The huge workers' roar that greeted Ineos chairman Calum MacLean's announcement that the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant would not close after all expressed the relief felt by workforce and community alike.

No-one doubts the hardship that workers will endure as a result of a three-year pay freeze, cancellation of bonuses and an end to the final-salary pension scheme.

However, the overwhelmingly unionised workforce, which had won their excellent conditions in better times, decided that in the current economic situation the most important consideration is to defend jobs by keeping the plant in operation.

Ineos management, dominated by multibillionaire Jim Ratcliffe, used fears of long-term unemployment and destitution for Grangemouth and the surrounding area to win acquiescence to its sign-up-or-ship-out ultimatum.

It could have sat down at any time with Unite to discuss the way forward and make the case for changes to existing conditions, as most companies would have done.

But Ratcliffe was not interested in negotiations. He was intent on imposing his will on the workforce through manufacturing a dispute.

This took the form at first of instituting disciplinary proceedings against Unite convener Stephen Deans over his Labour Party activity, which had already been given the all-clear by police and an internal party inquiry.

Having voted to strike in support of their convener, the workforce backtracked when they realised what Ratcliffe and his cohorts had in mind - to close down the site in response to strike action and to blame the union for the shutdown.

Nevertheless, management proceeded with what was effectively a lockout to blackmail the workers into submission.

Some commentators have spoken of Unite's humiliation and surrender, but the reality is that the union has retreated in good order, retaining its membership and refusing to lead the workforce into a glorious defeat in a battle it cannot win in current circumstances.

Ineos's victory will doubtless delight the union-bashing brigade, who will be able to pronounce the last rites once again on the trade union movement.

As on so many occasions in the past, rumours of the movement's death are greatly exaggerated, since many people outside the trade unions will also be genuinely perturbed by what they have seen happen in Grangemouth.

The Scottish and Westminster governments have contributed cash and loan guarantees to Ineos to ensure that the company makes good on its plan to invest a further £300 million in the petrochemicals plant for a gas terminal to bring in US shale gas ethane.

That could ensure continued production and employment for the next quarter-century, which explains the U-turn by the workers and their union.

But there are no guarantees that this will happen since the governments at Westminster and Holyrood both worship at the altar of private enterprise, accepting the right of arrogant powerful employers to throw their weight around without fear of contradiction or sanction.

Would Ineos have got away with a lockout and a reduced-pay-and-conditions ultimatum in either Venezuela or China?

This entire episode ought to raise questions in the labour movement as to whether workers should be content to be pawns in the clutches of transnational corporations and political systems that offer nuanced variations while accepting the dominance of private capital.

Unless trade unionists pursue alternatives to neoliberal orthodoxy, the aberration in industrial relations that is Ineos will become the norm and more capitalist bosses will bargain through ultimatum than negotiations.