UK unemployment: Why new jobs are going to migrant workers | Mail Online
Is It the open door policy to the EU ?
Is It because Labour created a welfare dependent Nation?
I remember approx two years ago, I must have approached 40 or so local teenagers to see If they would like to earn some cash for Christmas working In the kitchen of the local take-away for the Christmas period.
Not one taker even though the pay was most generous.
In the end, a Lithuanian took the job
What Is going on ?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What Is going on ?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What Is going on ?
oscar;1367783 wrote: UK unemployment: Why new jobs are going to migrant workers | Mail Online
Is It the open door policy to the EU ?
Is It because Labour created a welfare dependent Nation?
I remember approx two years ago, I must have approached 40 or so local teenagers to see If they would like to earn some cash for Christmas working In the kitchen of the local take-away for the Christmas period.
Not one taker even though the pay was most generous.
In the end, a Lithuanian took the job
There is no open door policy to the EU - there is an open door policy within the EU and that is an animal of a different stripe.
In order to join the EU a country has to satisfy the social and economic criteria of membership - that puts a limit on the pressure to migrate in search of work.
Take the Poles as an example, certainly on accession to the EU there was a surge of Poles migrating to other parts of the EU to find work but it was a short term phenomenon with the majority of Poles going home within a couple of years. Say there was an open door policy for the Sudanese for example, because the Sudan would be way outside the membership criteria of the EU the migratory pressure would be far higher, the number of migrants would be higher and it would not be temporary.
Similarly, it is not because Labour created a welfare dependent nation - unless you're advocating a return to the policies of the Great Depression maybe?
As your example shows, jobs are going to migrant workers because the migrants are willing to work - that is not a nation dependent of welfare, it's a nation that's lost the will to work. Where would you look to find the breaking of the work ethos?
Personally I'd start in the early 80s when the government was prepared to dismantle entire industries in order to break worker's power. Then I'd look to the government's dismantling of the education system (from apprenticeships and vocational training through to the devaluation of academic qualifications and the wrecking of the Universities) for removing hope from the young.
If there's no industry for the kids to work in and they cannot get proper training for the service jobs that do exist then what motive do they have to take menial jobs in a take-away to earn pin money over Christmas. Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
Is It the open door policy to the EU ?
Is It because Labour created a welfare dependent Nation?
I remember approx two years ago, I must have approached 40 or so local teenagers to see If they would like to earn some cash for Christmas working In the kitchen of the local take-away for the Christmas period.
Not one taker even though the pay was most generous.
In the end, a Lithuanian took the job
There is no open door policy to the EU - there is an open door policy within the EU and that is an animal of a different stripe.
In order to join the EU a country has to satisfy the social and economic criteria of membership - that puts a limit on the pressure to migrate in search of work.
Take the Poles as an example, certainly on accession to the EU there was a surge of Poles migrating to other parts of the EU to find work but it was a short term phenomenon with the majority of Poles going home within a couple of years. Say there was an open door policy for the Sudanese for example, because the Sudan would be way outside the membership criteria of the EU the migratory pressure would be far higher, the number of migrants would be higher and it would not be temporary.
Similarly, it is not because Labour created a welfare dependent nation - unless you're advocating a return to the policies of the Great Depression maybe?
As your example shows, jobs are going to migrant workers because the migrants are willing to work - that is not a nation dependent of welfare, it's a nation that's lost the will to work. Where would you look to find the breaking of the work ethos?
Personally I'd start in the early 80s when the government was prepared to dismantle entire industries in order to break worker's power. Then I'd look to the government's dismantling of the education system (from apprenticeships and vocational training through to the devaluation of academic qualifications and the wrecking of the Universities) for removing hope from the young.
If there's no industry for the kids to work in and they cannot get proper training for the service jobs that do exist then what motive do they have to take menial jobs in a take-away to earn pin money over Christmas. Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What Is going on ?
Bryn Mawr;1367807 wrote:
Personally I'd start in the early 80s when the government was prepared to dismantle entire industries in order to break worker's power. Then I'd look to the government's dismantling of the education system (from apprenticeships and vocational training through to the devaluation of academic qualifications and the wrecking of the Universities) for removing hope from the young.
If there's no industry for the kids to work in and they cannot get proper training for the service jobs that do exist then what motive do they have to take menial jobs in a take-away to earn pin money over Christmas. Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
I happen to totally agree with you on this. However, I do believe that some kids grow up watching a benefit cheque land on their parents doormat once a fortnight and they grow up believing this Is a way of life.
We seem to have lost a generation to no work ethic.
The systematic destruction of our Industries have led some area's devoid of any work at all especially when the mines were shut down.
I think massive Investment Is needed for young people but then the jobs have to be there for them or what Is the point of completing training schemes?
Personally I'd start in the early 80s when the government was prepared to dismantle entire industries in order to break worker's power. Then I'd look to the government's dismantling of the education system (from apprenticeships and vocational training through to the devaluation of academic qualifications and the wrecking of the Universities) for removing hope from the young.
If there's no industry for the kids to work in and they cannot get proper training for the service jobs that do exist then what motive do they have to take menial jobs in a take-away to earn pin money over Christmas. Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
I happen to totally agree with you on this. However, I do believe that some kids grow up watching a benefit cheque land on their parents doormat once a fortnight and they grow up believing this Is a way of life.
We seem to have lost a generation to no work ethic.
The systematic destruction of our Industries have led some area's devoid of any work at all especially when the mines were shut down.
I think massive Investment Is needed for young people but then the jobs have to be there for them or what Is the point of completing training schemes?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What Is going on ?
Similarly, it is not because Labour created a welfare dependent nation - unless you're advocating a return to the policies of the Great Depression maybe?
Why does Labour suffer the accolade for creating a welfare dependent nation ?
Labour hasn't been in continuous control since the inception of the welfare state.
And why does it have to be one or the other ?
The idea originally was a safety net, it has become much more than that.
As your example shows, jobs are going to migrant workers because the migrants are willing to work - that is not a nation dependent of welfare, it's a nation that's lost the will to work. Where would you look to find the breaking of the work ethos?
You are stating the blooming obvious, the difference being immigrants don't have the culture of such a luxurious safety net ?
Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
I think you are making excuses for the welfare culture.
The work ethic is required before people get to the stage of raising a family, many years before.
There is a culture of low expectation, lack of motivation, a trap from which many sections of our society find it impossible to escape.
The fact that there are minimal paid jobs alongside a generous benefit payment system may go some way to explaining the lack of get up and go amongst today's youth.
Why does Labour suffer the accolade for creating a welfare dependent nation ?
Labour hasn't been in continuous control since the inception of the welfare state.
And why does it have to be one or the other ?
The idea originally was a safety net, it has become much more than that.
As your example shows, jobs are going to migrant workers because the migrants are willing to work - that is not a nation dependent of welfare, it's a nation that's lost the will to work. Where would you look to find the breaking of the work ethos?
You are stating the blooming obvious, the difference being immigrants don't have the culture of such a luxurious safety net ?
Give them a secure job with prospects that give them hope of being able to raise and support a family and they'll work - give then a couple of weeks as a washer-up then why bother?
I think you are making excuses for the welfare culture.
The work ethic is required before people get to the stage of raising a family, many years before.
There is a culture of low expectation, lack of motivation, a trap from which many sections of our society find it impossible to escape.
The fact that there are minimal paid jobs alongside a generous benefit payment system may go some way to explaining the lack of get up and go amongst today's youth.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
What Is going on ?
So why were they not offering jobs with a decent career prospect? They might have got a better response
What Is going on ?
oscar;1367783 wrote: Is It the open door policy to the EU ?
I'm slightly puzzled about your objection.
If you migrated within England to a new city in, say, 1770, you'd have been prevented by the local council from setting up in business unless you paid an immigration fee. It was a closed-border policy. Provision existed in local laws to send immigrants back to other parts of England if they weren't wanted.
The system within England was eventually changed, again through legislation, to one of mandatory open borders. Any subject could move anywhere and set up business without hindrance. We now take that right for granted.
I see no difference to the open border policy of the EU. Any objection you might make to it now is no different to the objection English cities made to open borders back then.
The open border policy back then has turned out to the advantage of the nation a a whole. I suggest the same will apply in time to the advantage of the EU as a whole.
I'm slightly puzzled about your objection.
If you migrated within England to a new city in, say, 1770, you'd have been prevented by the local council from setting up in business unless you paid an immigration fee. It was a closed-border policy. Provision existed in local laws to send immigrants back to other parts of England if they weren't wanted.
The system within England was eventually changed, again through legislation, to one of mandatory open borders. Any subject could move anywhere and set up business without hindrance. We now take that right for granted.
I see no difference to the open border policy of the EU. Any objection you might make to it now is no different to the objection English cities made to open borders back then.
The open border policy back then has turned out to the advantage of the nation a a whole. I suggest the same will apply in time to the advantage of the EU as a whole.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.