Contents

Talk:2009 Lindsey Oil Refinery strikes

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lincolnshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Past/Present Tense[edit]

The start of the article reads as if the presently occuring wildcat strikes in the UK are over, despite the fact the staff of Sellafield on Monday are to meet to see if they will join in - signifying that the strikes may still be on-going for at least another week. Mabuska (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed everything to past tense as that appears to be the style in which articles are written. Paul Largo (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have this article, we really need one that explains what the Posted Workers Directive is all about. Currently the page Posted Workers Directive takes you to the section on the 2009 strike at Lindsey Oil Refinery. Afraid I'm not familiar with the legislation. Can anyone help? Paul Largo (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now started an article on this subject. Paul Largo (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strikers organizers have said themselves that IREM is using it's own existing core workforce. So IREM has done nothing wrong. I mean, obviously IREM will use it's own people if humanly possible, duh! How could IREM even bid competently without using their own workers?

For example, I gather that IREM is paying national rate plus providing accommodations, which I doubt is deducted from pay, while the original contractor Shaws would pay only national rate, so IREM's workers are likely costing more. If so, then IREM must either have more confidence in their workforce or else face work shortages from the recession at home. Indeed, the most likely situation is that IREM underbid Shaws specifically because they feel threatened by the recession at home.

I also see no evidence for wrongdoing on the part of Total since they we're likely forced by E.U. law to open the contract for E.U. wide bids and IREM won the bid form Shaws fair & square. So we're likely seeing an unexpected consequence of E.U. laws, British workers suffer more during recessions because European firms will take greater risks to protect their employees from layoffs, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.16.230 (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]