I thought they were just altering conditions for new employees (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7359870.stm). In other words, the employers aren't taking away the pensions of the workers you say you're supporting. Why, exactly, should anyone who works at the refinery in the future be guaranteed the same terms as those who work there now? Perhaps you think all future MPs have a right to the same expenses arrangements of the current lot.

John Wiseman - do ever question whether every strike might actually be necessary? Or is it a case of just going into auto-pilot and demanding vengeance against nasty employers?

Ignore the comments by those who are supporting the employers against the labouring people - they have no time for workers when they dares to assert itself  , only when they prostrate themselves. Captial is allowed to fight its half of the class struggle, labour is not - that might upset the might PLP's electioneering and hold back the tide of socialism that will ensu....oh wait. Oh well, nevermind workers be good children make the profits, dont go on strike, vote labour for your interests!

I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand I fully support the workers' right to strike, and am happy to support trade unionism is general. But this case does have other implications. If it should turn out to be unpopular, it may well damage the labour movement and set a pretext for Cameron to erode union rights even further.

But as they have chosen to strike, whether they are right or wrong, they have my support at this time. 

As for damaging Labour, the leaders have done enough to make sure about this.

Tying this story together with the Sunday Times publication of the Super-rich list :-

Well I'll back them, I was working on the site when it had an expansion in 1973, and boy then it was BP, everything gets sold in the end.

Congratualtions to Wiseman for posting this story. Now Let's get the facts clear:

Grangemouth was owned by BP, who sold it to INEOS with a fully funded final salary pension scheme. In fact it was 120% funded, ie they had 20% more cash than they needed to meet all obligations.

In addition, BP gave a cash sum to Ineos - around £40 million - to maintain the pension fund in good order.

Ineos took the £40 million to spend elsewhere - probably to reduce the debt from the purchase.
 
It then closed the final salary scheme to new starters - always a prelude to closing it totally.

Furthermore, previous Grangemouth workers had paid no employee contributions - a nice deal you might think. But they had negotiated this by agreeing a reduced wage compared to other refineries. Now Ineos have introduced a 6% employee contribution but no increase in salary to match.

So Ineos is taking with one hand, and taking away with the other. Decent pensions are a right when you have paid for them, and it is not inevitable that all defined benefit schemes will close - except if employees are not allowed to defend them. Good luck to all in Unite and all at Grangemouth for this stand they are taking.

Why is it we continue to allow finance houses and big business to argue that pensions/endowments etc etc are unsustainable.  These fund managers manage to pay out their bonuses and top salaries so how can they argue that times are hard and we the workers must suffer. They have taken the strikers money and put it into their own pockets.

It is criminal and it is about time we put a stop to it.