Theresa May says Britain will be 'poorer' and public services 'weaker' without EU workers

by eddie Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

PM: Britain will be 'poorer' without EU workers
MPs debate Brexit Bill amendments
PM will refuse to offer a compromise to rebel Tory MPs
May hosts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Number 10 expects to win Wednesday's crunch vote
Government will not back any of the amendments
UK travellers could face higher roaming charges post Brexit
Theresa May has insisted that she will be able to get an "early agreement" on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, as she sought to ease the concerns of rebel Tory MPs.

The Prime Minister said Britain would be "poorer" and public services "weaker" without the contribution of EU workers and that guaranteeing their rights would be a "priority" during the Brexit negotiations.

Speaking in the Commons this afternoon, Mrs May warned potential rebel MPs they will be "obstructing" the will of the people if they vote to amend the Brexit Bill.

She told MPs this afternoon that the "general view" from EU leaders during the summit in Valletta last week was that the UK and EU need to reach an agreement that applies equally to citizens of both parties.

This means that Britain taking a unilateral decision to guarantee EU nationals' status is "not the right way forward", she said.

She told MPs: I have every expectation from the good will I have seen that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.

"I have said before, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker.

"So we will make securing the reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible because that is in everyone's interests."

Number 10 expects to win the crunch vote to trigger the formal exit of the EU on Wednesday, despite suggestions that as many as a dozen Tories could rebel and join with other parties to vote for "wrecking" amendments.

The changes MPs are demanding include protection for EU citizens and a vote on the final Brexit deal before it has been agreed.

Speaking this afternoon, Mrs May warned pro-Remain Tories against backing amendments seeking to ensure Parliament gets a say on the "endgame" if Brexit negotiations collapse without a deal.

The Bill is returning to the Commons today for a further three days of debate during committee stage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/brexit-debate-article-50-bill-live/

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:39 am

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Is it Syl?

I was doing a paper-round at 10 syl
After that, Tesco's at 16, whilst at school
Why should jobs be offered to people based geographically?
Once you open the door to discrimination, you open the door to discriminate to all.
A job should not be given based off any predjudice, full stop
That is how women were once denied the ability to work in many industries Syl
The best person should get the job
There is nothing wrong with encouraging a work ethic in young kids, but we are talking of youth unemployment, not part time jobs for schoolkids.

When unskilled full time paid jobs are advertised abroad and filled by foreign workers, the 18 plus kids here are missing the opportunity to work and gain experience.
How are they expected to fill the criteria you posted above if the jobs that may suit them are being given to foreigners?

How are they missing out?
They have the right to apply for that job, just the same as anyone else.
Did you miss the part how my late father was denied work, simply for being a Catholic?
Jobs are meant to be given on ther best person for the Job, not age, not sex, not race etc
All the later should never discriminate a person from a job, and yet you wish to introduce one

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:42 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Work experience
Good attitude.
Come across well in an interview
Good time keeping
No criminal record
Very presentable
Positivity
Confidence
Enthusiasm
Knowledge and understanding of the company

These are all things that an unskilled uk worker is capable of having...!

So question still stands...

For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

If they tick more of the boxes above than the Uk born applicant

Simple really

If the Uk applicant ticks more of the boxes, then they get the job

So your question does not stand, you wish to introduce a prejudice

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:43 am

If someone here is being denied work because the jobs are being given to foreigners, they end up on benefits.
Not a good way to Start their working lives.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:45 am

Syl wrote:If someone here is being denied work because the jobs are being given to foreigners, they end up on benefits.
Not a good way to Start their working lives.

How are they being denied?
You seem to be claiming a person successful in an interview, is denying someone the opportunity to work based on geography.
What sort of poor message are you teaching here Syl?
One to blame others, for not succeeding?

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:47 am

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:
There is nothing wrong with encouraging a work ethic in young kids, but we are talking of youth unemployment, not part time jobs for schoolkids.

When unskilled full time paid jobs are advertised abroad and filled by foreign workers, the 18 plus kids here are missing the opportunity to work and gain experience.
How are they expected to fill the criteria you posted above if the jobs that may suit them are being given to foreigners?

How are they missing out?
They have the right to apply for that job, just the same as anyone else.
Did you miss the part how my late father was denied work, simply for being a Catholic?
Jobs are meant to be given on ther best person for the Job, not age, not sex, not race etc
All the later should never discriminate a person from a job, and yet you wish to introduce one

Thor, many jobs are not advertised here, they are advertised abroad ....so how can locals apply for the job?
In the 60s and 70s I do know religion was sometimes used against job applicants, that's nothing to do with what we are talking about now though.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:52 am

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

How are they missing out?
They have the right to apply for that job, just the same as anyone else.
Did you miss the part how my late father was denied work, simply for being a Catholic?
Jobs are meant to be given on ther best person for the Job, not age, not sex, not race etc
All the later should never discriminate a person from a job, and yet you wish to introduce one

Thor, many jobs are not advertised here, they are advertised abroad ....so how can locals apply for the job?
In the 60s and 70s I do know religion was sometimes used against job applicants, that's nothing to do with what we are talking about now though.

Really?
You claim Jobs here are only advertised abroad?
That is plain nonsense
The point here is discrimination, of which you are advocating.
This really pisses me off such a stance
Both my grand fathers fought in WW2 for Britain in a country they never even lived in
My Irish Grand father, Irish, served in North Africa, Italy and Austria and it broke him as a man. My Maltese/Sicillian Grand father served in the defense of Malta. They were not local Syl, nor did they ever receive anything remotely what you benefit from just being born into this country
Stop being so naive and prejudice here
A job should be open to anyone

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:26 am

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thor, many jobs are not advertised here, they are advertised abroad ....so how can locals apply for the job?
In the 60s and 70s I do know religion was sometimes used against job applicants, that's nothing to do with what we are talking about now though.

Really?
You claim Jobs here are only advertised abroad?
That is plain nonsense
The point here is discrimination, of which you are advocating.
This really pisses me off such a stance
Both my grand fathers fought in WW2 for Britain in a country they never even lived in
My Irish Grand father, Irish, served in North Africa, Italy and Austria and it broke him as a man. My Maltese/Sicillian Grand father served in the defense of Malta. They were not local Syl, nor did they ever receive anything remotely what you benefit from just being born into this country
Stop being so naive and prejudice here
A job should be open to anyone

It isn't nonsense Thor, Google....I can't post links on tablet but there is plenty info online of British recruitment agencies advertising abroad for jobs in nursing, catering, building etc.
Costa coffe and Butlins are two that were in the news in the last couple of years for not advertising jobs locally.
I'm not being racist either, it's common sense to give jobs to people already here rather than throw them into unemployment by bringing someone else in to do do the job they could have done themselves.....it's also financially beneficial to the country.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:34 am

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Really?
You claim Jobs here are only advertised abroad?
That is plain nonsense
The point here is discrimination, of which you are advocating.
This really pisses me off such a stance
Both my grand fathers fought in WW2 for Britain in a country they never even lived in
My Irish Grand father, Irish, served in North Africa, Italy and Austria and it broke him as a man. My Maltese/Sicillian Grand father served in the defense of Malta. They were not local Syl, nor did they ever receive anything remotely what you benefit from just being born into this country
Stop being so naive and prejudice here
A job should be open to anyone
It isn't nonsense Thor, Google....I can't post links on tablet but there is plenty info online of British recruitment agencies advertising abroad for jobs in nursing, catering, building etc.
Costa coffe and Butlins are two that were in the news in the last couple of years for not advertising jobs locally.
I'm not being racist either, it's common sense to give jobs to people already here rather than throw them into unemployment by bringing someone else in to do do the job they could have done themselves.....it's also financially beneficial to the country.

So it is nonsense
If they are advertising abroad, is it only inclusive abroad?
Just because recruitment agencies advertise abroad, does not mean they are not doing the same here
I never said you were racist but being prejudice
Why is it common sense to give people born geographically over someone far better for the job?
What you are saying is to place barriers on being able to apply for jobs. That employers have to lower their standards for employment just to meet your prejudice requirements.
Do you know how long its still taking for African Americans to have even close to civil rights? That they are not even seen as even American in some Southern states?
So suggesting that people should get preference based off the most idiotic view, that they are born on a factor of nearest locality is blatantly absurd
The best person should get the job.
If all employers placed such a barrier on employment, most skilled jobs would never be filled

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:47 am

Also Syl, have just researched your claims on Costa coffe and Butlins, after you said them.
I find nothing to back your claim, they only advertise abroad

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:22 am

The Devil, You Know wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:I don't see how anyone can force a 16-year old who has left school to undertake training or part-time education.
well unless they live off the bank of mum and dad they could shut down the money supply

You can't force someone to undergo training or further education though. Why can't they just be free to get a job like anyone else?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 7:50 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
The Devil, You Know wrote:
well unless they live off the bank of mum and dad they could shut down the money supply

You can't force someone to undergo training or further education though. Why can't they just be free to get a job like anyone else?

Because he believes in a system of Totalitarianism

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:00 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You can't force someone to undergo training or further education though. Why can't they just be free to get a job like anyone else?

Because he believes in a system of Totalitarianism

He's not the one saying they must undergo training or further education though.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:07 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Because he believes in a system of Totalitarianism

He's not the one saying they must undergo training or further education though.

He is certainly saying, that if people do not do a job, they do not like he would starve them to death

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:11 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He's not the one saying they must undergo training or further education though.

He is certainly saying, that if people do not do a job, they do not like he would starve them to death

I don't think he is. Anyway, the point is that some people are saying that a young person between 16 and 18 can't actually have a full time job unless they do part time further education and/or training. I think that's what's being said anyway.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:14 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He is certainly saying, that if people do not do a job, they do not like he would starve them to death

I don't think he is. Anyway, the point is that some people are saying that a young person between 16 and 18 can't actually have a full time job unless they do part time further education and/or training. I think that's what's being said anyway.

Yes he did, on another thread on the unemployed, stated they should not get any benefits, if they refuse to do a job they do not like.
No the point being made here is some claiming that 16-18 should be classed as adults and receive unemployment benefits. When its the responsibility of their parents. If they do not have parents to care for them, they are entitled to benefits

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:36 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think he is. Anyway, the point is that some people are saying that a young person between 16 and 18 can't actually have a full time job unless they do part time further education and/or training. I think that's what's being said anyway.

Yes he did, on another thread on the unemployed, stated they should not get any benefits, if they refuse to do a job they do not like.
No the point being made here is some claiming that 16-18 should be classed as adults and receive unemployment benefits. When its the responsibility of their parents. If they do not have parents to care for them, they are entitled to benefits

It's not relevant what was said on another thread.

I know how the discussion started, but I'm a bit puzzled about this thing where young people must be in further education or training until they're 18. Why can't they just get a normal job if they want one?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:38 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes he did, on another thread on the unemployed, stated they should not get any benefits, if they refuse to do a job they do not like.
No the point being made here is some claiming that 16-18 should be classed as adults and receive unemployment benefits. When its the responsibility of their parents. If they do not have parents to care for them, they are entitled to benefits

It's not relevant what was said on another thread.

I know how the discussion started, but I'm a bit puzzled about this thing where young people must be in further education or training until they're 18. Why can't they just get a normal job if they want one?

It is relevant to what he said on another thread, to the points being raised.
They can get a normal job if they want to. No idea where you get that perception from.
What is being stated here, is people trying to classify them as adults to receive benefits, if unemployed. When that responsibility rightly is with their parents

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:49 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not relevant what was said on another thread.

I know how the discussion started, but I'm a bit puzzled about this thing where young people must be in further education or training until they're 18. Why can't they just get a normal job if they want one?

It is relevant to what he said on another thread, to the points being raised.
They can get a normal job if they want to. No idea where you get that perception from.
What is being stated here, is people trying to classify them as adults to receive benefits, if unemployed. When that responsibility rightly is with their parents

From Syl:

Many 16 year olds, who in the past would have left school to work full time, now have to stay in education for 2 more years, whether they want to or not....unless they have an apprenticeship to go to.

Also from this:

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

So are you saying they can get a full time time, but they must also be in part-time education or training? How do they fit all that in, and why must they do so?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

It is relevant to what he said on another thread, to the points being raised.
They can get a normal job if they want to. No idea where you get that perception from.
What is being stated here, is people trying to classify them as adults to receive benefits, if unemployed. When that responsibility rightly is with their parents

From Syl:

Many 16 year olds, who in the past would have left school to work full time, now have to stay in education for 2 more years, whether they want to or not....unless they have an apprenticeship to go to.

Also from this:

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

So are you saying they can get a full time time, but they must also be in part-time education or training? How do they fit all that in, and why must they do so?

Yes they can get full time work, it even backs this on the link
So they do not need to be in part time education or training

Full-time work

Children can only start full-time work once they’ve reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:07 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

From Syl:

Also from this:

https://www.gov.uk/child-employment/minimum-ages-children-can-work

So are you saying they can get a full time time, but they must also be in part-time education or training? How do they fit all that in, and why must they do so?

Yes they can get full time work, it even backs this on the link
So they do not need to be in part time education or training
Full-time work

Children can only start full-time work once they’ve reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week.

What about this bit?

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:08 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Yes they can get full time work, it even backs this on the link
So they do not need to be in part time education or training
Full-time work

Children can only start full-time work once they’ve reached the minimum school leaving age - they can then work up to a maximum of 40 hours a week.

What about this bit?

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

What about it?

I think you are reading into it wrong

Again, can a child work full time hours at 16?

Yes

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:11 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What about this bit?

What about it?

I think you are reading into it wrong

Again, can a child work full time hours at 16?

Yes

I said they could earlier, but then Syl posted that quote. I notice you didn't challenge her about it.

Please explain what it means then.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:11 am

General rules on employment

Young people over school leaving age and under 18 are known as young workers. Young people can leave school on the last Friday of June of the school year in which they are 16.
There are special laws to protect the employment rights of young workers. These concern your health and safety, what jobs you can do, when you can work, and how many hours you can work. These laws are very strict and an employer can be prosecuted for breaking them.
If you are over school-leaving age and an employee, you will have other rights in addition to the rights of young workers which are mentioned below. For example, it is against the law to discriminate against you at work because of your age.
For more information about age discrimination at work, see Discrimination at work.
For more information about other rights you have at work as an employee, see Basic rights at work.

What work can you do

16 – 18 year olds

If you are over school leaving age (see under heading General rules on employment) and under 18, there are special restrictions on doing certain types of work. These are:

work which you are not physically or mentally capable of doing
work which brings you into contact with chemical agents, toxic material or radiation
work which involves a health risk because of extreme cold, heat or vibration.

You are only allowed to do the work above under the following circumstances:

where it is necessary for your training, and
where an experienced person is supervising you, and
where any risk is reduced to the lowest level that is reasonable.

These rules do not apply if you are doing short term or occasional work in a family business or in a private household, and this is not considered to be harmful to you.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/young-people/young-people-and-employment/

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:13 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

What about it?

I think you are reading into it wrong

Again, can a child work full time hours at 16?

Yes

I said they could earlier, but then Syl posted that quote. I notice you didn't challenge her about it.

Please explain what it means then.

I did challenge what she said, read back.
I stated they have a right to apply for jobs, just like anyone else
Why do I need to explain what it means?
All you need to understand here is whether those under 16 can obtain full time work.

The answer is yes they can.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:14 am

So what does this mean?

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:16 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So what does this mean?

In England, a young person must be in part-time education or training until they’re 18.

Again what does it matter?
Does a 16 year old need to be in education or training, when in full time work?

No

If it bothers you, I suggest you contact the civil service

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:18 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So what does this mean?

Again what does it matter?
Does a 16 year old need to be in education or training, when in full time work?

No

If it bothers you, I suggest you contact the civil service

Of course it matters - it's on a Government website. If you don't know what it means, that's fine - I'll wait to see if someone else does.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:19 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Again what does it matter?
Does a 16 year old need to be in education or training, when in full time work?

No

If it bothers you, I suggest you contact the civil service

Of course it matters - it's on a Government website. If you don't know what it means, that's fine - I'll wait to see if someone else does.

Again its irrelevant to the point on whether those 16 can find full time work
They can.
So it does not matter.
If it bothers you so much, do as I say and contact the government.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:31 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it matters - it's on a Government website. If you don't know what it means, that's fine - I'll wait to see if someone else does.

Again its irrelevant to the point on whether those 16 can find full time work
They can.
So it does not matter.
If it bothers you so much, do as I say and contact the government.

It's relevant because Syl brought it up. It's not for you to say what's relevant anyway. If you're not interested, don't keep posting about it. I will ignore you if you don't say anything of value.

For anyone who is interested, this is what it says on the Government website:

England

You can leave school on the last Friday in June if you’ll be 16 by the end of the summer holidays.

You must then do one of the following until you’re 18:

stay in full-time education, for example at a college
start an apprenticeship or traineeship
spend 20 hours or more a week working or volunteering, while in part-time education or training

https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

Does it mean that those who have not stayed on to do GCSEs must do those things? What if you have taken your GCSEs?

Also, why can't they just sit around at home? Nobody can force them to do any of those things.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Again its irrelevant to the point on whether those 16 can find full time work
They can.
So it does not matter.
If it bothers you so much, do as I say and contact the government.

It's relevant because Syl brought it up. It's not for you to say what's relevant anyway. If you're not interested, don't keep posting about it. I will ignore you if you don't say anything of value.

For anyone who is interested, this is what it says on the Government website:

Does it mean that those who have not stayed on to do GCSEs must do those things? What if you have taken your GCSEs?

Also, why can't they just sit around at home? Nobody can force them to do any of those things.

Again its irrelevant.
Can those over 16 find full time employment without being in education or training?

Take your time

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:42 am

Okay, so I have researched this a tad more and clearly I was mistaken on this.

However, everyone born on or after 1st September 1997 must stay in some form of education or training until 18.
Post-16 options are full-time education (e.g. at a school or college), an apprenticeship or traineeship, or part-time education or training - as well as being employed, self-employed or volunteering for 20 hours or more a week.

So they can do full time work and receive training or education

Makes sense, as they are not adults yet and the law is protecting them

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:51 pm

Thorin wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

These are all things that an unskilled uk worker is capable of having...!

So question still stands...

For an unskilled job here in uk... how would an unskilled foreigner in a foreign land be better for the job than an unskilled British person here in uk...!!!???

If they tick more of the boxes above than the Uk born applicant

Simple really

If the Uk applicant ticks more of the boxes, then they get the job

So your question does not stand, you wish to introduce a prejudice

How is it better to deny a job here in uk to a uk worker who is able and willing to do the job and in need of the job... and instead let some foreigner enter the country to take the job instead...!?

Not good for the UK worker... not good for the taxpayer in having to pay benefits to the now unemployed UK person... not good for pressure on housing and transport networks or other public services...

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Thorin wrote:

If they tick more of the boxes above than the Uk born applicant

Simple really

If the Uk applicant ticks more of the boxes, then they get the job

So your question does not stand, you wish to introduce a prejudice

How is it better to deny a job here in uk to a uk worker who is able and willing to do the job and in need of the job... and instead let some foreigner enter the country to take the job instead...!?

Not good for the UK worker... not good for the taxpayer in having to pay benefits to the now unemployed UK person... not good for pressure on housing and transport networks or other public services...

Again fallacy argument. You are eluding that employers should discriminate based on geographical birth

Nobody is being denied any jobs, as they are given to the best applicants.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:06 pm

Thorin wrote:Okay, so I have researched this a tad more and clearly I was mistaken on this.

However, everyone born on or after 1st September 1997 must stay in some form of education or training until 18.
Post-16 options are full-time education (e.g. at a school or college), an apprenticeship or traineeship, or part-time education or training - as well as being employed, self-employed or volunteering for 20 hours or more a week.

So they can do full time work and receive training or education

Makes sense, as they are not adults yet and the law is protecting them

This is what I was saying earlier on in the thread...but no one listened. Rolling Eyes

.

Youngsters CANNOT legally work full time unless they are in a training or apprenticeship scheme, or carrying on with government education, until they are 18 years old.
I think this new law was brought in a couple of years ago, it stops kids leaving school or college and getting a paid full time job like they used to be able to do...UNLESS they are being trained or still in education.

I know of kids 16 and 17 who are simply whiling away time till they are legally allowed to look for a job. They may turn up at college one or two days a week, they may not, but its a complete waste of their lives....and its been done imo to keep youth unemployment figures down.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:07 pm

The uk govts job is to look after the best interests of the uk people.

Foreigners should not be let into the country to do jobs that we have uk people here willing and able to do.

by Tommy Monk Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:09 pm

The uk govts job is to look after the best interests of the uk people.

Foreigners should not be let into the country to do jobs that we have uk people here willing and able to do.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
The uk govts job is to look after the best interests of the uk people.

Foreigners should not be let into the country to do jobs that we have uk people here willing and able to do.

That amounts to 2.283 million jobs.
So you want to now be prejudiced towards people even coming to work here, even though Brits can work abroad.
You poorly trying to enforce your prejudice views again on people
Again we have equality as he main frame for employment in the UK
You though wish to destroy that with prejudice and allow for a situation where its then possible that the person chosen is not the best candidate.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:30 pm

Thorin wrote:Also Syl, have just researched your claims on Costa coffe and Butlins, after you said them.
I find nothing to back your claim, they only advertise abroad

Butlins will obviously deny they didn't advertise here, but there was an outcry from locals that they had bee waiting for vacancies to be advertised....and the vacancies were filled from overseas workers before locals had a chance to apply.
Same with Costa coffee, I cant find a link but there was news coverage on radio and TV at the time.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2013-03-03/butlins-recruiting-abroad-for-minehead-jobs/

These quotes are interesting to.

"British recruitment websites are specifically targeting Eastern Europeans when thousands of Britons are struggling to find work themselves.
The jobs advertised on indeed.com include an English speaking nurse and hotel staff, while jobs are also being posted in Polish on Polish websites."

Quote from the Telegraph....

"UK firms are given as much as £1,000 as a bonus for taking on the foreign workers."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/612310/British-recruiters-advertise-jobs-abroad-Polish-workers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10205511/UK-jobs-being-advertised-across-the-EU-at-taxpayers-expense-it-emerges.html

http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/27/800000-british-jobs-advertised-to-foreign-workers-in-the-eu-3900683/

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:34 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Also Syl, have just researched your claims on Costa coffe and Butlins, after you said them.
I find nothing to back your claim, they only advertise abroad

Butlins will obviously deny they didn't advertise here, but there was an outcry from locals that they had bee waiting for vacancies to be advertised....and the vacancies were filled from overseas workers before locals had a chance to apply.
Same with Costa coffee, I cant find a link but there was news coverage on radio and TV at the time.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2013-03-03/butlins-recruiting-abroad-for-minehead-jobs/

These quotes are interesting to.

"British recruitment websites are specifically targeting Eastern Europeans when thousands of Britons are struggling to find work themselves.
The jobs advertised on indeed.com include an English speaking nurse and hotel staff, while jobs are also being posted in Polish on Polish websites."

Quote from the Telegraph....

[b]"UK firms are given as much as £1,000 as a bonus for taking on the foreign workers."

So zero evidence Sly

You have to show jobs, that are only being advertised abroad and not in the UK
Companies are quite within their rights to spread as far a field in search of recruitment

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:41 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Butlins will obviously deny they didn't advertise here, but there was an outcry from locals that they had bee waiting for vacancies to be advertised....and the vacancies were filled from overseas workers before locals had a chance to apply.
Same with Costa coffee, I cant find a link but there was news coverage on radio and TV at the time.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/update/2013-03-03/butlins-recruiting-abroad-for-minehead-jobs/

These quotes are interesting to.

"British recruitment websites are specifically targeting Eastern Europeans when thousands of Britons are struggling to find work themselves.
The jobs advertised on indeed.com include an English speaking nurse and hotel staff, while jobs are also being posted in Polish on Polish websites."

Quote from the Telegraph....

"UK firms are given as much as £1,000 as a bonus for taking on the foreign workers."

So zero evidence Sly

You have to show jobs, that are only being advertised abroad and not in the UK
Companies are quite within their rights to spread as far a field in search of recruitment

I tend to believe locals when they all say the same thing Thor, rather than statements from Billion £££ companies who will rip off locals to employ cheap labour.

Another instance....call centres. How many British companies base theirs abroad??
Do they advertise the jobs here also?
I can just see the ad in the Manchester Evening News...call centre workers wanted for UK company, interview held in Mumbai. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:44 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Okay, so I have researched this a tad more and clearly I was mistaken on this.

However, everyone born on or after 1st September 1997 must stay in some form of education or training until 18.
Post-16 options are full-time education (e.g. at a school or college), an apprenticeship or traineeship, or part-time education or training - as well as being employed, self-employed or volunteering for 20 hours or more a week.

So they can do full time work and receive training or education

Makes sense, as they are not adults yet and the law is protecting them

This is what I was saying earlier on in the thread...but no one listened. .

Youngsters CANNOT legally work full time unless they are in a training or apprenticeship scheme, or carrying on with government education, until they are 18 years old.
I think this new law was brought in a couple of years ago, it stops kids leaving school or college and getting a paid full time job like they used to be able to do...UNLESS they are being trained or still in education.

I know of kids 16 and 17 who are simply whiling away time till they are legally allowed to look for a job. They may turn up at college one or two days a week, they may not, but its a complete waste of their lives....and its been done imo to keep youth unemployment figures down.

I did listen Syl. I was not aware of this "rule", so I did some googling.

What puzzles me is perhaps the wording, and the use of the word "must". What if a 16 or 17-year old doesn't want to do any further education or training? They can't be forced to can they? What if they want to play video games all day, or get a job - full time or part time?

Nobody would tell an adult that they "must" do this or that with their life. I can understand that if they're getting JSA or something, and they're told they must look for work, but a young person doesn't normally get JSA anyway.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:45 pm

Don't they give priority to their own citizens in Australia and New Zealand? I'm sure that used to be the case. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:48 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:Okay, so I have researched this a tad more and clearly I was mistaken on this.

However, everyone born on or after 1st September 1997 must stay in some form of education or training until 18.
Post-16 options are full-time education (e.g. at a school or college), an apprenticeship or traineeship, or part-time education or training - as well as being employed, self-employed or volunteering for 20 hours or more a week.

So they can do full time work and receive training or education

Makes sense, as they are not adults yet and the law is protecting them

This is what I was saying earlier on in the thread...but no one listened. .

Youngsters CANNOT legally work full time unless they are in a training or apprenticeship scheme, or carrying on with government education, until they are 18 years old.
I think this new law was brought in a couple of years ago, it stops kids leaving school or college and getting a paid full time job like they used to be able to do...UNLESS they are being trained or still in education.

I know of kids 16 and 17 who are simply whiling away time till they are legally allowed to look for a job. They may turn up at college one or two days a week, they may not, but its a complete waste of their lives....and its been done imo to keep youth unemployment figures down.

No, they can still get full time work as seen
Again they are not adults yet and are still the responsibility of their parents.
What the Government is doing is ensuring they are better prepared top find work

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:49 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

So zero evidence Sly

You have to show jobs, that are only being advertised abroad and not in the UK
Companies are quite within their rights to spread as far a field in search of recruitment

I tend to believe locals when they all say the same thing Thor, rather than statements from Billion £££ companies who will rip off locals to employ cheap labour.

Another instance....call centres. How many British companies base theirs abroad??
Do they advertise the jobs here also?
I can just see the ad in the Manchester Evening News...call centre workers wanted for UK company, interview held in Mumbai.

You can believe what you like, what you need is evidence
So when you have the evidence, let me know
Jobs should be open to anyone.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

This is what I was saying earlier on in the thread...but no one listened. .

Youngsters CANNOT legally work full time unless they are in a training or apprenticeship scheme, or carrying on with government education, until they are 18 years old.
I think this new law was brought in a couple of years ago, it stops kids leaving school or college and getting a paid full time job like they used to be able to do...UNLESS they are being trained or still in education.

I know of kids 16 and 17 who are simply whiling away time till they are legally allowed to look for a job. They may turn up at college one or two days a week, they may not, but its a complete waste of their lives....and its been done imo to keep youth unemployment figures down.

I did listen Syl. I was not aware of this "rule", so I did some googling.

What puzzles me is perhaps the wording, and the use of the word "must". What if a 16 or 17-year old doesn't want to do any further education or training? They can't be forced to can they? What if they want to play video games all day, or get a job - full time or part time?

Nobody would tell an adult that they "must" do this or that with their life. I can understand that if they're getting JSA or something, and they're told they must look for work, but a young person doesn't normally get JSA anyway.

Thanks for listening then...I had given up trying to get my point across.

Normally anyone under 18 cant get job seekers or income support, so really those kids are in no mans land if they don't carry on full time education or get an apprenticeship.
Not may kids of that age will want to work full time AND carry on in education, so like you suggest, they may simply lozz around wasting 2 years of their lives when they could be productive if the new laws had not come into power.

I doubt there is any way to check what the ones who leave school are doing, but employers are aware its illegal to hire kids in this position, and the kids would be breaking the law....stupid though it is.

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I did listen Syl. I was not aware of this "rule", so I did some googling.

What puzzles me is perhaps the wording, and the use of the word "must". What if a 16 or 17-year old doesn't want to do any further education or training? They can't be forced to can they? What if they want to play video games all day, or get a job - full time or part time?

Nobody would tell an adult that they "must" do this or that with their life. I can understand that if they're getting JSA or something, and they're told they must look for work, but a young person doesn't normally get JSA anyway.

Thanks for listening then...I had given up trying to get my point across.

Normally anyone under 18 cant get job seekers or income support, so really those kids are in no mans land if they don't carry on full time education or get an apprenticeship.
Not may kids of that age will want to work full time AND carry on in education, so like you suggest, they may simply lozz around wasting 2 years of their lives when they could be productive if the new laws had not come into power.

I doubt there is any way to check what the ones who leave school are doing, but employers are aware its illegal to hire kids in this position, and the kids would be breaking the law....stupid though it is.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again
They are not adults
They can claim in certain circumstances
They are the responsibility of their parents
They can work full time
The government rightly has set up a scheme which helps ease them into work.

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:55 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

I tend to believe locals when they all say the same thing Thor, rather than statements from Billion £££ companies who will rip off locals to employ cheap labour.

Another instance....call centres. How many British companies base theirs abroad??
Do they advertise the jobs here also?
I can just see the ad in the Manchester Evening News...call centre workers wanted for UK company, interview held in Mumbai.

You can believe what you like, what you need is evidence
So when you have the evidence, let me know
Jobs should be open to anyone.

I do believe it Thor....you can learn a lot listening to live TV and radio debates, plus just listening to what local people say.

So are you saying the call centre jobs for UK companies are advertised in the UK....even when they are based in Mumbai?

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:58 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

You can believe what you like, what you need is evidence
So when you have the evidence, let me know
Jobs should be open to anyone.

I do believe it Thor....you can learn a lot listening to live TV and radio debates, plus just listening to what local people say.

So are you saying the call centre jobs for UK companies are advertised in the UK....even when they are based in Mumbai?

Then you are very gullible if you believe something without evidence
What is wrong with UK companies having centers in other countries, just like we have foreign owned companies with branches here?

by Syl Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:04 pm

Thorin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thanks for listening then...I had given up trying to get my point across.

Normally anyone under 18 cant get job seekers or income support, so really those kids are in no mans land if they don't carry on full time education or get an apprenticeship.
Not may kids of that age will want to work full time AND carry on in education, so like you suggest, they may simply lozz around wasting 2 years of their lives when they could be productive if the new laws had not come into power.

I doubt there is any way to check what the ones who leave school are doing, but employers are aware its illegal to hire kids in this position, and the kids would be breaking the law....stupid though it is.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again
Everything I said it correct.

They are not adults
They can claim in certain circumstances
Very limited circumstances, if they are pregnant for eg.

They are the responsibility of their parents
Which puts an extra 2 year strain on many poorer families.

They can work full time
Only if they are in an apprenticeship or similar UNLESS they carry on with their education

The government rightly has set up a scheme which helps ease them into work.

Rubbish....by the time they are legally entitled to work full time without still keeping up education they have been left behind by the kids who stayed full time in college or the kids that managed to find an apprenticeship at 16..

by Guest Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:08 pm

Syl wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Wrong, wrong and wrong again
Everything I said it correct.

They are not adults
They can claim in certain circumstances
Very limited circumstances, if they are pregnant for eg.

They are the responsibility of their parents
Which puts an extra 2 year strain on many poorer families.

They can work full time
Only if they are in an apprenticeship or similar UNLESS they carry on with their education

The government rightly has set up a scheme which helps ease them into work.

Rubbish....by the time they are legally entitled to work full time without still keeping up education they have been left behind by the kids who stayed full time in college or the kids that managed to find an apprenticeship at 16..

Everything you said was pure gibberish
Wow, so now you are saying that families should not care for their children and that the Governement should step in because now you claim its a hardship?
WTF?
My parents at no stage thought it was hardship and were poor. We were grateful for everything they did for us, because they placed us first and never expected anything from others. There was no such thing then when I grew up as housing benefits. They knew it was their responsibility, as they made the choice to have so many children. Sorry, but how dare you place the burden on the Government for where people decide to have children.

No they can again get full time work
They also get further job related training far better than any qualification they will obtain in school

by Sponsored content