this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
11 points (100.0% liked)
Scotland
468 readers
11 users here now
Fàilte gu Alba!
Mon in tae Scotland!
Welcome to Scotland!
Quick rules:
- dinnae be a cunt
- posts should relate tae Scotland
Have at it, and haste ye back
Related communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My guess is this: 3000 jobs
If a refinery were built with today's standards and automation how many workers would be needed for the same refining capacity? Likely a small fraction of the 3000 across the whole supply chain. Labour is expensive.
Dunno about you, but I ain't making >£1000 per day, and looking round Grangemouth nor are many of that workforce. It doesn't add up. It lacks credibility and still reeks of Jim sabre rattling for more tax rebates
Edit: just double checked my maths. That's only £100 per employee. Which is very believable. But I still want to see the books
I don't think you're parsing the article's information correctly which is causing you to arrive at the improper maths.
This is the total operational shortfall, not the exact amount that is allocated to labour going to wages.
The whole supply chain include not only the workers at Grangemouth operating the refinery, but lorry drivers delivering crude to the refinery and finished products out for shipping, dockers doing the same at the shipping port, all workers that process the regulatory compliance paperwork, even companies that supply repair parts/materials to the refinery, food for the canteen, etc.
So that article is saying: After all the costs and profits are tallied there is a shortfall of £385,000 at day. If it closes not only will the workers at the refinery lose their jobs, but many others will that support the refinery (but don't work in it). This could affect 3000 jobs, some of which are in the refinery, but many are not.