So you're saying that Ineos used the union strike to get rid of people that they didn't "need". Glad we agree.
****ing hell, that's one topic that goes down well, in scotland and the north east of england........
You don't remember the latmid to late 70's under Labour do you? If it wasn't for them messing things up we would not have voted the bitch in.
Typical workshy losers. Fancied some time off. People in the country are struggling to make ends meet and they turn their nose up at doing an honest days work. Just shut the whole place down, the refinery as well.
After no doubt spinning them the usual bullshit...well get you a better deal, the company will back down etc
We all know how the Unions 'advise' their members. They were 'advised' to vote against the proposals, they've now lost a weeks pay and made a **** of themselves in the process. Lady Thatcher will be laughing in her tomb.
The original dispute is hardly the unions fault. The reason for getting rid of the majority of contractors is the unions fault.
They were more gentile times when militants were striking union members stood around a fire in a 50 gallon drum. Militants these days are Islamic nutters with bombs and guns.
What pish are you spouting now? Ineos never 'laid' off Contractors. Their Parent companies, faced with the possible liquidation of their client, laid off their employees. Now that sanity has broken out, the Contractors, if needed by their employers, will go back to work on Monday. Dees dee Facts
What were the 2,000 contractors doing if they don't need them? Unless the business goes into administration any contracts must be fulfilled, or mutually agreed to terminate - so if there were 2,000 contractors working for them in some capacity it was presumably because the company wanted them for something and it will presumably still want them for something.
