Unions protest because contractors are using foreign workers at power station.

SailorSam

It has been said that these immigrant workers are able to undercut the British Worker because they are living 4/5 to a room, yes that may be true but many will have wives and families at home, so they not here on the cheap. A bit like Auf Wiedersvien (spl) Pet, theBritish workers living in sheds and taking the food out of the mouths of Germans. Did we complain then ?
I thought the whole point of the EU was to raise the living standards of all it's members, we received billions in grants to build in the poorer areas, i know here in Merseyside there have been mayor projects to bring us up to some sort of level that those further south have enjoyed. Well now thesame thing is happening but with theless fortunate nations. People on this thread have commented on this thread that many Poles are already going home. I think that may happen withmany Italians and Spaniards as there economy equls ours.
It's been suggested that as this depression gets worse our govt should 'look after our own'. That will only make matters worse as other countries close there borders.
I wonder how many of you that think we should look after the uk first will give up your holiday in Spain this year so as to support the caravan owners in Rhyl.

MrFonzerelli

harrup wrote: »

Please send THOSE down to Devon ASAhumanlyP!!

The ones we have here currently want to come in late and leave early...IF they show up in the first place ( can't entirely blame them - I rather fancy doing such myself. Who wants to work when one could watch Big Brother live instead! Boooooooring )
Dedication to work the longest hours..... you are a riot.
:rotfl:

According to the UN (ILO agency): http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=52256&in_page_id=34

There's always exceptions, in all countries. I agree that unfortunately the present British tax & benefit system unfortunately leads some people into a poverty trap where they do not benefit from working.

harrup

piggeh wrote: »

harrup wrote: »

India, China, wherever, allowing any old working practise as acceptable, should not mean we do the same. Until people rid themselves of prejudice in this country then I'd rather there's an occassional injustice as a result, then let the racist, sexist, xenophobic views of some of this country's population take hold instead.

Also, generally, I think the courts are very fair in their judgement of cases, all the ones above are not easily summarised in the space of paragraph without no doubt omitting some pretty key points that the judges had to consider.

I largely agree.

But my response was to "Any" who asserted that employers can employ who they want.

The pivotal point of it was that if overzealous employment laws make it unattractive for UK companies to employ a British workforce, they will go elsewhere as a result. Which really isn't desirable.

There is a world of difference between implementing laws which prevent the ruthless exploitation of workers and true discrimination and what state of affairs it has mutated into - political correctness to a ludicrous degree. It doesn't benefit the country, or most individuals....with the exception of some and their solicitors.

What it boils down to is this: would we ultimately rather accept LESS restrictive employment laws but MORE employment opportunities? Or would we prefer every imaginable employees and Human Rights protection clause under the sun - but then compete with hundreds of hopeful applicants for every single vacancy as companies continue to outsource abroad?

The number of employments which necessitate someones actual physical presence and which can't successfully be outsourced abroad are shrinking ALL the time. We can't ALL work for the government in some capacity, either. Moreover, whilst we will always require actual hands-on people like surgeons, nurses, a police force - it's scary how many other skilled jobs are dispensable and could quite easily be replaced. Think about it: you don't think virtual GP appointments, teaching for 11 + year olds, off shore government administration, etc, etc. are feasible? Oh, but it is. Give it a few more years and watch in amazement.

If we want to live and work HERE - it would be prudent to make it as desirable as possible for employers to employ US in lieu of someone else abroad. That's the bottom line.

bubblesmoney

harrup wrote: »

Any wrote: »

One would think, wouldn't one. Alas, no.

In our PC crazy world, an employer hasn't got as much discrection in who to employ as could be assumed.

Examples:

A friend of mine is a manager for cabin crew. He chose one applicant over another - actually over many, many others - and the airline was sued ( and lost) for racial discrimination. Why? Because he offered the vacancy to a caucasion applicant over a black one. He was totally devastated as the applicant's ethnic origin had never entered the equasion. Instead, the thwarted applicant had 3 young children, was single ( divorced) ...und unsociable, constantly changing flying hours don't mesh well with family commitments. Which is why he gave the job to someone who he felt would be more reliable. But the airline backed down as they feared negative publicity.

Another pal of mine was determined to join the probation office. She had applied several times and was repeatedly rejected. Whilst she has a British passport she originates from Russia. She threatened to take them to court for "cultural discrimination"....and hey, presto - her application was successful. Regardless of the fact that there were 200 + applications for that training vacancy. She knows that it had nothing to do with cultural discrimination, they know that wasn't the reason, either. But hey-ho ....she got what she wanted.

My personal favourite: A local multi GP surgery skated on VERY thin ice when trying to re-negotiate a Spanish GP's employment. Lovely, sunny fellow....but his English was so broken, so rudimentary, that it was impossible to make head or tail of what he said. Or whether he was able to understand the nature of the helath problem described by the patient. Hugely entertaining if one didn't really need sound medical advice. Patients complained to the surgery. He supposedly threatened to sue. He staid put ( for a while). Personally, I wouldn't take my dog to a vet who couldn't speak proper English or who I wasn't certain could understand what I conveyed to him. But worried parents had to make do with for their babies.

Summary: People can't employ only who they want. Nor can they can't fire who they don't want. There are few people in this country who couldn't successfully claim they have been "discriminated against" in one way or another when they don't get what they want. Be that in either getting a job or keeping a job. For either being too young, too old, overqualified, learning disabled, wrong gender, wrong race, wrong nationality, wrong sexual orientation, wrong health status, wrong ...something. All grounds for a lovely "no win- no fee" court case. No fee for the huffy claimant, that is. Major headache and expense for the company, of course. Yes, I AM exaggerating the situation....but you get the general picture.

And THAT headache is often hotly followed by delicious strikes. Employees strike for all manner of reasons. Frequently for getting paid as much as what they accepted when they applied for the job. A sum suddenly deemed wholly insufficient and exploitative once they have it. That is if their job doesn't lead to "stessful exhaustion" first and they are off sunning themselves for a month in their back garden. Quirky.

Why do you think so many of the big UK companies relocated to India and the Far East??? They simply don't get that kind of hassle over there. Contrary to popular belief it truly wasn't just to save on labour costs.

We made our politically correct bed.....and now we collectively have to lie in it. Whilst haplessly standing by and watching other countries nabbing much needed UK jobs. Galling. Who said that being the poster child for advanced PC "enlightenment" didn't have a steep price tag? We truly are the "enlightened" ones. Jobless - or job insecure - but enlightened. Brillo. Result!

do you even know the actual success rate of discrimination claims in tribunals. what made you think just mentioning discrimination ever got anyone anywhere, far more likely they would have landed in a bigger soup. success rates of race claims in employment tribunals is about 3% among those that actually land in court. some might get solved with ACAS mediation.

do you know what people have to overcome to succeed. then have a look just as a small starter at this link. there are hundreds more but i wont bother with those. just this should be enough to shock any sane human being.

Wookster

harrup wrote: »

What it boils down to is this: would we ultimately rather accept LESS restrictive employment laws but MORE employment opportunities? Or would we prefer every imaginable employees and Human Rights protection clause under the sun - but then compete with hundreds of hopeful applicants for every single vacancy as companies continue to outsource abroad?

Thats the French model and well they have had rather high unemployment for many years now, simply because its so hard to get rid of someone once you've hired.

Darwin's theory is not that the strongest survive, but those best able to adapt - a myriad of laws and regulations totally remove the incentive to adapt.

tesuhoha

The problem with foreign workers coming here taking the low paid jobs is that the young working classes who should be doing these jobs are resting on their laurels claiming JSA which is such a small amount that they are unable to book a holiday, buy a car, rent or buy a house, buy possessions. So they are not spending money here in this country and an underclass of long term unemployed is being created.

The foreign workers are coming here to do the low paid jobs and are claiming benefits such as NHS treatment (which they qualify for immediately), income support, housing benefit and child benefit for the kids back home which they will send back to the family in Poland or Slovakia or wherever, so all that money is going out of the country. They live cheaply 10 to a house and after a few years will be off back to Poland or Slovakia or wherever to buy a house there so they are taking that money out of the country. They are costing this country more money than they are making it so it is not true that they are good for the economy.

This is why Britain is doing worse in the recession than any other country. Turkey is the next one due to join the EU and some say even more of them will come over here than the Polish. They will flood over here looking for the low paid jobs, completely aware of their benefit rights and they will be claiming everything they can to send back home from a crippled benefits system in a country which is on its knees almost bankrupt whilst British ex-pats who have paid into the NHS all their lives are no longer entitled to NHS treatment. I ask you how much more can the benefits system take?

If my son went over to Poland to look for work, in the very unlikely event of him getting a job, would they pay him income support, house him in council accomodation and give him housing benefit? Would they heckaslike. If he had kids would they give him CB to send home? There are not equal rights for economic migrants to Europe. The Eastern European workers know about our soft benefits system and that is why they are able to come here so easily. That is why illegal immigrants bypass Germany and France to slip over the Channel.

They may be very nice people and they may be harder workers but as I said before they have created an enormous social problem in this country and they have detracted from its wealth.

Wookster

tesuhoha wrote: »

So they are not spending money here and an underclass of long term unemployed is being created.

Don't you think that means that the welfare system needs to be reformed?
Why not make people do some sort of community work rather than nothing? How about work maintenance work on say our prehistoric rail network?

The idea of paying someone for nothing simply cannot be a good standard to set.

tesuhoha

Wookster wrote: »

Don't you think that means that the welfare system needs to be reformed?
Why not make people do some sort of community work rather than nothing? How about work maintenance work on say our prehistoric rail network?

The idea of paying someone for nothing simply cannot be a good standard to set.

Yes, the welfare system does need to be reformed so that the foreign workers are not treated with preference and given so many benefits so that it will not be so attractive for them to come here. Then perhaps the British working classes will stand a chance of getting off the dole.

Do you really think that the answer is a massive underclass of people doing community service because they cannot find work? Incidentally, the unemployment figures are false. There are thousands who have been put on Micky Mouse courses to disguise the real unemployment figures.

Wookster

tesuhoha wrote: »

Yes, the welfare system does need to be reformed so that the foreign workers are not treated with preference and given so many benefits.

How do you propose to do that?

tesuhoha

Wookster wrote: »

How do you propose to do that?

I can't personally do anything but the Government should look at the benefit system because migrant workers are already causing problems and I think that there will be more civil unrest because people are becoming more and more resentful. The Government have to make it less attractive for them to come here.