How can we persuade employers NOT to use imigrant workers?

MrFonzerelli

stephen163 wrote: »

We need to encourage more people to do Maths and Science A levels - somehow!

You pay them. Simples. <as my favourite Eastern European Meerkat says>

lostinrates

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

You pay them. Simples. <as my favourite Eastern European Meerkat says>

Hmm. depends. If you mean paythem by having decent wages in science and maths jobs, sure.

I'm not keen on the system of paying people to go to college. When I was a law clerk most of the younger offenders I worked ewith were at college not because they wanted to be, or plannned to use their qualifications, but because of the £30 a week. Very short sighted. We need to be encouraged long term view...in saving, in debt, in career choices, and indeed in education. LONG term, if you are at college because of £30 a week, thats a really terrible investment of your time.

vivatifosi

As someone who has employed people from overseas I would say its down to skills and attitude. In my case it had nothing to do with money and paying less. You want the best person for the job, where they come from has nothing to do with it.

Whatever people think of the EU politically, economically I have used it as a tool to get good people from a wider recruitment pool, similarly now I run my own business I can sell my services to companies that I wouldn't otherwise sell to.

Illegal workers and asylum seekers are, as Misskool points out, different issues.

MrFonzerelli

lostinrates wrote: »

Hmm. depends. If you mean paythem by having decent wages in science and maths jobs, sure.

I'm not keen on the system of paying people to go to college. When I was a law clerk most of the younger offenders I worked ewith were at college not because they wanted to be, or plannned to use their qualifications, but because of the £30 a week. Very short sighted. We need to be encouraged long term view...in saving, in debt, in career choices, and indeed in education. LONG term, if you are at college because of £30 a week, thats a really terrible investment of your time.

I think that when people are young, they don't necessarily appreciate the link between the subjects studied now and higher wage or job prospects in future. Especially among those from poorer backgrounds who may not have been encouraged by their parents.

I agree that if people are going to college simply to collect money, this is not the intended outcome. My thoughts were that if they were inclined, they would prefer to be on full time benefits, which I believe are higher?

lostinrates

MrFonzerelli wrote: »

I think that when people are young, they don't necessarily appreciate the link between the subjects studied now and higher wage or job prospects in future. Especially among those from poorer backgrounds who may not have been encouraged by their parents.

I agree that if people are going to college simply to collect money, this is not the intended outcome. I thought that if they were inclined, they would prefer to be on full time benefits, which I believe are higher?

TBH, I don't know. AND I also am sure there are a majority of kids at college picking up this thirty quid who are genuinely hard working, good, kids

The best wy I can describe the ttitude I'm talking about is an anecdotal (sorry).

It was at London court, a ''bread and butter'' young male client. Young female barrister whose sum total work for the week was four hearings...at £46.50 each, -she was having a lean work time, though, thats fair to point out. I was doing five full days for the same firm (£50 a day). Client was saying there was no reason for him to get a job, he'd never get paid like we did, and then we starting filling in his forms with him. He was taking home a lot more than us if you include accomodation etc...although presumably we might have been entitled to some sort of tax credit or something. We..the barrister and I, found this depressingly funny..and got the giggles.

The difference was not financial difference, it was, as you say, poverty of ambition and long term thinging. That, paying people to read a subject for a couple of years, won't cure. Its far younger, IMO, we need to inspire pople, and MAINTAIN that. Its hard to persuade people to ework for average wage at 16/18/21 when as children they dreamed of not having knowledge but earning millions for looking 'good' or playing football. ETA: i think the thirty quid a week for college was seen as we might see the fiorst rung on the career ladder. Very, sadly.

Its hard because I also think academic kids should not be priced out of education.

StevieJ

jamespmg44 wrote: »

Unfortunately the skill levels here have been devalued so much due to the 50% in higher education nonsense that Blair tried to have.

Degrees have become devalued, folk who would have gone into trades/vocational training did pointless degrees at uni and ended up with poorer prospects because of this.

We need to focus on making universities harder to get in to (from an entry standpoint) and increase the worth of a degree again.

The other problem is that the generation just after me (I'm 27) were the first of the couch potato Playstation generation so aren't used to getting off their backsides to do anything.

Agree with you totally, it was just another way for Blair to limit the dole queues:cool:
BTW another of those thinly veiled posts from Dervish, I wonder who she will be voting for next May

stephen163

Its hard to convince 16 year olds to do Science or Maths A levels when they have spend most of their school career developing a deep hatred for these subjects.

If only they knew what an amazing career they miss out on by having this attitude.

StevieJ

stephen163 wrote: »

Its hard to convince 16 year olds to do Science or Maths A levels when they have spend most of their school career developing a deep hatred for these subjects.

If only they knew what an amazing career they miss out on by having this attitude.

That is the teachers job

jamespmg44

stephen163 wrote: »

I've got an engineering degree. I'd have to say, most of the people on my course were mathematically minded so had no problem in that respect. With science degrees, I would guess only 1 module per semester (out of 6) would be dedicated to maths. Extra classes are also provided to help those falling behind.

I've also said this before - the value of a degree in a relevant subject from a good university has not been devalued. I was told by a recruitment specialist of a big graduate employer that 95% of their recruits come from top 15% of the universities. But your prospects are also subject specific. For example, engineering graduates are still in high demand and most of our FTSE 100 engineering companies are now forced to recruit in places like eastern europe because there aren't enough qualified people here.

We need to encourage more people to do Maths and Science A levels - somehow!

I also have an engineering degree (MEng), part of our degree in 1st and 2nd year included doing pure maths (2 modules a year out of 15). I was sponsored through uni at the time and the company I worked for had students from an eng course from a different uni and they had 1 basic maths class in 1st year. There were also folk doing engineering that had only achieved a C in their higher maths! Having to cater for that level of student can only lower the standard of their course.

I agree that well qualified candidates from respected universities will be in demand - but my point (which I might not be making particularly eloquently - I'm an engineer after all!) is a lot of young people have been sold a false promise that a university degree = good employment prospects when in reality because they're not on a respected degree course, their qualification is worth very little in the jobs market.

jamespmg44

neas wrote: »

i;ve got a masters engineering degree... and let me tell you it certainly wasn't 'given' out... of the 100 who started the course 40 passed with a 2:1 at the end of it... the rest dropped or were forced out.

Anf i'll correct you again. In terms of engineering and scientific degrees, people are screaming for graduates... the core of the problem has been and still is, is that for tthe last ten years the following has been true for science and engineering jobs:

1. It paid less than a banker.... and prob less than an estate agent during the HPI inflation period...
2. It was rock hard and when combirned with number 1 meant not many people would bother doing it (so numbers dropped for A-Level and Degree studies)
3. Degrees in general were diluted such that you could do media studies, media studies and golf management, golf management and tourism, golf management and psychology... the list goes on.

While jobs generated from those types of degrees (num3) do exist there arent enough of them so essentially we are training our youth and future workers with worthless information than is required.... and for the jobs that are needed we aint getting enough good quality graduate educated individuals.

Engineering graduates are still being recruited now... and are head hunted. While the salary of a banker and other high paid indivduals drop... the salary of the engineer is rising slowly.. but mainting its level at least.

As for the maths comment, it is standard practice on most courses to spend 10% of the first year (not the entire year man!) reteachig/going over previous knowledge as not all entrants will enter at the same level. This will bring everyone up to speed for the course and typically is taught in first 3 months of a degree. I was one who already did further maths so it was a little borrowing but I dont think it was time wasted in the grand scheme.

Sorry for having a rant, but i believe you are having an ill infromed 'rant' as well. the problems are that the economy rewarded not engineers, not scientists who are the bricks and mortar of new innovation... but bankers and estate agents who got us into this recession in the first place ;P.

Do agree that not everyone can be a rocket scientist or nucear scientist and that should be represented in their pay packet... which at the moment it is not.

I'm an MEng as well and from a respected enginering university and it was blooming hard work for 5 years. My point (poorly put) was that unless the degree is from a respected university it isn't worth as much due to lower entry requirements and an easier curriculum. I'd hazzard a guess that someone from a good university will know more after their honours year than someone from an ex poly with a masters.

Whilst I agree bankers/EA pay levels are overpaid in relation to their skills whilst engineering pays less, I was trying to respond to the OPs question about encouraging companies to hire the indegenous population ahead of immigrants.