The British don't want work..

[Guest sibon]

I think its only right that local people should be considered first. Its those who will have all the disruption and extra traffic etc. If it had been built in the middle of the Manor estate no doubt the council would have the same ethos in employing local people.

 

What puzzles me is that there seems to be a bit of a myth that the British won't work. There may be some but the vast majority do. We don't get to see the feckless in places like Poland, because they don't come here to work, because they are, well, feckless.

 

If overseas workers were better we British would be traveling to their country to work, because their country would be a hive of success with plenty of opportunities. They're not, they're usually very poor 3rd world countries. If they're all so hard working, why is this?

 

Britain is a world leader in industry, the arts, technology and science. We are also one of the richest countries in the world. None of that is achieved by being a bunch of lay abouts...

 

It has taken seven pages of ideologically led ranting before we've had a sensible post on the subject. Nice one Jack.

[Harleyman]

Lots of people do not like foreigners being here.

 

You might be glad there is a foreigner around if you needed your appendix whipped out in the middle of the night by a foreign born doctor who was the only doctor available for surgery at the local hospital that particular night

[Jim Graham]

If overseas workers were better we British would be traveling to their country to work, because their country would be a hive of success with plenty of opportunities. They're not, they're usually very poor 3rd world countries. If they're all so hard working, why is this?

 

 

 

I've worked in many developing countries and all over the UK. There is definitely a difference in work ethic between those who aspire and those who don't. The Brits have a bad attitude to work in some parts of the country but not all.

 

I will always employ someone with the right attitude even if they haven't got all the skills. That's because someone with the right attitude can be taught.

[Jim Graham]

It has taken seven pages of ideologically led ranting before we've had a sensible post on the subject. Nice one Jack.

 

 

 

Oh dear, here we go again. I think you'll find the reason that places like Poland and Lithuania are economic basket cases is because they were under Socialist rule for more than 50 years. A bit like Sheffield. Now they've ditched that ideology they are developing fast. The reason we don't go there is because their wages are lower. That's why they come here. The reason their wages are lower is because they are so much further back in the economic cycle after years of loony left rule. A lot like Sheffield.

[Anna B]

When I went to Barnsley a few years ago having not been there for about 6 years I was amazed at the number of east and central Europeans there. I thought there can't possibly be such a labour shortage in Barnsley that the local economy needs to import labour. However there are a lot of working class people who need to be rounded up on a morning and escorted to work. I don't want to exaggerate how many there are but when I was growing up there was no such thing as a chav. Now it's a lifestyle choice for a lot of people.

 

40 years ago - before the miners strike - working class people wanted and expected to work. Since then successive governments have allowed a social tendancy to grow where a lot of people only want and expect to live off benefits. The only way to get round it is for a government to be as ruthless to them as Thatcher was to the miners. They'd have to stop their benefits, give them work to turn up to and not pay them if they didn't. I can't imagine any government having the vision and determination to do that - Thatcher in reverse.

 

After the closure of the mines, steelworks and many manufacturing plants, there were millions unemployed because their jobs had gone.

 

These job losses have never really been made up.

 

Some were absorbed by the Labour government's attempt to employ them in the Public sector, the only industry where they could directly create jobs, but this led to the over-manning that the Conservatives have seen fit to dismantle.

 

Many went into the retail sector which is now shrinking, but the majority without work became the underclass wich is now into the third generation. It's a pretty miserable existance in many cases.

 

This recession is just another shaking out of the chaff in the employment sector. The jobs lost are unlikely to be replaced, so the underclass grows.

Many of the underclass are unemployable because they have lost the skills and the habit of work, and forcing them into none-jobs is going to do nothing to turn there lives around.

 

The problem is lack of meaningful jobs.

 

I would like to see a lot more job sharing. If we all worked half the hours, there would be work for all and more leisure time for everyone too. This was the plan back in the seventies, when we were all going to have more leisure.

 

Of course there are big problems to be overcome, and a need to rethink the whole work life balance, and the sharing of wealth. Employment red tape would need to be cut, a system of benefits / tax cuts necessary to make up the shortfall in wages etc. and I'd like to see some of the wealth/profits of the major companies used to help.

 

But the advantages are huge too. We would have high employment, money would trickle down the economy, a doubly skilled workforce, parents with more time for the needs of their children, a happier more productive workforce, and a future for all, not just some.

 

This isn't a radical idea. It was on the agenda way back in the seventies when we were told we were heading towards a leisured society. Instead we have half the population working harder and longer than ever, resenting the people who can stay in bed in a morning, and the other half bored and penniless with no stake in society and no hope for the future.

 

Just an idea...

[Glamrocker]

Backed up by evidence:

 

Employers prefer workers from new EU states to 'lazy' Britons

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/employers-prefer-workers-from-new-eu-states-to-lazy-britons-476372.html

 

UK employment rose by 181,000 in 2010, including an increase of 163,000 among non-British citizens. Between 1997 and 2010, more than half of the net increase in UK employment was foreign nationals. Analysts say one reason is that British employers prefer Polish workers to unemployed British youth. There are about 550,000 Poles in the UK, more than the number of Irish residents (353,000) and Indian residents (327,000).

 

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=3713_0_4_0

 

Nice link that very informative

The UK population increased by 470,000 in 2009-10 to 62.3 million, with net migration accounting for half of the increase. Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith in July 2011 called for restricting immigration to encourage British employers to hire British youth under 24; the youth unemployment rate of almost 20 percent was more than twice the overall rate of eight percent in spring 2011.

 

UK employment rose by 181,000 in 2010, including an increase of 163,000 among non-British citizens. Between 1997 and 2010, more than half of the net increase in UK employment was foreign nationals. Analysts say one reason is that British employers prefer Polish workers to unemployed British youth. There are about 550,000 Poles in the UK, more than the number of Irish residents (353,000) and Indian residents (327,000).

[Rupert_Baehr]

The British born worker is likely to spend a large part of his or her wages supporting the British economy.

 

Provided he happens to be in the British economy at the time.

 

The foreign born worker is likely to send a sizeable proportion of his or her wages overseas, to support the economy of his or her country of origin.

 

That's a bit of a generalisation, isn't it? I haven't lived in my 'country of origin' for about 45 years. I've lived in a number of different countries during that time and most of my income (other than that portion I saved and some which did go back to help family members) has been spent on living expenses.

 

I do know people who have travelled to other countries with the intention of staying there for long enough to make enough money to do something elsewhere - and they certainly send their money home - but most people end up spending most of their income in the economy in which they live.

 

If you were born and grew up in Sheffield and then moved to Glasgow, would you send your money back to Sheffield? - Or would you spend it in Glasgow?

 

It would probably depend on your intentions. If you intended to live in Glasgow for 6 months while you earned enough money to go home, no doubt you'd be prepared to 'rough it' a bit, living in not-very-comfortable surroundings to save money. If, however, you intended to be there for some time, you'd probably spend far more of your money there and try to integrate with the local community.

[Jim Graham]

After the closure of the mines, steelworks and many manufacturing plants, there were millions unemployed because their jobs had gone.

 

These job losses have never really been made up.

 

Some were absorbed by the Labour government's attempt to employ them in the Public sector, the only industry where they could directly create jobs, but this led to the over-manning that the Conservatives have seen fit to dismantle.

 

Many went into the retail sector which is now shrinking, but the majority without work became the underclass wich is now into the third generation. It's a pretty miserable existance in many cases.

 

This recession is just another shaking out of the chaff in the employment sector. The jobs lost are unlikely to be replaced, so the underclass grows.

Many of the underclass are unemployable because they have lost the skills and the habit of work, and forcing them into none-jobs is going to do nothing to turn there lives around.

 

The problem is lack of meaningful jobs.

 

I would like to see a lot more job sharing. If we all worked half the hours, there would be work for all and more leisure time for everyone too. This was the plan back in the seventies, when we were all going to have more leisure.

 

Of course there are big problems to be overcome, and a need to rethink the whole work life balance, and the sharing of wealth. Employment red tape would need to be cut, a system of benefits / tax cuts necessary to make up the shortfall in wages etc. and I'd like to see some of the wealth/profits of the major companies used to help.

 

But the advantages are huge too. We would have high employment, money would trickle down the economy, a doubly skilled workforce, parents with more time for the needs of their children, a happier more productive workforce, and a future for all, not just some.

 

This isn't a radical idea. It was on the agenda way back in the seventies when we were told we were heading towards a leisured society. Instead we have half the population working harder and longer than ever, resenting the people who can stay in bed in a morning, and the other half bored and penniless with no stake in society and no hope for the future.

 

Just an idea...

 

 

 

It's not the worst idea but it hasn't taken off for lots of good reasons, not least selfishness. Something the Brits have in spades. Trickle down economics have not worked in the past. When it was tried in the 80s the people with the money spent it on imports which gave jobs and economic growth outside the UK. Labour are trying the same argument now by demanding a cut in VAT but the money would just be spent on Chinese workers.

 

Job sharing sounds great but making up the shortfall in wages through tax incentives is just going to push up government spending when we really need to cut it right back.

 

I know I always bang on about education but it really is the key to developing the country's skills when we will have to rely on a knowledge based economy. At a time when we need to be inventing, managing, developing and servicing the rest of the developing world we have chosen to dumb down to third world level and hand a big competitive advantage to our opponents such as Germany and France.

 

The reality is that the people who do well are the well educated. Thirteen years of Labour have left a legacy of an uneducated underclass. In Sheffield that has been going on for years and we have three generations of the unemployable to feed and clothe and buy beer for. Undoubtedly Sheffield will be left behind in a knowledge based world. You only have to look at Detroit to see what will happen here.

 

We need jobs that create wealth or lead to wealth creation, not meaningless public sector jobs that just soak up wealth.

[boyfriday]

You might be a beneficiary of global capitalism, my life has been considerable worsened by it. Economically, socially, environmentally, culturally...

oh really? What do you think made the British Empire great? It wasn't gold, tin, copper and diamonds mined in Orgreave. If you dont believe youve been the beneficiary of that you cant live in the uk.

[Jim Graham]

The British born worker is likely to spend a large part of his or her wages supporting the British economy.

 

.

 

 

 

A sweeping generalisation that just isn't true. The British worker spends a good part of their salary on imports of clothing and food from third world and developing countries. China hasn't got to be the economic powerhouse it is because we buy British.

 

Trickle down economics has been tried and failed.