Davy51 Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 Some talking heads are now warning of the possibility of up to 10,000 deaths caused by people being unable to afford to heat their homes during the coming winter . It may be alarmist but imagine the outcry if a foreign despot started butchering his subjects to that amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2013 The Companies are blaming the price hikes on - 1. Green energy obligations - saying that this should be funded out of taxation - fair comment. 2. Wholesale energy costs - not sure, but when wholesale costs go down, they don't seem to translate into price reductions. A 5% profit margin is considered reasonable, when compared against other retailers; however, the difference is, energy is essential, other products are not. So it seems reasonable to argue that the energy sector should be nationalised asap. We're already hearing the horror stories of fatalities in house fires due to using candles, cos folk were cut off for not paying their bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 I think more people die in house fires because there are no smoke detectors fitted to be honest.... however, energy costs are too high, green levies are just another form of taxation and nationalisation would only make matters worse because plunging the companies back into public ownership would leave them and us at the mercy of the unions who would quite happily shut down plants; causing power and gas cuts to get what they want.... it has happened before and would happen again The simple answer is to impose a price cap.... not a temporary one, but a permanent one. The government could set the cap at just above wholesale costs so that the companies could make profits to invest etc. but they could not make excessive profits as they seem to be these days.. The problem is, no one knows which bits make the excessive profits because of all the smoke and mirrors ways that they hide the percentages of profit they make. It is all rigged to make it look like they only make 5% from the sale of energy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Can't blame "the market" for doing what "the market" does - that's the nature of the beast. I blame the wimpish politicians for not having the bottle to nationalise it. btw. smoke alarms don't prevent fires, they give you a chance to get out in time; and trade union activity isn't confined to the public sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 and trade union activity isn't confined to the public sector. What's that got to do with it? It's a fact that the public sector is the one best able to hold the country to ransom with strike action. Strikes in the private sector only damage the private company involved and it's shareholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Erm, I would imagine any strike in the energy sector (private or public), would hold everyone to ransom; which infers special restrictive contracts are required for the workforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 That worked so well last time didn't it? But I wasn't referring to the energy sector in particular. For example if the unions pulled all ASDA workers out on strike there wouldn't be any effect on the consumer apart from ASDA shoppers changing their allegiance to Morissons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 But we are referring to the energy sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 30, 2013 Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 and thankfully it isn't in public ownership and far away from the likes of Len McClusky who almost cost 10's of thousands of workers their jobs in Grangemouth last week..... of course his job and his £122,000 a year salary are still safe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Thought Grangemouth was a private sector company, thus allowing it to threaten closure and move abroad? So I'm not sure where you get this correlation between strikes and the public sector; industrial action affects both sectors. However, public ownership might allow us not to be ripped off, by the robber Barons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 All those workers Baz, have now all been shafted with their pensions and many have taken a pay cut, ineos are not a very good company, when the government asked them to pay their tax bill they moved to Switzerland to avoid paying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Just another example of workforces being shafted by the threat of plant closure. So easy these days with lack of proper jobs for workers to move onto , proper jobs being usurped by employers using agency staff & worst of all zero hours contracts. My son is renting a house & would love to buy one ,but without job security the best option is to rent because your rent will be paid in the event of redundancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 All those workers Baz, have now all been shafted with their pensions and many have taken a pay cut, ineos are not a very good company, when the government asked them to pay their tax bill they moved to Switzerland to avoid paying. They still have their jobs Kije.... if the unions had their way they would be on benefits now with no prospect of work, Unite is a union that is run by bully boys who seem to think they are a political party instead of a union meant to look after its members.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Unite bully boys, take the pay cut and pension cut or else Baz, the true bully boy here is the company, And as stated they even moved from the UK to Switzerland to avoid tax!!!!!! Not a good company to work for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 31, 2013 Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 Not a good company to work for Maybe not, but better to work for a bad employer than not to work at all surely? Yes people can have their principles, but principles do not feed the kids and pay the bills. The company is NOT a British company and as such it can operate out of whichever country it wishes... And as for not paying tax; I presume you mean corporation tax? because just as you accuse Obs of giving half a story; a company operating in the UK on any level has to pay employers income tax, it has to pay employers NI, it has to pay VAT, it has to pay rates, it has to pay fuel duties..... so when people say they don't pay tax....... they do really don't they? They are just operating their business to minimise their corporation tax liabilities.... which is why so many companies operate out of Southern Ireland as they have low corporation tax levels. If the UK were to lower its levels to that of Ireland or even below; more companies would come here to have their head offices etc. and the reduced amount of tax per pound raised would be offset by the extra companies and mabe even the extra jobs it may bring.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2013 I would assume "adjustments" in conditions of service for all employees have to change in the light of our current economic circumstances and life expectancy data. However, it appears evident, that the load being carried for the financial crash and the economic down turn, is being disproportionately visited upon the many, and are being imposed on the basis of long standing Tory dogma. The wealth gap continues to widen, with obscene levels of payments to top earners, while the rest struggle to find the cash to pay for rising prices. Clearly, we are not "all in it together". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 but we can never be all in it together.... there are the best part of 62million people in the UK. about half of that figure work and a miniscule amount are the rich fat cats who you speak of Obs..... taking a pound each off 33million people gives you a damned sight more than taking even 100 grand off a few money grabbing bosses..... obvious economics. Yes it would be nice to see the ones responsible pay more; but they wouldn't even make a dent in the problem; even if you took off them everything they owned.... £1 off 33million gets you £33million £10 gets you £330million.... etc... it is blatantly obvious where the majority of the pain will be felt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Never been tried Baz, in fact quite the opposite: we have record sums being paid out to celebs and top execs; even in the NHS - seems a couple (as in partners) received a £million redundancy between them, then got their jobs back within 3 months. There's a culture now at the top end of high pay, bonuses and golden parachutes, with the argument "if you want the best, you have to offer good money" - not a saying they apply to the rest of the workforce however. Neither is this gravitation of cash good from an economic point of view, if we wish to stimulate growth, we need to stimulate demand, which requires more folk with more cash to spend. At the other end of the food chain, we have the bottom feeders, abusing the benefits system, which includes every Tom, Dimitri and Muhammed arriving under a lorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Obs; I don't disagree with you... The government are quite happy to let all and sundry come here and work and take jobs or just abuse the health and benefits we offer.... you never see Polish MP's or Polish coppers etc. because those professions are all tied up with protective measures... the Poles and the likes come here to take the lower paid jobs and reduce the standards and wages of indigenous workers; that is what is happening. The culture at the top of the public sector has been rotten for decades... I remember doing a job at Bradford Health Authority almost 20 years ago and they had converted a mansion in the grounds of the hospital just to house the managers. Best carpets, best furniture etc etc... The trouble is these people at the top are not accountable to anybody except the corrupt politicians who; like the managers are all in it for themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 what to do with a wind turbine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 1, 2013 Report Share Posted November 1, 2013 Baz, you are speaking crap, the Poles cannot reduce standards as their is a minimum wage, their are also Polish doctors working in the NHS, and Polish university teachers in the UK, I love to know where you are getting your info, is it the Mail by any chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 One down, several thousand to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 Contrary to the wishes of the unions, industries aren't there to benefit the workers, they are there to manufacture products and make a profit. In the last 30 years refineries in the UK have become loss making industries, hence the many closures and changes of ownership. ESSO Milford Haven closed in the 80s, the refinery being sold and shipped to Saudi Arabia. Texaco Pembroke was taken over by Chevron and is now owned by Valero. The present Murco refinery in Milford has had so many different owners trying to make it profitable I've lost count. Gulf Milford closed down over a decade ago due to the losses becoming too large to bear. BP sold it's Grangemouth refinery because of its losses, and also closed Coryton which it shared with Mobil. The fact is that the oil and chemical industry has become globalised to the point where it has become more economical to ship the products from the other side of the world than to try to run a refinery in the UK. Can you blame Ineos for trying to reduce its tax liability in the UK if it means they are able to keep the business going? As Baz says at least some of the workers are still in employment even if the benefits are lower. Welcome to the real world chaps, the world that doesn't owe anyone a living! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 I do not agree with the tactics the unions used during the dispute, but the fact that INEOS moved to Switzerland rather than pay UK tax tells you all you need to know, their is a saying " a fair days pay for a fair days work" INEOS have now proved they will do absolutely anything to maximise profits, Management like there's is the reason unions came into being in the first place. Asp the refinery is in profit and was the part of the complex that was not going to shut, the dispute was over new investment and who was going to pay for it, looks like the workers are now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 2, 2013 Report Share Posted November 2, 2013 Baz, you are speaking crap, the Poles cannot reduce standards as their is a minimum wage, their are also Polish doctors working in the NHS, and Polish university teachers in the UK, I love to know where you are getting your info, is it the Mail by any chance Kije... there may well be a minimum wage, but the minimum wage was introduced to cater for the bottom feeding, low level jobs like cleaners and dinner ladies.... there are electricians and other trades now employed by companies who pay minimum wage for those kind of skilled jobs because those bosses exploit the poles and the like. A polish electrician will earn more over here on minimum wage +benefits than he will ever earn back in Poland. As I said before, the only way to stop it is to have an EU wide minimum wage. Some will win, some will lose, but at least it would be fair By employing tradesmen on minimum wage, that reduces the demands for skilled indigenous tradesmen who are then deemed to be too expensive to employ by some; thus reducing the standards of our own... BTW I never mentioned Polish Teachers or doctors.... I mentioned Polish police and MP's.... the former may exist; the latter certainly don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.