That's not even what would happen. The users of steel will find themselves undercut by EU manufacturers, who have access to the cheap steel, and would seriously suffer.
Should the government do more to help the steel industry or....
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
That's not even what would happen. The users of steel will find themselves undercut by EU manufacturers, who have access to the cheap steel, and would seriously suffer.
Soldato
Not sure about that. I guess the steel that NR buys directly for smaller jobs will be bought locally. However for big design and build projects I imagine it will be down to the contractor where they get the steel from. We're quite often asked to design steel structures first due to longer steel procurement times.
Port Talbot steelworks is archaic. The workforce are inflexible, and believe steel making is centred entirely around them. They still have the mentality from 30 yrs ago (One man, one job), and have a union that kicks up a fuss when the company tries to discipline people for quite clear breaches of works rules (Sleeping on shift, multiple people, multiple times).
When Shotton works laid off significant amounts of people in the 80's, the workers at Port Talbot sent coils up with delightful messages in them mocking the job losses and closures.
You can't blame Tata for lack of investment. They've spent hundreds of millions of pounds on infrastructure with no improvements or gains. The workforce are militant and loathe to change practices, and this is the end result.
Whilst the above statement doesn't apply to all the people that work there, unfortunately the militants are the majority.
Lets not forget Tata turned around JLR when they bought it from Ford, and have turned it around with significant investment and employee engagement. The mentality of the workers at the likes of Halewood and Solihull is the complete opposite of Port Talbot, and the results have shown clearly. A business doesn't fail purely because of its owner.
Port Talbot has no future without changes the workforce have been unwilling to accept for years. And I work for Tata Steel, at one of the few sites that makes a profit.
When Shotton works laid off significant amounts of people in the 80's, the workers at Port Talbot sent coils up with delightful messages in them mocking the job losses and closures.
You can't blame Tata for lack of investment. They've spent hundreds of millions of pounds on infrastructure with no improvements or gains. The workforce are militant and loathe to change practices, and this is the end result.
Whilst the above statement doesn't apply to all the people that work there, unfortunately the militants are the majority.
Lets not forget Tata turned around JLR when they bought it from Ford, and have turned it around with significant investment and employee engagement. The mentality of the workers at the likes of Halewood and Solihull is the complete opposite of Port Talbot, and the results have shown clearly. A business doesn't fail purely because of its owner.
Port Talbot has no future without changes the workforce have been unwilling to accept for years. And I work for Tata Steel, at one of the few sites that makes a profit.
Yup, a common story with our heavy manufacturing industries sadly.
Soldato
Where was the hand out for the pottery industry? Non whatsoever.
Sadly this is life and there are plenty of jobs in other sectors.
Sadly this is life and there are plenty of jobs in other sectors.
Soldato
Yep. When China tells us no it fails... Gotta love the short term government. Sigh. Blind idiots.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,921
How exactly? There is simply no demand for the steel, not at current prices. If its Nationalised then it becomes a public utility that produces steel that essentialy no-one wants and at one million a day losses thats a very expensive public utility. For one single plant/factory in one town? I can only think of the hospitals that would love that money.
For which there is currently no shortage of supply of, at very cheap prices.
Unfortunately, the banking sector is one that we couldn't, and still can't, allow to collapse. Just about every business in the country, short of cash-in-hand outfits like the local window cleaner, requires banks to do business, to get paid by customers, to buy from suppliers, to pay staff, and so on. And everything depends on confidence, because of all the "money" that makes the economy run, about 0.1% if it is cash, and 99.9% is merely entries in bank computers. If the banks had crashed, and we came within a few hours of it, the resulting depression would have made the great depression look like a holiday weekend at the beach. If banks as a group collapse, not only can business not function but you can kiss goodbye to deposits and savings, and you can't get paid or receive pensions, so we risk starvation. Huge numbers of businesses go bust, and those that don't have huge hits on value, so share prices collapse. And with that, so do all pension funds. It's national economic meltdown.
If steel collapses, it'll be disastrous for thousands but it won't be the first time. Think cars, mines, shipbuilding, textiles, hats and so on. But most of the country will carry on regardless and, other than news reports, barely notice.
But had banks not been rescued, the economic damage would have been catastrophic, and we'd still be deep in trouble now instead of slowly climbing out.
If you really want to moan about banks, rather than the billions we, the taxpayers, collectively stumped up, moan about the fact that even after that oh-so near miss, politicians still didn't force separation of "casino" banking ftom the retail operations we all rely on in day to day life, so we're still working with banks holding a knife to our throats.
A comparison might be injuries in a car accident. The steel industry would be a broken hand, but banks collapsing would be a broken neck and ending up quadriplegic.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yeah the BBC ran an article today explaining why the steel mills can't be bailed out.
The banks falling would have smashed the economy all over, whereas 40,000 losing their jobs in the mills works out to 0.12 of the total unemployed or something so it's an 'acceptable loss'
I know it's still bad for all involved, but you can't ignore the actual numbers
The banks falling would have smashed the economy all over, whereas 40,000 losing their jobs in the mills works out to 0.12 of the total unemployed or something so it's an 'acceptable loss'
I know it's still bad for all involved, but you can't ignore the actual numbers
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Seems the Times and the FT are saying exactly the same thing this morning. This was Britain's fault. Is Cameron doing a Maggie with the steel industry or does he think destroying this industry is worth the potential Chinese investment?
Caporegime
Well Britain is well on the way to becoming a developing country, so I guess we should probably keep our steel industry.
Which Britain would that be? The one I know is one of the richest most developed countries in the world.
I heard that too, it's good they're finally bringing this to the fore. It was in the Telegraph yesterday as well:
This.
Caporegime
Yeah but ordinary people - the sort of middle-income, working class folks who made Britain one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen - they're going, they're losing their jobs or having to do the same jobs that their parents did for less money and no job security. Sure the top 0.1% are doing OK - African countries have rich people as well, and our GDP figures will look good thanks to all the poor people from around the world we're letting come in and settle here. So sure there's no problem, except that in the near future most people won't have access to healthcare, education and many other public services.
Soldato
Helping Northerners & Welshmen.....
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Don't tell the Brexit crowd who seem convinced the EU is to blame for this, as the EU is of course to blame for everything ever.