Are workers a resource or a burden...?

mikeeboy

phillw wrote: »

My statement is correct.

You're making the mistake of assuming why they voted to leave & whether it was rational.

Sure their lives could be better but the people who thought their lives were bad because of foreigners coming here were wrong both logically and morally. It'll be interesting to see whether they are just as angry when they find their lives will get worse.

In your opinion

zagubov

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

I am employed in the public sector and this is a topic hardly discussed.
10 years ago mandatory training was conducted during work hours (at cost to the employer).
Now it is mostly conducted online during the employee's own unpaid time (ie at cost to the employee).

So in effect - a major stealth wage cut for employees.

Precisely and deliberately so.

It costs universities about 12k per year on average to teach a student. The loan covers 9k of that.

It used to be the case that people went from school into the workplace and earned their qualification on the job with day release, subsidised by their employers who were investing in their own future.

Now we're aping the US where the workforce needs to be mobile, the employers don't want to pay to educate them as they'll then just take their quals to another employer.

The government have taken the burden off the employer and landed it on the students/future employees who pay for a kind of national service acquiring some qualifications that were previously never needed for most of these jobs.

Also if the employee has paid for their own degree and earned it full-time upfront before entering the job market, that's no sweat for the employer if they leave. Cos there's another graduate stepping in straight away.

The worth of many of the degrees is debatable. Why we're subsidising courses that don't make people employable is a question too few people are asking.

phillw

mikeeboy wrote: »

In your opinion

No, it's very clearly factual & will become more so.

You can say you don't care and you'll leave anyway, but you can't change reality.

martinthebandit wrote: »

......and I'm the one making assumptions?

Yes. About a good number of things.

MEM62

Resource. No brainer. Nothing happens without them.

James_Green_1982

zagubov wrote: »

Precisely and deliberately so.

It costs universities about 12k per year on average to teach a student. The loan covers 9k of that.

It used to be the case that people went from school into the workplace and earned their qualification on the job with day release, subsidised by their employers who were investing in their own future.

Now we're aping the US where the workforce needs to be mobile, the employers don't want to pay to educate them as they'll then just take their quals to another employer.

The government have taken the burden off the employer and landed it on the students/future employees who pay for a kind of national service acquiring some qualifications that were previously never needed for most of these jobs.

Also if the employee has paid for their own degree and earned it full-time upfront before entering the job market, that's no sweat for the employer if they leave. Cos there's another graduate stepping in straight away.

The worth of many of the degrees is debatable. Why we're subsidising courses that don't make people employable is a question too few people are asking.

That is true.
My experience (from younger relatives and colleagues' relatives etc) is that the more able and motivated youngsters are now beginning to avoid university and aim more towards earlier self-employment and start-ups etc.

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

Unskilled workers come to your country because there are unskilled jobs that require filling.

People initially move for the money. Skills are secondary if there's no employment back home.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

People initially move for the money. Skills are secondary if there's no employment back home.

What is your point?

It sounds like what you're arguing is that lazy brits who neither want to attain skills or move to where work is should be protected from foreigners who are more willing to attain skills and move.

Trying to molly coddle the lazy brits doesn't do anything for britain in the long term. It's like deciding the best way to win a marathon is to disqualify anyone faster than you.

zagubov wrote: »

Now we're aping the US where the workforce needs to be mobile, the employers don't want to pay to educate them as they'll then just take their quals to another employer.

You're saying that as if it's bad. Employers providing training was incredibly unpopular as it was seen as slave labour.

The idea of someone providing work on your doorstep is outdated and way too expensive for the rest of us to subsidise. We're on a downward trend financially and can't keep affording the luxuries we once had.