No Poles, or Spanish need apply

asdasd

British workers and Unions picket a power station which does not employ locals.

Tsk, at the racist workers thinking that they have a right to jobs in their area. Bad racist workers! They should be sent to a diversity training camp. Or something of that nature.

Dont be at yourself

Is the power station breaking any laws? Are they exploiting the foreign workers? Paying below minimum wage, or making them work in otherwise unfair conditions? If not, the union has no argument. A job in a power station is not someone's birthright.

Here's a thought - maybe if they weren't so heavily unionised, and obviously willing to protest at the ridiculous, they might be a little bit more employable.

asdasd

Here's a thought - maybe if they weren't so heavily unionised, and obviously willing to protest at the ridiculous, they might be a little bit more employable.

I have come to the conclusion, easily reached, that multiculturalism and anti-racism are the new Thatcherism . Middleclass **** in protected jobs pissing all over the shirty working class.

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

seamus

Them and everyone else in that country. Does that mean that every citizen has a right to job over an EU immigrant? What about British people who haven't been living in Britain all their life? Are they lower on the "gizza job" chain?

If someone is getting work ahead of you it means two things:

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

Market forces will always prevail, the nationality of the workers is irrelevant.

Mena

asdasd wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion, easily reached, that multiculturalism and anti-racism are the new Thatcherism . Middleclass **** in protected jobs pissing all over the shirty working class.

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

Probably being very pedantic here but Staythorpe is actually owned by RWE, a German company.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

pepsicokeacola

Mena wrote: »

Probably being very pedantic here but Staythorpe is actually owned by RWE, a German company.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

+1

clearly.

asdasd

Market forces will always prevail, the nationality of the workers is irrelevant.

Were the nationality Chinese it would. Nations can control the flow of immigration. All nations do this. The reason is often the protection of worker's wages - which would otherwise ( in the horrible dystopian world you imagine) fall to the world average.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

No we don't have "free movement" in the EU. Poles cant work in most parts of the EU. This has nothing to do with the locals' qualification, everything to do with price. And the company clearly has a policy of not hiring locals.

I think Lenin once said that capitalists would sell the rope to hang themselves- In a metaphorical sense that means support ideologies which will end, or curtail , capitalism ( as well , of course, as actually selling the rope).

The only reason for workers to support capitalism is , historically, it made them richer every year. Until recently - with the rise of globalization and open-border fanaticism - that was the case. If people get poorer then they will support ideologies which stop them getting poorer, probably protectionism and nationalism. Or existing political parties will move in that direction.

An ideology, supported by internet nerds, which lectures the working class about how they should get poorer because foreign workers are pricing their labour lower is not viable in the long term. Sorry.

asdasd

+1

clearly.

-1

clearly not.

I have a groundhog day feeling with these threads. There is no freedom of movement from the accession states to most European States, a fact taht needs to be repeated every single thread.

Were this German company to build in Germany it could not employ Poles.

Nodin

seamus wrote: »

If someone is getting work ahead of you it means two things:

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

3. Legislation allows them to be sub-contracted at a lower wage than would be the norm, or viable for an employee considering a career native to the area to accept.

Mena

asdasd wrote: »

No we don't have "free movement" in the EU. Poles cant work in most parts of the EU. This has nothing to do with the locals' qualification, everything to do with price. And the company clearly has a policy of not hiring locals.

Your argument falls down since there are Spanish workers in the equation as well. Spain does qualify from free movement of labour.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

I have a groundhog day feeling with these threads. There is no freedom of movement from the accession states to most European States, a fact taht needs to be repeated every single thread.

Were this German company to build in Germany it could not employ Poles.

Just as a query, if they are employing 300 Poles as stated and you're correct, why can't (and wasn't) a case taken?

asdasd

Just as a query, if they are employing 300 Poles as stated and you're correct, why can't (and wasn't) a case taken?

I didnt say 300 in this thread so you must have read it in the linked article. So the answer is, I have no idea.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

I didnt say 300 in this thread so you must have read it in the linked article. So the answer is, I have no idea.

I was slightly out.....
[QUOTE-Article] Unions were told that Alstom itself will employ 250 Polish workers from the end of January on top of the 50 Spanish workers already working there for the sub-contractors." [/QUOTE]

It would appear that restrictions were/are optional. Evidently the British and ourselves decided not to impose any on Polish persons. Therefore the company is perfectly entitled to do what its doing, regardless of the 'moral' implications.

The UK was one of the three countries, along with Ireland and Sweden, to place no restrictions on workers from the 2004 entrants. However, workers have to register and only become eligible for benefits such as Jobseeker's Allowance and income support after working continuously in the UK for at least a year. After an unexpectedly large influx of workers from Central Europe - an estimated 600,000 in two years - the UK announced that it would impose restrictions on workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Up to 20,000 will be allowed to take low-skilled jobs in agriculture or food processing, high-skilled workers will be able to apply for work permits to perform a skilled job, and students will be able to work part-time. Self-employed people from Bulgaria and Romania are already allowed to work in the UK, and this will continue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm#uk

OhNoYouDidn't

All 850 jobs being filled by migrant workers?

Stinks of 'race to the bottom' exploitation to me and I think the union are dead right to highlight this. Sounds like an Irish Ferries scenario to me.

OhNoYouDidn't

asdasd wrote: »

An ideology, supported by internet nerds, which lectures the working class about how they should get poorer because foreign workers are pricing their labour lower is not viable in the long term. Sorry.

Post of the month.

I suspect that the bulk of the posters on this site are teenagers and early twenty somethings who are in short supply of real life experience.

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

P. Breathnach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

That seems a reasonable position, one that I could support.

Whether or not it is happening in the case under discussion here is unclear.

It becomes a more difficult question when an employer legally exploits workers from another country who are prepared to work for less than the going rate.

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

What evidence do you have that in this case, workers are being treated illegally?

Dont be at yourself

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

On a similar not, lets not forget that EU-funded infrastructure projects gave employment to a lot to indigenous workers both here and in the UK. You can't have your cake and eat it.

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that in this case, workers are being treated illegally?

None whatosever, hence I said it 'stinks of'.

Regardless of legality, unions have a right to object to supressed wages in unionised industries. If the employers are playing fast and loose with standardised wages (and in construction they are), you can be sure they are doing the same with health and safety rules.

Dont be at yourself

You're making baseless assumptions. There has been no indication that they're breaking any laws.

OhNoYouDidn't

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That seems a reasonable position, one that I could support.

Whether or not it is happening in the case under discussion here is unclear.

It becomes a more difficult question when an employer legally exploits workers from another country who are prepared to work for less than the going rate.

Accepted, but in construction there is a minimum hourly wage that has been agreed. The German company are avoiding that by contracting non-unionised workers and breaking agreements that have been in place since God was a nipper.

Maybe illegal is to strong a word, but its moody and they unions are right to make some noise.

OhNoYouDidn't

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

You're making baseless assumptions. There has been no indication that they're breaking any laws.

I don't think its a baseless assumption, but it is an assumption I will admit.

However, they are breaking with industry practice and union agreements.

Dont be at yourself

Luckily enough, unions don't dictate legislation on working conditions. God knows where we'd be if they did!

At the end of the day, contractors, especially in today's climate, will always look for the cheaper option, and they cant be blamed for that. Is there any real expectation for them to lay off the foreign workers and hire more-expensive, unionised workers just because they happen to live locally? It is not the contractor's responsibility to ensure the welfare of local tradesmen.

asdasd

Is there any real expectation for them to lay off the foreign workers and hire more-expensive, unionised workers just because they happen to live locally?

This kind of nonsense will end capitalism as we know it. If people get poorer they will move to the radical right. As for the bourgeois cant about "local tribesmens" of course people support factories because they bring local employment. If a factory moves in and hires Poles then what's the point. The locals are skilled, they can do the job, so the subsidies the companie, factories and contractors get for setting up there should be conditional on hiring local labour.

P. Breathnach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Accepted, but in construction there is a minimum hourly wage that has been agreed. The German company are avoiding that by contracting non-unionised workers and breaking agreements that have been in place since God was a nipper.

Maybe illegal is to strong a word, but its moody and they unions are right to make some noise.

That's why I said it was a difficult question. I tend to support the idea that rates negotiated with a union should be protected -- a deal is a deal. But I could be moved from that position in cases where it can be shown that unions used unfair leverage to arrive at a rate. [In Ireland, I think that unions should now be open to the possibility of re-negotiating some rates downwards, especially in construction.]

It's even more difficult if we are looking at a "going rate" established by custom, and without union involvement.

doolox

I worked in a company which employed several Multinationals and as a result
wages were depressed for several years due to the presence of people in the economy willing to share 4 families to a house etc and as a result the price of services went very high.
Ireland is now divided into 2 economies:-
1 The public sector which is in permanent protected employment and have received large pay rises and where it is difficult to place foreign workers.
2 The private internationally trading sector, mostly multinationals who can hire from any place in the world and hence depress wages and put the native employees at a disadvantage to the compatriots in the public sector.
Wage differentials between public and private now run at 20%.

We are now at a cross roads where increasing indebtedness is forcing us to review all public expenses and the public sector will probably face job cuts and pay freezes as the government tries to balance the books.

I don't think the governments decision to allow new EU entrants free access to our developed job market was a good thing but the decision was made for the benefit of employers only, not the overall benefit of the country.

Our power station workers recently got a 3% pay rise in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in the States history. It was received with great anger and resentment by the press and general public alike so , at least in Ireland, power station workers know how to look after their own interests.
They have had good teachers in the Banking sector here on how to look after your own and screw the rest.......................

K-9

doolox wrote: »

I worked in a company which employed several Multinationals and as a result
wages were depressed for several years due to the presence of people in the economy willing to share 4 families to a house etc and as a result the price of services went very high.

What do you mean?

asdasd

What do you mean?

I think he means that increasing the labour supply reduces it's cost.

doolox

People came from Poland where the average wage was €8,000 pa.
They thought €20,000 pa. was a fortune and did not take into account all the expenses of living in Ireland. Some were prepared to put up with an expensive Ireland to get moneyto buy cheap housing etc back home in Poland. Same with the Indians some of who were openly phoning estate agents in Hyderabad while at work on company thime and phones buying apartments at 1/10 the cost of Irish ones with the intention of putting up with Ireland for a few years and leaving when the Irish economy was broken, which it is now.
In the meantime Irish workers could not bargain for payrises to keep up with rising prices brought on by rising wages in the protected public sector and many were squeezed out by not being able to afford to live in their homeland.
Naturally the native working class are resentful of this arrangement.
The protected public service workers and the upper class call this racism or parochial thinking.
I call it concern for my future survival.

gandalf

Doolix my god if I time travelled back in time to England in the 1950's I'm sure they were saying the same about the irish then. That statement smacks of hypocrisy especially given our recent history.

The situation is correcting itself. The jobs are drying up and the workers are now moving back home or to places were there is employment like London for the 2012 Olympics.

We still have problems here like an out of date Public Service that is choking the country economically. You can't blame that on migrant workers, that's the governments fault and by extension our fault for voting in the muppets and not demanding that they ensure we get value for money.

sink

In the long term (1-2 decades) the single market will result in wage equalisation, greater efficiency and lower prices resulting in an increase in the standard of living across the continent. For the higher wage countries it will be a painful adjustment but worth it in the long term. Cold comfort to someone who just lost their job at the dell plant in Limerick I know but that is the reality of the situation. Introducing barriers to labour and trade will only hurt our long term interest. My sister lost her job as an Architect and my aunt who is an estate agent is barely making a buck and I'm not certain I'll have a job in six months so I am not speaking from an insulated bubble.