Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

  • Total voters
    1,204
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moses said:
A points system. It won't be flawless, but it'll sort the wheat from the chaff to an extent.
Click to expand...

No it wont, because a large number of the workers the UK requires just don't fit the profile of a skills based point system. Such system fail under the conditions I pointed out, where some government body far form the actual employers its making arbitrary decisions about what skills deserve points and what don't. How many points do you get for being able to carry a heavy load of brick for 8 hours a day? If someone can pick 200 apples in an 7 hour day and someone else 275 apples in an 8 hour day, how many points do they each get? Does someone who is 6ft4 get more points than a 5ft8 in person because they can pick apple higher up the tree? If 1 person has experience operating a combine harvester and someone else has only experience with farm tractors, what is the difference in points?

Seems much easier just to let the employers decide who they want to hire based on their individual needs.


There will of course be additional costs involved, and it'll require more effort than before on the part of the employer and potential employee, but it's ridiculous to pretend it'd be some awful barrier.
Click to expand...
Its not an awful barrier, it is simply not needed in the slightest and so any increase in cost and reduction in productivity is a waste that can eaisly be eliminated.
 
deuse said:
The same as it costs the USA..NOTHING. As the person who wants to come in to the country pays for everything
edit= also the visa system will create jobs.
Click to expand...

COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN, the employer has to cover all costs. it is illegal for the employee to have to pay for the visa cost, or suffer reduced salary due to the visa cost. My employer paid around $12K in fees, a large chunk of that straight to the lawyers.
 
deuse said:
You've been told this so many times now it's silly.

The visa system. Yes the very same system you and your wife had to pass ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, an expensive visa system that add considerable financial cost to US companies, increases the time to hire suitable candidates, reduces productivity as companies can't hire workers quickly enough to fill empty rolls, makes layers very rich, and still lets in hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers through the H2A visa program.


Even then the US visa program is so damaging to the US economy that the states themselves ACTIVELY support illegal immigrant to bypass the federal laws:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-immigrant-rights-20150811-story.html


Then there are the numerous cases of US companies setting up new offices outside the US so they can circumvent the highly damaging Visa system.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
Yes, an expensive visa system that add considerable financial cost to US companies, increases the time to hire suitable candidates, reduces productivity as companies can't hire workers quickly enough to fill empty rolls, makes layers very rich, and still lets in hundreds of thousands of unskilled workers through the H2A visa program.
Click to expand...

There's no free lunch: somebody, somewhere has to stump up the cash; even if the state borrows it under the table! There's not as much magic in the treasury as some Harry Potter fans might believe. Honestly!
 
Always worth reading the facts:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62H.pdf

  • Any expenses, including attorney fees, directly related to the filing of the Labor Condition Application (Form ETA 9035 a
    nd/or ETA 9035E) (20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(9)(ii));
  • Any expenses, including attorney fees and the premium processing fee (INA § 286(u)) directly related to the filing of the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker
    (Form I-129/129W) (20 C.F.R. § 655.731(c)(9)(ii) and (iii)(C));
Click to expand...
 
D.P. said:
Always worth reading the facts:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62H.pdf
Click to expand...

I know it's popular in some Leave circles to bash the 'employing class', but come on: business will get easier, less rules, fewer costs... oh wait! Mind, just because someone is anti-EU and (amazingly I found some) anti-international law, doesn't make them an expert on the British equivalent. They appeal to authority and tradition, and it always delivers, right?
 
D.P. said:
COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN, the employer has to cover all costs. it is illegal for the employee to have to pay for the visa cost, or suffer reduced salary due to the visa cost. My employer paid around $12K in fees, a large chunk of that straight to the lawyers.
Click to expand...

Good idea imo - gives employers an incentive to train up local workers before they start importing workers from abroad.
 
D.P. said:
COMPLETELY WRONG AGAIN, the employer has to cover all costs. it is illegal for the employee to have to pay for the visa cost, or suffer reduced salary due to the visa cost. My employer paid around $12K in fees, a large chunk of that straight to the lawyers.
Click to expand...

My answer was to you who asked how it would be done. And I'm correct. It costs the USA 0.

I never said that the employer didn't have to pay. You added it on(as normal).
 
scorza said:
Good idea imo - gives employers an incentive to train up local workers before they start importing workers from abroad.
Click to expand...

And what if the apprentice fails his training multiple times? His government-backed funding runs out, which happens often enough now? Doesn't have the prerequisite skills anyway? And what if the business is unwilling or has no capacity to offer full training? The chap quits: costing everyone time, money and productivity? You do realise that social, economic and academic failures are a touch harder to undo than having someone 'just do it'.

Having on-the-job training is good. Further and adult education is good. Forcing businesses to allocate staff budgets to building up candidates from nothing or a very low base for jobs, both raises major questions about the education system and viability of those businesses against competitors who can get the staff to fill roles quicker, locally or abroad.

It's more of a general poke, really: Vocational apprenticeships have failure rates, and their quality is very variable in the UK regardless, depending on where on the private/public line of provision and responsibility they fall. Costs, time lost, damaging to business; but nobody seems genuinely willing to tally this up on the cons side again. And as deuse says, if you're lacking on the home front, you have to start bringing the migrant numbers back up again, through a visa system or otherwise; which of course goes directly against the major populist argument -- drastically cutting net migration levels to silly targets.
 
datalol-jack said:
And what if the apprentice fails his training multiple times? His government-backed funding runs out, which happens often enough now? Doesn't have the prerequisite skills anyway? And what if the business is unwilling or has no capacity to offer full training? The chap quits: costing everyone time, money and productivity? You do realise that social, economic and academic failures are a touch harder to undo than having someone 'just do it'.

Having on-the-job training is good. Further and adult education is good. Forcing businesses to allocate staff budgets to building up candidates from nothing or a very low base for jobs, both raises major questions about the education system and viability of those businesses against competitors who can get the staff to fill roles quicker, locally or abroad.

It's more of a general poke, really: Vocational apprenticeships have failure rates, and their quality is very variable in the UK regardless, depending on where on the private/public line of provision and responsibility they fall. Costs, time lost, damaging to business; but nobody seems genuinely willing to tally this up on the cons side again. And as deuse says, if you're lacking on the home front, you have to start bringing the migrant numbers back up again, through a visa system or otherwise; which of course goes directly against the major populist argument -- drastically cutting net migration levels to silly targets.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is? We're talking about systems that can be put in place, obviously it's not going to work in every single case but neither does that mean that it's a waste of time putting that system in place. We can all cherry-pick hypothetical examples to support our case, I'm not sure how much value there is in doing so.
 
Moses said:
That is another point. Yes, immigration controls add cost and effort, but like you say that could mean the employer would find it cheaper and easier to hire people living here and train them up (obviously that's not applicable to companies hiring people with decades of experience, etc, before someone shoots down that straw man... straw man-ception...)
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the 'foreigners taking our jobs' wing won't be appeased. When they say 'control' they proxy 'active discrimination'. Furthermore, having several exceptions or systems running in parallel, and borrowed from the past say, not only costs but won't drastically reduce numbers either.

I really don't see how the Leavers can resolve their inherent globalist/isolationist conflict. Which is it? The joint platform must come clean to the voter.

scorza said:
I'm not sure what your point is?
Click to expand...

Dreams and budgets, and squaring the two.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
It's only 'several systems' in the same way we currently have several systems for non-EU migrants/had the seasonal workers programme alongside that recently/etc. And sure, it wouldn't placate irrational xenophobes, but that's not the reason for doing it...
Click to expand...

Agreed. Major reform decisions shouldn't hang, or be pressed by, a small but vocal group that's both out of their time and depth. Alas, populism happens...:(
 
no one is saying people who want to contribute cant work or migrate to the uk if we are out of the EU, the key thing is we have the freedom to throw them out if they come for the wrong reasons, thats my take on it anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom