy cheap,get free money then cut workforce and maximise profits for those chosen few who sit at the top table.
Basically its an ethos of those “who have” need more and those “who have not” get less
Mad Hatters Tea Party……
Shortly after in 2011 Ineos moved to Switzerland for tax purposes saving them £100,000,000 a year in corporation tax and a total saving of £395,000,000 by 2014.What is even more unbelievable is that Ineos were given the approval to move by its lenders after a structure review,even stranger still its lenders include Loyyds and the Royal bank of Scotland who funnily enough have received massive bailouts from the public purse and in turn were owned in part by the taxpayer?
So as it turns out we are subsidising Ineos to make as much profit as possible while laying off workers or stripping them of their rights and pension allocations,only our inverted system would promote,finance and endorse such actions against its workers without care or concern.
To me thats a strange way for a public majority owned company like RBS to behave and goes against working in the interests of its majority shareholder.
Which is basically the treasury and in turn us who are living in this Neo Dickensian nightmare,because after all is said and done we bailed out these banks who were happy to take our money in the first place.
Strangely enough in that same year Ineos who were allegedly in debt managed to buy into BASF in a 50/50 project called Styrolution which would bring two sectors of the petrochemical sectors into one company,that would put the supplier and the end-user of Petrochemicals under one umbrella and in turn make Ineos the UK’s largest privately owned company all the while allegedly being a loss making enterprise?
Which brings us up to date as Ineos are now looking to buy Styrolution outright in a deal with BASF that would see Ineos having full control and no doubt full profit that is estimated at 6 billion euros a year,Which makes Grangemouths alleged losses if we are led to believe(which I don’t) as a couple of pennies in the Ineos Corporate purse.
I’m only scratching the surface here but as you can see the United Corpocracy isn’t working for us and we deserve better than the likes of Ineos dictating our workers rights and setting us back 100 years as a society.Saying that it’s still an ongoing situation so it may be returned to,even more so if what we are hearing about the Grangemouth workers discrepancy in contract settlements is proven to be correct.
The truth is out there