Printable View
Before you get all angst ridden at my final elitist paragraph, rA, it was a joke. Of course those idle fekkers won't come off benefits for an Eastern European style remuneration package. Have to pay for my house, perish the thought: its my right... 😉
Tbf GP...I only suggested you sounded ‘elitist’ in your attitude to the armed forces yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
As a matter of fact I was thinking how much sense, and irony, there was in your previous post.
Indeed. Dogs, mangers etc.
I don't want to do your job but I'll defend my right to stop you doing it to the bitter end.
Sort of attitude that gives Brexiteers a bad name, and if the current impasse pisses them off, then I will derive some comfort from it.
Except, we have full employment, so there isn't a huge pool of labour available. Though there again we might not have that problem because over the past 3 years we have been losing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment and economic activity and of course tax revenue as firms relocate their operations into the EU, mind you this wont affect a lot of the Brexiteers as they are mainly highly skilled jobs, but if the no deal scenario kicks in, then many thousands more low to medium skilled jobs will go as industries relocate or cease operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny seeing the faces of those who voted leave (apart from the older retired nostalgia geeks of course) when they realise Brexit has completely ****ed up the economy for 2 or 3 decades.
No arguing with the given statistics on "full employment", Swale. Or is there? How many of those "in jobs" people are in are full time jobs? Nothing wtrong with part time jobs. There have always been part timers and always will be. In the not too distant past, however, people working part time did so out of choice. It seems, and I may be wrong, that today, a higher than previously number of those included in the number of employed people are either part time (as there aren't full time jobs available) or on those awful zero hours contracts and some of those frequently get just a couple of hours a week when, I suspect, a high % of them would prefer a "proper job".
I always treat any government statistic with caution, but I know from experience that there are not many good candidates out there for jobs at any skill level. Also one has to be careful calling zero hours contracts awful, not all are and suit some peoples circumstances, it is as with all things how such contracts are applied that makes the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
There are some pretty ****ty full time contracts with hours and shifts that any reasonable human being would not inflict on another but thats a different story.
Correct Swale, not all zero hour contracts are bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
s***ty contracts with anti social hours. Junior doctor for a start, working in excess of 100 hours a week. We all know why that is and, due to the lack of Brits training to be doctors (nurses too) we have a constant need for immigrant workers.
A friend of mine works in the care industry. 3 day long shifts are part of the package. Sometimes she gets her full whack of sleep during a shift. At other times she might get less than 6 hours sleep over the 3 days.
What bugs me is the same old, same old from the politicians. Claiming there are more people working than ever before and that unemployment is low, even claiming it as virtually full employment levels. IMO, one hour a week isn't working, it isn't a job. People are working 3 and more jobs of varying lengths in hours and still not getting by. It is also my opinion that this scenario is something that those in power have nudged in, bit by bit, over the past 30 or so years.
The first party that promises to derail the corporate gravy train and even things out will win a landslide at a General Election. What everybody needs to realise though is that a single country can't do it alone. If the UK starts taxing Apple, Google et al the way they should be taxed, you can guarantee that they will move their HQ and/or Service Centres to a country that won't tax them. Hitting the multinationals has to be a concerted worldwide action to help the man in the street.
Mostly correct Mad.
The country does need immigrants. I don't think anyone denies that.
What it doesn't need is an open door policy and lax laws that allow people who enter legally, to slip away when their time is up,
Immigrants that skilled are welcome. Immigrants that are basic labour are welcome as needed.
But folks forget that too much immigration is a cause of the misery highlighted. You mentioned doctors /nurses. Of course we need them. But for every doctor needed, how many migrants have made that need a necessity?
It drives down wages, with the massive pool available. It loads the public services. The tax payer has to address the balance.
Other countries manage to run a fair migration policy. What's our problem?
Employers take advantage of the situation and the tax payer
Absolutely nothing wrong, IMO, in a points style system like those used in Australia and New Zealand. I'd be in favour.
Or the Swiss system where you get a "work visa", vaild for x amount of years, provided you meet their skills needs. When it expires, you can get a new one if you have remained in work. If not, no visa and off you jolly well go.
I also have nothing against PROPER refugees. When you see those coming ashore from those rubber dinghies or those rescued out at sea, they all seem to be young adult males. Very few women, very few children, no passport or other ID but most seem to have their phones up and running......