Daily disposable workers
There may be a small amount of money to be clawed back from daily-disposable-contact-lens maker Bausch and Lomb, as a result of the millions put into its Livingston plant in government assistance over the past 13 years.
It started with a £2m grant in 1996, and then a further £1.35m awarded six years ago.
But there seems more prospect of gaining some research contracts for Scottish universities as the company looks to the next generation of "eyecare solutions" products.
There's not much chance of that employing all 500 people being put out of work over the next 20 months as the American corporation moves production to Waterford in Ireland and Rochester, in upstate New York.
In meetings with the Scottish management - who will also be out of work and who say the first they heard of the threat was less than six weeks ago - West Lothian Council and then John Swinney, the economy secretary were today firmly dissuaded from launching a jobs-saving campaign.
This looks like a company that did its homework before Friday's announcement, watching what happened to Diageo.
Its first lesson was to engage politicians first. Alex Salmond met the chairman/chief executive, Jerry Ostrov, twice in recent weeks.
And Scottish Enterprise sent a team to the Rochester headquarters in a bid to make a case for keeping the plant open.
B&L's next lesson was to emphasise the scale of its savings.
A statement from the chairman and chief executive saying the closure of one of his three plants would save "hundreds of millions of pounds" over the long term was a clear steer about the prohibitive cost of subsidising him to stay.
The debate has since moved to why Waterford proved more attractive.
The answers seem straight-forward. It's double the scale, with room for expansion, and its got a research base attached.
The company owns the site, whereas it leases the one in Scotland. Severance costs would have been much higher in Ireland, as the average time spent working there - at around 16 years - is double that of the Scottish workforce.
Having corporation tax at less than half the rate of the UK may not have done any harm to Ireland's case either.
But then, it's hard to make that argument for being more like Ireland while explaining the near doubling of Ireland's unemployment rate during the recession.
After a summit on jobs today in Glasgow, I asked Alex Salmond about the issue.
While he said the Scottish workforce is not too flexible, from an employment point of view, he claimed Britain is probably the cheapest place in Europe in which to close a plant, and urged policy makers (at Westminster) to think through the implications of that.
He also defended the Scottish Government's approach to the campaign on Diageo/Johnnie Walker jobs, having taken flak from CBI Scotland and the company's chief executive, Paul Walsh, for making Scotland look hostile to inward investors.
He said: "People are entitled to campaign for their jobs. If we ever accept any assumption in Scotland that people don't have a right to fight for our jobs, then we'll be a poor country indeed.
"Don't under-rate the international respect there is for a workforce committed to fighting for their jobs and the traditions that make their industry what it is".
The proof of their pride in the product? Well, the whisky bottlers gave the first minister a bottle of Black Label for his efforts in supporting them - possibly of more use to him than a month's supply of contact lenses.
Hullo, I'm Douglas Fraser, and I'm business and economy editor at ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland. Welcome to my blog, where you can read my take on money matters, viewed from a Scottish perspective.
Comment number 1.
At 8th Sep 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:To recap then.
We make it easy to come in - generous grants.
We make it difficult to stay - inflexible work force and higher company taxes.
We make it easy to leave - "cheapest place in Europe to close a plant"
Solution - make it easy to come , easy to stay, and difficult to leave.
I must be missing something, surely.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 8th Sep 2009, corporationtax wrote:Got to be said that the company is a world leader and has invested substantial funds in the plant over the years. But, as usual, someone else has offered better terms, this time Waterford in Ireland who get the prize of remaining open (only after undercutting Scottish Enterprise). Point is though that 500 job losses here equates to a net increase in staff at the other manufacturing plant in Rochester of 30!!
Unbelievable. But, just how inefficient are these plants that you can wipe them out and to quote the company "The long-term cost savings alone are hundreds of millions of dollars"? The only good news for the workforce is that the phased closure will take place over the next 14 to 18 months, but only to protect disruption to product supplies!
Quite simply a tragedy and once these companies go, they don't come back. Ever.
We need some sort of old fashioned industrial policy to provide proper workforce protection. As usual, Scottish Enterprise are asleep on the job.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 8th Sep 2009, Alan_Late_Again wrote:Re: nine2ninetysix (and corporationtax)
"Easy to come in - generous grants": yes; Scottish Enterprise have SOME money.
"Difficult to stay - inflexible work force and higher company taxes": sounds to me like legislation; what, pray tell, can Scottish Enterprise do here?
"Easy to leave - "cheapest place in Europe to close a plant"": legislation again; what can Scottish Enterprise do other than enforce clawback terms on earlier grants?
You people vastly overrate the power of Scottish Enterprise in the face of a global company's senior management decision making. And even the Scottish Government can't do anything about corporation tax.
Did you actually read Douglas Fraser's blog?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 9th Sep 2009, nine2ninetysix wrote:Thank you # 3
I think the problem with Scottish Enterprise is that in reality it is UK enterprise(Scotlandshire branch)
"And even the Scottish Government can't do anything about corporation tax".
I agree, not yet anyway
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 9th Sep 2009, corporationtax wrote:no 3, if you think you can run an industrial and economic policy by chasing ambulances, then good luck to you. To see how inward investment should be managed, have a look at the Irish body and the newish magnet in Hungary. Shows it can be done, we sort of don't relly turn up at the match.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Sep 2009, Alan_Late_Again wrote:#5
The examples you give are both nation states in control of national policy - within EU rules.
Scotland is not.
And, Scottish Enterprise, who you earlier claimed 'are asleep on the job', do not have the powers or budget to compete with nations.
Other than pointing out how bad/typical you believe the Bausch & Lomb situation is, do you have any suggestions regarding what the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise should be doing?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th Sep 2009, corporationtax wrote:no 6. If you had cared to read my post, rather than adopting the usual nationalist defensive posture, you would have seen "We need some sort of old fashioned industrial policy to provide proper workforce protection". That would appear to be my suggestion, Fairly simple to understand when you read it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 14th Sep 2009, Alan_Late_Again wrote:no 7
i am not adopting nationalist defensive posture.
i am only saying that your first comment attacks the wrong target: scottish enterprise - who cannot bring about an "old fashioned industrial policy to provide proper workforce protection".
and, far from arguing that we need independence or more devolved powers, i merely asked "do you have any suggestions regarding what the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise should be doing?"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)