Quinnwok Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Is that right? An interesting opinion I suppose John X Ive reported your signature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VideoPro Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Ive reported your signature. Put him on the ignore list too and you won't have to read it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Ive reported your signature. Well let us all know how it goes! John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Ive reported your signature. Aww, touched a nerve did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Aww, touched a nerve did it? yes, disgusting is the word id use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 That doesn't surprise me in the least. Does it suggest to you (it suggests to me) that the country should be directing more of its resources towards providing an adequate number of places on courses which will enable it to meet its needs and rather less on getting as many 'bums on seats' as possible? No doubt. - and I've a story for you there. Some years ago, when I was in the RAF, I lived near Ely (which had a major RAF Hospital.) I got a phone call one day from a guy I'd been at school with. He had trained as a doctor when he left school and - on graduation - emigrated to Australia (because he's married an Australian.)(He hadn't robbed the British Government of the money spent on his training - they didn't pay.) He did his residency in Australia and became a gas doctor. When he called me he was an experienced, highly-qualified (and indeed, somewhat renowned) anaesthetist. He and his wife had decided that they would like to live in the UK (for at least a few years) so he came back here. The Royal Air Force employed him as a civilian doctor. You have to remember, of course, that he hadn't completed a residency in the UK - so notwithstanding the fact that he was accredited in Australia, widely respected within his specialism worldwide (and indeed, the RAF was using him as a consultant) he could only be paid the salary earned by a newly-qualified doctor. He stayed for 6 months, then went back to Adelaide. Of course the NHS - and a number of other organisations - benefit immensely from the 'cross pollination' provided by exchange appointments of senior and experienced staff and such exchanges should be encouraged. Pillaging staff from 3rd-World countries (as does happen) should (IMO) be banned. I'm well aware (as Frank S suggested) that many of the so-called 'nurses' hired from overseas are little more than bed-pan removers, but - having spent some time in hospital 'damaged and undergoing repair' (as opposed to being acutely ill) I can assure you that the bed-pan changers are appreciated and very valuable members of the care team. It's not a good idea to treat them with anything less than fawning respect (again, from experience.) If you do, you may discover that the next (papier-maché and resin) urinal bottle you receive may have been 'modified' with a quarter-inch knitting needle. Hospitals need very highly skilled staff, highly skilled staff, less highly skilled staff, semi-skilled staff and unskilled (but willing) staff. Why does the UK have so many people out of work, yet have to import so many people? If there is - and there appears to be - an imbalance between the numbers of people with given qualifications (including those with somewhat limited qualifications) required to do a range of jobs, why is the government (who, ultimately are responsible) not ensuring that the right number of places on the right courses are made available? I was sponsored during my first training course. It was a very expensive course (and there was no way I could've paid for it myself.) The terms of the sponsorship were simple. At the end of my training, I would be offered a job with the company. If I took that job, I would be required to repay them (from my salary) the sum of £200 per annum for 5 years. If I declined to accept the job offer, I would pay them the sum of £1000 immediately. (Remember, we're talking 1960s. - £2000 would buy you a house!) Perhaps we need more sponsored training today? I heard on the News that Morrisons are going to sponsor 1000 students through university. They're not going to go out on the streets to find those students - they're going to select them from within their employees. Sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps other companies (including government-funded organisations like the NHS) could do the same thing? At the moment there is more health service emigration than immigration as the NHS is shedding jobs, I know a few registrars that have had to move abroad for jobs as there are very little consultant posts going. Another interesting point that I've heard is that in Sheffield an entire intake of student nurses have been cancelled as it's envisaged that there'll be no jobs for them when they qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Don't talk rubbish, are you saying ASDA pay foreign migrants less than they do their British counterparts? The TUC report highlights some of the difficulties faced by migrant workers - for example whilst it might be an offence for an employer not to provide paid holidays to a worker here on a work permit, to make a complaint the worker must go to a tribunal. If they lose their job as a result of raising the issue, they will have lost their right to remain in the UK, and will be unable to pursue their case. Similarly, employers should not be paying workers less than is stated on the work permit application, but the only power of enforcement is for the work permit to be revoked, at which point the worker loses their right to stay in the UK. And whilst migrant workers are often exploited because of their ignorance of the law and their employment rights, says the TUC, the situation is even worse for those working without legal permission to do so. It’s likely, says the TUC, that these workers have no rights at all, with tribunals declining to hear complaints from workers without legal contracts. According to the TUC report, the position of migrant workers is encouraging exploitative bosses not to pay people for work already done, or to pay them at rates well below the minimum wage. For example, last month migrant workers on the construction of the new Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh were found to be receiving less than the industry minimum rate, and the TUC has come across Portuguese nationals earning less per hour than UK seafarers. http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-6850-f0.cfm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 At the moment there is more health service emigration than immigration as the NHS is shedding jobs, I know a few registrars that have had to move abroad for jobs as there are very little consultant posts going. Another interesting point that I've heard is that in Sheffield an entire intake of student nurses have been cancelled as it's envisaged that there'll be no jobs for them when they qualify. how utterly futile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John X Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Aww, touched a nerve did it? Yes, it's interesting that the only people on here who object to my signature are those who share Breivik's views on immigration. A coincidence? John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 The TUC report highlights some of the difficulties faced by migrant workers - for example whilst it might be an offence for an employer not to provide paid holidays to a worker here on a work permit, to make a complaint the worker must go to a tribunal. If they lose their job as a result of raising the issue, they will have lost their right to remain in the UK, and will be unable to pursue their case. Similarly, employers should not be paying workers less than is stated on the work permit application, but the only power of enforcement is for the work permit to be revoked, at which point the worker loses their right to stay in the UK. And whilst migrant workers are often exploited because of their ignorance of the law and their employment rights, says the TUC, the situation is even worse for those working without legal permission to do so. It’s likely, says the TUC, that these workers have no rights at all, with tribunals declining to hear complaints from workers without legal contracts. According to the TUC report, the position of migrant workers is encouraging exploitative bosses not to pay people for work already done, or to pay them at rates well below the minimum wage. For example, last month migrant workers on the construction of the new Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh were found to be receiving less than the industry minimum rate, and the TUC has come across Portuguese nationals earning less per hour than UK seafarers. http://www.tuc.org.uk/international/tuc-6850-f0.cfm Its widespread and getting worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.