Labour "sent out search parties" for immigrants

[Rupert_Baehr]

I think things have been tightened up a bit now but A. ...At the time of the McIntyre Undercover programme on BBC the minimum value of the package was £17,000. One worker for a supplier on a UK government project was receiving £35 a week in wages, the rest in allowances. The allowances amounted to above £1,000 a month and for that he got a room in a house with several others. On the programme they pointed out that in the town where he was based for £1,000 a month he could have had his own executive detached house. It was a blatant mickey take.

 

B. You see, if people now have a problem stacking shelves with the work programme at £73 a week with HB included etc... do you think they are going to want to work on complex major government projects for half of that?

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 08:09 ----------

 

 

I mean big household company names, including big names with major government contracts. It's cheaper because it undercuts by a significant margin the wages of British people.

 

Even if you were right about the amounts the workers or employers don't pay any NI in the first 12 months. And the companies get significant tax breaks. As 70% of salary (current minimum £24,000) can be paid as allowances income tax is avoided.

 

C. British workers can't be employed on the same terms.

 

A. How many employers are importing shelf-stackers at £17,000 a year?

 

I thought that most of the workers who were being imported were highly-skilled/highly-qualified workers who are simply not available in the UK?

 

B. If I was looking for a job and you were prepared to give me a (comparatively) low wage, but very generous tax-free allowances, I might be very tempted indeed. - Particularly if I didn't have a job. If the benefits exceeded HB by more than the difference in salary, it would make sense.

 

C. Why not? The law of the land is supposed to apply equally to everybody. If company (A) can get away with paying its employees a pittance and making it up with very generous allowances, why can't company (B) do the same thing?

 

If -as has been suggested - companies are taking advantage of loopholes in the law, then there is a simple answer.

 

[The Queen in] Parliament is the sovereign lawmaker in the UK. If the laws are flawed - If there are loopholes in those laws - then surely Parliament should be revising those laws and re-writing them to eradicate the loopholes?

 

Or are the MPs not expected to work for their pay?

[Xt500]

But the op has forgot to mention, somewhat conveniently, how immigration has got worse since 2010.

 

---------- Post added 15-05-2013 at 18:49 ----------

 

 

What cheap labour is that, to my knowledge there was only the chinese cockle pickers and similar type smuggling/trafficking gangs

 

Has it?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20539708

[WeX]

Has it?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20539708

 

You forget, Mecky doesn't deal in truths.

[I1L2T3]

A. How many employers are importing shelf-stackers at £17,000 a year?

 

I thought that most of the workers who were being imported were highly-skilled/highly-qualified workers who are simply not available in the UK?

 

B. If I was looking for a job and you were prepared to give me a (comparatively) low wage, but very generous tax-free allowances, I might be very tempted indeed. - Particularly if I didn't have a job. If the benefits exceeded HB by more than the difference in salary, it would make sense.

 

C. Why not? The law of the land is supposed to apply equally to everybody. If company (A) can get away with paying its employees a pittance and making it up with very generous allowances, why can't company (B) do the same thing?

 

If -as has been suggested - companies are taking advantage of loopholes in the law, then there is a simple answer.

 

[The Queen in] Parliament is the sovereign lawmaker in the UK. If the laws are flawed - If there are loopholes in those laws - then surely Parliament should be revising those laws and re-writing them to eradicate the loopholes?

 

Or are the MPs not expected to work for their pay?

 

A. The workers are available in the UK, in many cases. They are simply displaced by cheaper workers.

 

B. & C. It's the law. I didn't make it. British workers can't be employed on the same terms. Simple as that.