A boost for Brexit?

Gosh, I didn’t realise there were only 2.5 million jobs in manufacturing? The UK has 1.8% of global manufacturing apparently. Germany, Italy and France are all ahead of us.

Just seen this

MerylStreep

MaizieD
Or put another way, which blows my mind.

1 million seconds= 12 days.
1 billion seconds = *31 years*

Blows my mind, too, MerylStreep.

I must make a note of it for future reference. Thanks.

Businesses say higher wages will lead to higher prices.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they Dickens?

They said that about the introduction of the minimum wage...

Businesses will have to take lower profits...

growstuff

Dickens Some Eastern Europeans were employed by agencies operating form Eastern Europe. They were allowed to employ people at local (ie Eastern European) rates. Some of them also provided accommodation (often overcrowded), which they deducted directly from pay.

Despite the above, some people could still earn more in the UK than they could in their home countries.

As Eastern European countries have become wealthier, there is less incentive for people to look for work abroad. As a result, some Dutch and German employers of immigrant workers have started improving their working conditions, including paying sick leave and pensions and have cracked down on agency contracts.

Yes, I was aware of these agencies.

But where do we go from here? Workers are not in the mood for continuing low wages (and they want better conditions). Starmer says businesses must stop relying on cheap immigrant labour.

Businesses say higher wages will lead to higher prices. Presumably they want the government to continue to subsidise low wages with UC top ups.

Perhaps we should look at how other European countries manage? Although that would be anathema to Brexiters, I realise. I know in Norway that the standard of living is high for most, though they are slipping in certain areas. And they do pay higher taxes. And probably have different expectations.

... or maybe businesses that can't pay a sustainable wage shouldn't actually be in business?

Good to hear Katie59. I wasn't particularly thinking of farming or packing, but (as you say) I've heard of a couple of horror stories in catering and delivery work. It appears the employers use zero-hours contracts as a loophole.

MaizieD
Or put another way, which blows my mind.

1 million seconds= 12 days.
1 billion seconds = 31 years

Right you are, Jennifer Eccles.

I will add that if an employer is found to be breaking the rules, or employing illegals, large fines and even jail is the penalty, so farmers are very careful.

The situation is just this, an employer, often an agency, obtains a work permit for workers to come to the UK to harvest and process farm crops.
The pay has to be at least UK minimum wage and deductions are allowed for accommodation and transport, just like any other worker who houses himself and takes a bus to work, they also pay tax just like all the rest of us, some of course don’t want to pay their share.
If those workers dont want to do the work, the only choice is to go home, they don’t have permits to stay doing other work, although some abscond and work illegally.
Be assured the Gangmasters Authority is very active, look to other industries to find the exploitation, hotels, catering, cleaning and many others

Some are still exploited and employers get away with paying below the minimum wage:

www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-farming-slavery-idUSKBN2B828O

Migrant Workers picking crops or working in pack houses are paid at least minimum wage many earn more, the Gangmasters Authority regularly check employers. Farming is the only sector to have a statutory agency, other employers have no official checks.

*from

Dickens Some Eastern Europeans were employed by agencies operating form Eastern Europe. They were allowed to employ people at local (ie Eastern European) rates. Some of them also provided accommodation (often overcrowded), which they deducted directly from pay.

Despite the above, some people could still earn more in the UK than they could in their home countries.

As Eastern European countries have become wealthier, there is less incentive for people to look for work abroad. As a result, some Dutch and German employers of immigrant workers have started improving their working conditions, including paying sick leave and pensions and have cracked down on agency contracts.

lovebeigecardigans1955

It was meant to be lighthearted growstuff as I don't like to boast about being a clever clogs.

It was meant to be lighthearted growstuff as I don't like to boast about being a clever clogs.

I have no problem with the use of UC to top up part time wages because someone has caring responsibilities or whatever, but I have a huge issue with UC being used to top up full time wages because the employer isn't paying enough. Those saying that increased (I prefer to say improved) wages will push costs up for business, well so be it, I fail to see why I should prop up a failing business or improve their profits by paying a good chunk of their employees' wages. Going out to eat at a restaurant which charges more because they pay their staff a decent hourly rate is my choice, subsidising the massive directors' bonus of companies such as G4S is not, and I know which one I would like my money to go to.

One thing that puzzles me about this 'not relying on cheap immigrant labour' now that we are out of the EU is that, as far as I understood, those moving around Europe looking for work were supposed to be paid the same rate that was being offered to the native locals.

If that is the case, why were the various east Europeans etc being paid less - working 'on the cheap' in agriculture etc? Surely the fault lies with the employers?

This has led to those opposed to the EU to say that their jobs have been taken by immigrants who've priced them out of the labour market. The fault lies with the employers who refused to pay the going rate.

... and now those jobs are there for the taking, and the locals don't want them, and they probably never did because they have always been low-paid and still are. And probably always will be because growers work on tight margins.

So what's the answer? Maybe we have to accept that the days of cheap produce are over and pay more? Because it is always consumers or workers (who are both) who always bear the burden of increased wages, never the employer.

lovebeigecardigans Many less educated folk are far from ignorant.

Many immigrants are willing to do the jobs that our people don't want to do, such as waiting at tables, cleaning or caring. The NHS, for instance, is shored up by foreign workers.

In the old days our less educated folk (which includes ignorant oiks like me) worked in industry or manufacturing - where are those now? Some jobs can't be done remotely or on a computer.

16 years ago, at the age of 60, my 40 year relationship ended, along with our business. With only my state pension, plus small private pension, I ended up buying a small jewellery business in an indoor market. Rent of £600.00 a month (£7.200.00 a year for 155 square feet (£46.45 a sq foot). Compare this with Victoria Beckhams shop next to the Ritz in London of £270.000 rent, for 7000 sq feet. £38.57 a sq foot.
Add in other expenses of service charge, credit card charges, phone, internet, electric, insurance, shoplifting etc, I made very little profit. To employ someone on minimum wages, I would have to take over £40.000 a year more just to cover their wages and NI.
At 60 I had the energy to run the shop, at 70 I didn’t. So many variables - although I didn’t claim any benefits, at least half the other stall holders did. So next time you want money knocked off something, remember not every business owner is making a fortune. They’re often just struggling to survive.

The sad thing is he has not said how he intends to find the money to pay those taking low paid jobs the wage their unions demand.

It's not up to him to do that. The employers have to find the money. There is legislation in place regarding the payment of the minimum wage (which, BTW, is not a Living Wage...).

Though I do recall that research found that the free movement of EU workers hadn't contributed to low wages. It's a domestic problem.

yggdrasil

So the Labour party proves again it has been taken over by Starmer who is even more to the right than Blair.
There is no opposition in Parliament any more

I just cannot get your reasoning clear in my mind.

Saying that any country should not be relying on cheap labour provided by immigrants who work for less than the going rate that a citizen of the country (or their trade union) would demand cannot possibly be considered a negation of socialist values, or a move to the Right.

Keir Starmer is surely saying what any convinced socialist should.

The sad thing is he has not said how he intends to find the money to pay those taking low paid jobs the wage their unions demand.

Back in the day, employers trained their staff and encouraged in-house promotion. Now employers think the Government should deliver fully trained ready to go on day one employees
Schools streamed academic and practically skilled young people so there was no need for them to feel they were failures.
Tax credits regarded as ‘benefits’ for recipients disguise the fact that the government is actually supporting private enterprise to pay low wages. And amongst all the bleating that the living wage is unaffordable there are people for whom the truth is that they do not have viable businesses.

(sorry, bad formatting fails this morning. Quote at the top should be in italics)