Caporegime
Monster trucking might just be a euphemism...
Large increase in migrant workers.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
Caporegime
Wish i had a degree in Monster Trucking and not Applied Geology.
Soldato
This......
slowly over the past few decades the youth have been brainwashed into thinking they ave to go to university to be someone.
It started off with the conversion of all polytechnics to universities. It was then further amplified by the introduction of all these dross filled courses that don't actually give you any decent skills that make you employable but simply give you a few letters after your name and the impression that because of those letters you should be bale to walk into a 40K / year job straight out of Uni.
It was then used as a tool by successive labour governments to 'massage' the unemployment figures. If you can get almost an entire slice of the countries population into university they suddenly disappear from the unemployment register.
The fact remains that you don't need to have a university based education to be successful. People need to understand this. If someone has more practical skills than academic why in gods name are they going to torture themsleves for 3 years, run up 40k debt and likely knacker their liver up for 3 years when they should really be doing a more skill based work. Apprenticeships seriously need to come back in force and the governments obsession with university for all approach needs rework.
the reason we have a lack of skills for some job sectors isnt an obsession with getting degrees, its the fact a lot of companies have abandoned apprenticeships. and would rather hire people fully trained up.
but seeing as all a company see's is short sighted reasons not to, just shows that a lot of so called managers and company directors dont know what there doing. let alone the hr experts who tell them how to hire people.
but seeing as all a company see's is short sighted reasons not to, just shows that a lot of so called managers and company directors dont know what there doing. let alone the hr experts who tell them how to hire people.
Just wrong, most companies are actively searching for apprentices because the are a shortage of skilled workers and they have to come from somewhere, however the just aren't any. We tried calling the local college of learning (former poly tech) to see if they had any part time technical students who would want a job in their chosen field and were told they hardly had enough people to run their technical courses because everyone these days has been conditioned to want to go for academic areas.
just out of intrest what are you offering and asking for people to become an aprentice ??
as iv seen a few companies who seem to think you need to have at least a min of c's across all your gcse's and a few who want at least 3 a's. all very well looking for the best students to fill the gaps but i get the feeling some companies paint themselves in to a corner looking for perfection rather than people who have a genuine intrest in the subject.
as for me being wrong, i guess i could have worded it better. but from what iv seen around here the past 15 years in the engineering firms its been rather shocking how some places just didnt take any one on who wasnt fully qualified for 10+ years.
and now there all panicing as theres no one to work there, seen the same adverts for two places screaming out for experienced lathe operators for the past 3 months now.
as iv seen a few companies who seem to think you need to have at least a min of c's across all your gcse's and a few who want at least 3 a's. all very well looking for the best students to fill the gaps but i get the feeling some companies paint themselves in to a corner looking for perfection rather than people who have a genuine intrest in the subject.
as for me being wrong, i guess i could have worded it better. but from what iv seen around here the past 15 years in the engineering firms its been rather shocking how some places just didnt take any one on who wasnt fully qualified for 10+ years.
and now there all panicing as theres no one to work there, seen the same adverts for two places screaming out for experienced lathe operators for the past 3 months now.
We are offering the standard wages for apprentices as set by the HVCA, for qualifications, as you said a minimum average of C's at GCSE would be required, higher is preferable but in our defence apprentices cost money, the amount you can charge a customer for having them on site is barely more than what you must pay them and they slow the engineer with them down, it would be a waste of time/money/resources to try and train somebody who couldn't manage C's at GCSE, especially considering some of the qualifications they should end up with when fully qualified are on the same level as a HND or FdSc.
In 3 months they could have trained somebody who has never seen a lathe to use one surely? Their just being stupid there.
im sure they could have trained someone the basics to get started, but they want people with a min of 5 years exp which to be blunt they just aint going to find around here anymore.
as for what your asking maybe you should look a bit lower, i didnt have any c's yet i still managed to get on as an aprentice joiner and got a nvq out of it. some people just dont do well at schools and get bored, id rather have someone who's interested in the job than highly educated at school especially if its more of a hands on job.
as for what your asking maybe you should look a bit lower, i didnt have any c's yet i still managed to get on as an aprentice joiner and got a nvq out of it. some people just dont do well at schools and get bored, id rather have someone who's interested in the job than highly educated at school especially if its more of a hands on job.
Man of Honour
And you don't think that the fact that nearly all well-paid jobs insist on graduates might not be a factor?
M
The British economy is supposed to serve British people. Why does it matter what 'value' it has if it doesn't do that?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
Amen brother !
Interesting point. Do you think sending them all home would be better or worse for the economy?
Associate
Is that not a circular argument though? More people have degrees making it harder for non graduates to get a job, so a greater proportion of people go to uni to get a degree, making it even harder to get a job for non graduates...
Not sure how we get out of this situation though, although exposing people to the cost of their education may help.
Controversial rant;
Lower minimum wage, invest in a new superport and introduce a low tax "special economic zone" around the superport. Strengthen ties with Chinese and Indian Gov, arrange economic agreements, lower/remove import tariffs.
And we might be able to keep pace with the rising Asian super-economies.
Don't care who or what takes the new jobs, immigrants or not, if they live in this country and want to do their part then let it be.
Lower minimum wage, invest in a new superport and introduce a low tax "special economic zone" around the superport. Strengthen ties with Chinese and Indian Gov, arrange economic agreements, lower/remove import tariffs.
And we might be able to keep pace with the rising Asian super-economies.
Don't care who or what takes the new jobs, immigrants or not, if they live in this country and want to do their part then let it be.
tl;dr
Few things to say/relate regarding all of this -
Employers are a big part of the problem. Many big companies recruit agency workers on low wages because they can use/get shot of them as and when their profits require, without all the bothersome issues with trying to do that to a fulltime salaried worker.
Sure, it might cost the company £12 ph to the agency and £6 ph to the worker, but it's probably still cheaper than paying a salaried worker holiday pay, pension contributions (private and/or state), redundancy etc.
Two examples of these companies near me are Pepsico/Walkers, Caterpillar.
In the case of Caterpillar, my cousin worked there as a fulltime employee for two or three years. He was made redundant along with a lot of the FT staff. They were all replaced by a selection of temporary agency staff and government sponsored 'apprentices' from under 25's new deal type of schemes...
These guys were employed for 6 months until their apprenticeship was done, then let go. Then Caterpillar got another bunch of people from the same scheme and repeated the process. All the while being paid by the government to employ these people in the short term.
Meanwhile, my cousin is out of work with kids and a mortgage to pay for.
As for Walkers/Pepsico... I worked for them for a while as a temp. But due to not being able to earn enough reliable hourly monies each week, I jacked it in to look for something that would guarantee me a wage - many times you'd be sent home because there would not be enough work on the 8 to 12 hour shifts, and if you're not in the warehouse working, you don't get paid. How are you supposed to 'work fulltime' when you might not get paid for a fulltime job?. I found this to be very difficult to get my head around, until I realised that neither pepsico/walkers nor its in-house agency, ranstad, gave a **** about me or my income.
Honestly, it's easy to see why these companies have 'in-house' agencies recruiting for them; on their own admission they have 'high staff turnover' well now I know why.
The last fulltime job I had made me and the rest of the CAD department redundant because they 'didn't make enough profit this year' because they'd bought out our next largest competitor who was making a huge loss and brought loads of debt with them, which my company assimilated... so yeah, of course they weren't going to make as much money this year as last... solution? make cuts in the workers! Great
I guess they could always hire more staff next year? lol In reality they outsourced all the drawing office work.
Since then all I've had is crappy temporary jobs, either doing cad or more recently, warehousing, because the construction market has crashed in the recession. I'd like a fulltime job and contribute more to the economy with spending and all of that jazz, but the truth of the matter is most companies don't want fulltime workers because it's cheaper for them to employ temps from agencies.
Now I'm not sure of the veracity of what I'm going to recount next, I heard it on radio 4 some months back, so bear with me. Regarding immigrant workers - eastern european mainly. It was said that they get child benefit, whilst working here, for children living back in poland, for example. Also that if they are working here for six months or less, they get a rebate for all the tax/national insurance they have paid here when they go home and are free to repeat the process of working for six months, sending money back home, returning home etc etc. For some reason that does not sit well with me.
I know my english mate, who is married to a polish girl, gets FA from the polish state in terms of support. Things seem to be different when it's the other way around though.
I have several polish neighbours in my street; they are no better or worse than any of the other residents tbh. Though the couple a few doors down... he behaves like some gangsta dude, with his mates and his old bmw, drinking beer outside the house in the car [irony]it was clamped recently for having no road tax[/irony], slapping his woman about, generally being a bit of a ******.
Which ever way I look at it, the economy here is borked - spending, benefits, employment, labour market, loans, employer growth, all of it.
Few things to say/relate regarding all of this -
Employers are a big part of the problem. Many big companies recruit agency workers on low wages because they can use/get shot of them as and when their profits require, without all the bothersome issues with trying to do that to a fulltime salaried worker.
Sure, it might cost the company £12 ph to the agency and £6 ph to the worker, but it's probably still cheaper than paying a salaried worker holiday pay, pension contributions (private and/or state), redundancy etc.
Two examples of these companies near me are Pepsico/Walkers, Caterpillar.
In the case of Caterpillar, my cousin worked there as a fulltime employee for two or three years. He was made redundant along with a lot of the FT staff. They were all replaced by a selection of temporary agency staff and government sponsored 'apprentices' from under 25's new deal type of schemes...
These guys were employed for 6 months until their apprenticeship was done, then let go. Then Caterpillar got another bunch of people from the same scheme and repeated the process. All the while being paid by the government to employ these people in the short term.
Meanwhile, my cousin is out of work with kids and a mortgage to pay for.
As for Walkers/Pepsico... I worked for them for a while as a temp. But due to not being able to earn enough reliable hourly monies each week, I jacked it in to look for something that would guarantee me a wage - many times you'd be sent home because there would not be enough work on the 8 to 12 hour shifts, and if you're not in the warehouse working, you don't get paid. How are you supposed to 'work fulltime' when you might not get paid for a fulltime job?. I found this to be very difficult to get my head around, until I realised that neither pepsico/walkers nor its in-house agency, ranstad, gave a **** about me or my income.
Honestly, it's easy to see why these companies have 'in-house' agencies recruiting for them; on their own admission they have 'high staff turnover' well now I know why.
The last fulltime job I had made me and the rest of the CAD department redundant because they 'didn't make enough profit this year' because they'd bought out our next largest competitor who was making a huge loss and brought loads of debt with them, which my company assimilated... so yeah, of course they weren't going to make as much money this year as last... solution? make cuts in the workers! Great
I guess they could always hire more staff next year? lol In reality they outsourced all the drawing office work.Since then all I've had is crappy temporary jobs, either doing cad or more recently, warehousing, because the construction market has crashed in the recession. I'd like a fulltime job and contribute more to the economy with spending and all of that jazz, but the truth of the matter is most companies don't want fulltime workers because it's cheaper for them to employ temps from agencies.
Now I'm not sure of the veracity of what I'm going to recount next, I heard it on radio 4 some months back, so bear with me. Regarding immigrant workers - eastern european mainly. It was said that they get child benefit, whilst working here, for children living back in poland, for example. Also that if they are working here for six months or less, they get a rebate for all the tax/national insurance they have paid here when they go home and are free to repeat the process of working for six months, sending money back home, returning home etc etc. For some reason that does not sit well with me.
I know my english mate, who is married to a polish girl, gets FA from the polish state in terms of support. Things seem to be different when it's the other way around though.
I have several polish neighbours in my street; they are no better or worse than any of the other residents tbh. Though the couple a few doors down... he behaves like some gangsta dude, with his mates and his old bmw, drinking beer outside the house in the car [irony]it was clamped recently for having no road tax[/irony], slapping his woman about, generally being a bit of a ******.
Which ever way I look at it, the economy here is borked - spending, benefits, employment, labour market, loans, employer growth, all of it.
For me the combination of lack of aspirations of the native british uneployed people added to the fact that is has never been so financially comfortable to be unemployed.
Migrant workers must have a desire to improve their situation by migrating in the first place. Added to that, a majority seem to want to work, something that is lacking in a huge number of the native british unemployed.
Migrant workers must have a desire to improve their situation by migrating in the first place. Added to that, a majority seem to want to work, something that is lacking in a huge number of the native british unemployed.
jumpy come october it will get even dafter when the tempory working directive starts.
work 12 weeks at the same place with an agency and they have to start paying you the same as the full timers with the same conditions, sick holidays and uniform.
an agency i was working with has already said they will rotate people so god only knows what state the jobs markets going to end up in now.
work 12 weeks at the same place with an agency and they have to start paying you the same as the full timers with the same conditions, sick holidays and uniform.
an agency i was working with has already said they will rotate people so god only knows what state the jobs markets going to end up in now.
^^
I was kind of thinking (back when I first heard about the temp working directive) that this would be a great improvement. Not so sure now I come to examine the idea a little closer; I mean, yer, it is a good idea for me in terms of pay/rights etc, but if I know agencies, they'll find some way to make it work for them and not me 'rotating people' as you put it sounds like a disaster in the making.
I was kind of thinking (back when I first heard about the temp working directive) that this would be a great improvement. Not so sure now I come to examine the idea a little closer; I mean, yer, it is a good idea for me in terms of pay/rights etc, but if I know agencies, they'll find some way to make it work for them and not me
'rotating people' as you put it sounds like a disaster in the making.
Soldato
You make quite a few interesting points there, while I don't agree with all of them I can see where you're coming from and understand your frustration.
From my own point of view and experience I would lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of our previous government. They opened the floodgates allowing the many Eastern Europeans to integrate into our society while at the same time creating an entire generation who are too lazy to work as they're financially better off on the benefits provided by our taxes! Many of them have been here for a number of years now, and as others have said many are placing a burden on our entire infrastructure as the money they send back to their place of birth far out weighs their financial contribution to society. Again from my own experience I see around 80% of the staff working in a large distribution centre in Scotland that are employed by agencies and are paid far less than the companies own employees. In October when the temporary working directive starts this will open another can of worms which I'm sure the above companies will twist to their own advantage exploiting these people even further!
So, how do we resolve this situation? Well adapting the attitude of "send them back" would probably harm the economy even further and given it's current state this really isn't a feasible option! Personally, I think the first thing we need to do is implement a serious overhaul of our benefit system preventing these people for claiming benefits for children overseas. Secondly (and this will be next to impossible) we need to introduce a sense of pride in our "benefit generation" proving they are better off in employment (regardless of the type of work) while ensuring they are financially better off.
While the above will not prevent the "large increase in migrant workers" as the OP states from "stealing our jobs" at the very least it would be a few steps in the right direction!
well the agency first said "you will work somewhere 12 weeks then have a few weeks off" but then they read the documents again and worked out that wouldnt work, so suggested they would probably rotate staff to "give you more experience in different places".
companies will eat it up and we will all be used and abused even more, cant win either way now.
companies will eat it up and we will all be used and abused even more, cant win either way now.