News and information on Royal Dutch Shell Plc.
LondonLad: Wow I unusually find myself agreeing with both “Outsider” and “Relieved” over drugs and alcohol usage on the rigs / in the office etc. Neither were acceptable in RDS during my time (and weren’t in any other major company). Seems that old “Elmer Fud” has fired a dud with his stupid commentary on the issue – off to the Betty Ford clinic for you my lad.
Nexus: SNEPCO office relocation to Warri - good points raised. I also remember Warri being a thriving community and Shell roots being in Warri for many years, before the violence and local corruption commenced. Zik I would suggest that you also need to petition a number of authorities, such as NNPC, NAPIMS and the Federal Government, as they have more local producing assets / blocks than SNEPCO, which has one block 121 km from Warri. Please also note Shell has the Forcados Terminal near Warri, the only operator in Nigeria to do so. I am personally appalled that the so called Governors, Lawmakers and people who say the represent the people of Nigeria continue to support that idiot of a President. In some respects times were better under Abacha,
Nexus: Addressing the comments on drugs and alcohol - Shell has a clear D&A Policy, and those who seek help will receive it from Shell. Please also bear in mind that the D&A policy is not just about illicit narcotics, but also covers prescribed medicine that May effect an individual's ability to perform a task. I would like to know what has happened with OSSL and their grievances with Shell.
Outsider: Working and living offshore is not the most satisfying experience, and there is no doubt that in spite of drugs testing and termination of people failing urine tests, there are people who seek respite from the rig environment by using substances that are illegal in some jurisdictions. The most effective way to stop this is to permit small quantities of alcohol as was the case in the past.
Relieved: With regard to the 'drugs' comments, I don't know about any of you folks, but I wouldn't want to be working the big rigs with people who were shooting up on their 'off time'. The oil field is no place for people who do drugs. These people put others at risk of serious injury or death.
Outsider: I'm not familiar with the rules, but Shell is a Dutch company
Elmer Fud: What kind of a company includes in its safety rules something like: "No drugs at work", in a jurisdiction where any narcotic substance is against the law. What is that supposed to mean, something like: "It's OK if you do drugs, just don't do them at work"? Ridiculous! And yes, Shell employees are definitely afraid to speak up, restricted by the fear of loosing their jobs.
Anon: A goed post Elmer. We has many bully's in management and people survey results show that staff are to scared to speak against them or of the bad work and money wasting in the scare of their careers. We has dictators and control freaks at the high level. The change will come soon now we have the dutch CEP and people will get shown the doors. It is the Houston cowboys as also the HQ EVP and VPs to blame
MOLE: Why was SARNIA (Canada) REFINERY Manager recently fired?
Elmer Fud: Shell’s history from its early days and until now is incredibly controversial, to say the least. Shell’s reputation, therefore, is very negative. Negative to the point, where the general public will never anymore associate Shell with anything positive and worthy of their respect. The general public will not ever again ingratiate in their minds and hearts the entity that calls itself Shell, no matter what it does on the public arena. Shell is after changing the public opinion about itself. As yet another instrument of revamping its reputation, Shell sees influencing its employees, so as to turn them into good ambassadors of Shell. In their desire to create proper ambassadorship, the managers of Shell become blind and prohibitive towards true talent among Shell's ranks. There are plenty of Shell’s employees, if not majority, who are irresponsible, lazy, disrespectful and arrogant. There are plenty of Shell’s managers, if not majority, who are disrespectful, abusive and manipulative towards their junior-in-rank colleagues and each other, although they will exert every effort to hide those predominant and really obvious traits. However, all those individuals somehow always end up receiving encouragement and avoiding responsibility for their wrong-doings. There are other negative tendencies in the attitude of Shell’s managers: unjustly biased attitude towards newcomers, lacking fair judgment - punish the innocent and reward those, who did not contribute to success, perceive all subordinates as equally incompetent and negligent regardless of their true abilities. Shell makes a mistake, if it believes it can influence its reputation through its employees in one way or the other. Trying to inspire ambassadorship among Shell’s employees is a waste of resources. Trying to reanimate or create new positive corporate citizen image and reputation under the old “Shell” name, logo, and everything that associates with it, is a gross waste of resources, and of investors’ money. The image of Shell is so negative, that even its employees laugh at it openly. The general public will never ingratiate Shell. It is surprising, how Shell investors are not opposing this. However, Shell is a huge conglomerate that does poses all the things necessary to operate in the industry: the capital, the hardware, the know-how, the intellectual potential. Therefore, Shell is still around. If Shell thinks it deserves to be around, then it definitely needs to change its image-salvaging policy. Shell really wants to manipulate the public opinion, it has to stop trying to salvage or reanimate the old image of Shell. Instead the enterprise has to recreate itself under new fresh image and insignia, absolutely not connected to the old one: not by name, not by logo, not even by association to particular individuals, insofar as the legislation in the field would permit such a move. And make sure the newly established entity, under new logo, name and image, does well with the public from there on out. Why waste the resources, when you can just rebrand and work under name, which no one associates with anything at all from the start? A bit of time and the new name will stand for affordable good-quality products in consumer heads. Is this not what is after? Maybe it is cheaper to waste resources on revamping old image and hope the negative reputation will die as generations become history, then it is to rebrand. It’s a mystery… There is a video documentary on partisan movement on the territories of former Soviet Union during WWII. It featured some footage of the Soviet partisans destroying a Nazi train carrying supplies to the Nazi army in Russia. A number of carriages were fuel-tanks. Guess what insignia had been on the tanks? - Big letters: “S H E L L”. Today, 70 years after WWII, In Russia the masses and the public opinion are still successfully manipulated by the state, using the idea of something: “… oh, those are Nazis, hate them, annihilate them, they do not deserve to exist per definition...” I bet you could feed any lie to Russians under the sauce of: ”It’s a Nazi” Just as Russia will hate the German Nazi of WWII forever, so will the image of Shell remain forever negative in the eyes of the general public. Let’s allow Shell to do the thinking. Let’s Shell!