If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I'm not claiming anything - all I'm doing is telling you (repeatedly) is how public sector recruitment is done.
I've also pointed out that this is how it's always been done - to the extent that websites where public sector jobs are advertised and where the forms are hosted.
And if you want to be one of the people who get an interview you spend the time to fill the form in.
One upside of using forms is that you end up with 10-20 applicants all of whom are plausible candidates for the job. It won't be like the private sector where last week an agent I know got 500 applicants within 30 minutes of an advert appearing - none of whom were qualified for the job.
Another twist to the wfh controversies. A friend has started working for a private fee-paying school which has no premises at all. Both staff and pupils are online from home. The pupils are a mixture of people who for some reason cannot attend a physical class - either mental or physical health issues or simply highly mobile parents - and the teacher:pupil ratio is amazing, for a relatively modest £7K/year. The teachers love it as they can combine it with a full home life. Obviously lack of social interaction is a big snag for the kids, which they may or may not be able to make up in their home environment, but as they literally *can't* attend a school it offers an alternative to home lessons from parents. The school has 1000 pupils and aims to recruit 2000 more - the model is basically scalable.
Should the public sector offer something like this?
What about sport? Drama? Music? Technology? Chemistry experiments? And so on.
The curriculum must necessarily be restricted. If it is the only option to no schooling at all for certain types of pupils, I can see some value. But why would you want to expand it beyond such a cohort. Pupils will be missing out on an awful lot.
It sounds like utter hell. But probably a slightly improvement on home schooling, which is worse than hell.
Fuckola. I think Israel is going to do something daft
Breaking: Israel Minister of Diaspora @AmichaiChikli suggests that Israel will retaliate by launching hundreds of missiles on Iran:
“We will treat every missile fired on Israel as if it hit the intended target, and we will retaliate accordingly.” 10:08 PM · Apr 14, 2024 · 6,265 Views
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
Separately the reason why South Cambridgeshire council gets zero applicants for many jobs is that few people are able to work there for the salaries being paid.
The people who are willing to work for local Government wages don't want to be tied down Monday - Friday full time, if they want to work full time they will be getting 50-100% more in the private sector (heck down there it's probably 100-150% more with less stress).
The reason why they get zero applicants is that £30,000 a year probably doesn't give you any more than a grotty flat share - and you can earn the same doing the same job up north where £30,000 will allow you to buy a 3 bedroom house....
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
Good thing about the public sector is you can close your office door and take a nap.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Interesting. Was thinking exactly this this morning. I remember reading a newspaper article during The Troubles which said: “The Northern Irish only want peace if their side wins.” It might have been true, at some point. But something changed. What changed? Can it change in Israel/Palestine?
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
From having hired and been hired in the private sector, asking applicants to fill out a form much over a couple of fields will put off many people - Those used to recruitment style in a big chunk of the private sector.
Given the public sector is having problems in recruiting, it might not be the silliest idea to take look.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I’d agree with Eek. If you have 100 applicants then I’d rather sift through 100 forms than do 100 interviews. And if it sifts out speculative candidates vs the mustard keen that’s not a bad thing is it?
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
From having hired and been hired in the private sector, asking applicants to fill out a form much over a couple of fields will put off many people - Those used to recruitment style in a big chunk of the private sector.
Given the public sector is having problems in recruiting, it might not be the silliest idea to take look.
Pagan is assuming the problem is the application process - the problem down south is that the pay being offered is after 15 years of below inflation wage increases unliveable.
We commented earlier on that £35,000 wasn't much to live on in London. £38,000 is a decent public sector salary for a specialist graduate with 3+ years post qualification experience in either social care or planning - top end of scale will for £42,000 or so (so after 8 years experience)..
But why has this only become an issue since Brexit?
Because it was possible to get an infinite supply of new people to fill jobs at minimum wage pre-Brexit.
But those new arrivals inevitably created extra demand, so more jobs needed filling, which meant the shortage was never filled and there was never equilibrium.
Now that the supply of minimum wage isn't infinite, employers need to increase wages to reach equilibrium. Why don't you want people paid a living wage instead of minimum wage?
I would like to agree with you but I can't see how it's sustainable. I mean, these pubs barely make a profit at all as is and many don't open. At some point soon we're going to see a load of pubs go bust.
So some go bust.
You then have fewer pubs with more customers per pub in them, whose staff are being paid a living wage.
Its the only sustainable solution, more sustainable than infinite minimum wage.
I think it's not "some". It's most.
I think losing our local pub would be really sad for the community and the staff that have kept it going all these years.
It's not as unsentimental as you think it is.
Its not most, its some.
If you have 10 pubs each earning enough to pay 92% of a living wage, then 1 goes bust, that 1's customers divided across the surviving 9 now can pay 101% of a living wage.
OK its not as exact as that, but it still the principle is similar.
And if the staff have kept it going all these years, the staff aren't missing. And can be paid a living wage.
EDIT: Or as Sandpit says all 10 can survive if other costs, such as taxes, are cut which means they can afford a living wage instead.
All true to a point. Pubs aren’t really interchangeable, if the one in your village closes then there’s an emotional attachment and it’s to the detriment of the whole village, especially if the next pub isn’t really walking distance. They’re social spaces that mean more than just four walls and a bar, at least to a lot of the visitors.
Now, the All Bar One on the High St, no-one notices if that closes when there’s a Slug & Lettuce three doors down and a Wetherspoon’s acrosss the street.
I think even in London which I know might have the "anonymity" of a lot of these places, a lot of pubs are institutions in their own right and it would be a great shame to lose them.
Let us find a point of agreement. I completely concur on pubs
One of the saddest sites in the British countryside is coming upon a lovely village which, for some inexplicable reason, does not have a pub. Of course it used to have a pub, and you can always find it, the weirdly big building with grass all around and oddly large windows, now converted into expensive housing, and thereby reducing the appeal of the village, which is why the owners wanted to live there in the first place
I hate it. A village needs a church, a pond, a green, a corner shop, and a pub. And the first and last are the most important. And yes they serve the same purpose in big cities, including London
We're not quite in the position of all those villages in the Spanish interior- the ones with 2 old crones, 5 goats and a crumbling pile of buildings because anyone who could moved to the coast- but there are lots of villages that need more people to have a future.
There are clever things you can do like running the village shop out of the back of the church, but they only get you so far.
The answer of course is affordable housing for young people in villages. It keeps pubs, schools and sports clubs open. Nimbys are killing their own villages.
Do you mean council houses? It was Thatcher and her Conservatives who sold those off. And then prevented local councils from using the money to build any more to replace them.
No government or party's hands are clean when it comes to the dire state housing finds itself in.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I’d agree with Eek. If you have 100 applicants then I’d rather sift through 100 forms than do 100 interviews. And if it sifts out speculative candidates vs the mustard keen that’s not a bad thing is it?
I wrote a GPT script the other week that sorts candidates in to "LOL - NO" and "Mibbe". Saves a lot of time.
Sadly HR say it's a non-goer, so 100 applicants are being manually sifted through even if their CV's are nonsense. Combined with the brutal Home Office rules about students now - it's really costing a massive amount of cash just reading MSc students CV's claiming to have mastered every skill under the sun while they frantically apply for any/every job going.
How do you verify ages . And if you have to hand over ID how can you trust the providers with that info . I’ll be interested to see how these issues are dealt with .
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
From having hired and been hired in the private sector, asking applicants to fill out a form much over a couple of fields will put off many people - Those used to recruitment style in a big chunk of the private sector.
Given the public sector is having problems in recruiting, it might not be the silliest idea to take look.
Pagan is assuming the problem is the application process - the problem down south is that the pay being offered is after 15 years of below inflation wage increases unliveable.
We commented earlier on that £35,000 wasn't much to live on in London. £38,000 is a decent public sector salary for a specialist graduate with 3+ years post qualification experience in either social care or planning - top end of scale will for £42,000 or so (so after 8 years experience)..
My new (public sector) IT Director is trying to hire new software developers for borderline minimum wage. I pointed out that LIDL paid more for till assistants and was met with a blank stare.
I only learned yesterday that WhatsApp was until this week banned for under-16s, which came as news to me and all the other parents I know who have been contacting their children on it for years.
How do you verify ages . And if you have to hand over ID how can you trust the providers with that info . I’ll be interested to see how these issues are dealt with .
You press "Yes" when asked if you are 16 or over. Duh. God, do we have to explain every little detail?...
How do you verify ages . And if you have to hand over ID how can you trust the providers with that info . I’ll be interested to see how these issues are dealt with .
You press "Yes" when asked if you are 16 or over. Duh.
Quite so, that's why people under 18 have not been able to access porn sites for a long time, well known fact.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Interesting. Was thinking exactly this this morning. I remember reading a newspaper article during The Troubles which said: “The Northern Irish only want peace if their side wins.” It might have been true, at some point. But something changed. What changed? Can it change in Israel/Palestine?
The prior question is what similarity is there between Palestine now and Northern Ireland when the conflict there was at its height.
The answer is very little.
1. There's no analogue in Palestine to the British government.
There's AIPAC, CPMAJO, and the ADL in the USA, but there are no equivalent US-supporting institutions in Israel. Nor is the US army on the streets in Israel. Or a Jewish diaspora army. The only army in Israel is the Israeli army.
2. The "ascendancy" merchants in the 6C, to give ethnic supremacy its local name, may have been a well tooled-up bunch of bible-bashing Catholic-hating thugs, but they didn't dehumanise their opponents - either in theory or in practice - on ANYTHING LIKE the scale that the Israelis do. For instance, Orange Order lodges begin their sessions by praying that Catholics etc. will drop their left-footed ways and become "wise unto salvation". It's true this doesn't square (Masonic pun intended) with Calvinist predestinationism, but nonetheless this is what they do. Yes they burnt some Catholics out of their homes, but they never denied the right of Irish Catholics to live in Ireland. The Israeli political class exceeds Ian Paisley Senior at his "Ulster Says No" worst by about a million miles.
Pagan is assuming the problem is the application process - the problem down south is that the pay being offered is after 15 years of below inflation wage increases unliveable.
We commented earlier on that £35,000 wasn't much to live on in London. £38,000 is a decent public sector salary for a specialist graduate with 3+ years post qualification experience in either social care or planning - top end of scale will for £42,000 or so (so after 8 years experience)..
My new (public sector) IT Director is trying to hire new software developers for borderline minimum wage. I pointed out that LIDL paid more for till assistants and was met with a blank stare.
20 years ago DWP (and more quietly HMRC) had to create a fully owned subsidy to pay suitable rates for IT staff.
It took some (I would claim intentional) disasters with HP and others consultancies that resulted in staff being TUPEd back in house to fix the banding issues and get IT pay rates up to the point they could actually recruit staff up north.
And the DWP offices are grotty so it's little wonder most people work from home unless they need to be in an office...
I don't want to go back to my public sector job tomorrow. I'd much rather be in the private sector where I could have my phone switched on and book doctors and dentists appointments, phone utility companies, book holidays and post on PB during working hours and still somehow be a thrusting engine of productivity.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
Good thing about the public sector is you can close your office door and take a nap.
As everyone in education with an office knows only too well. Twat.
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
Good thing about the public sector is you can close your office door and take a nap.
Open plan offices have put paid to that for many, even at senior levels - perks just ain't what they used to be.
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
Having grown up with the Troubles a constant presence in the news, I remember my utter amazement at that photo of Paisley and McGuinness joking with each other. I still find it shocking and quite moving that they became genuine friends (although it's a shame it didn't happen a bit earlier).
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
Good thing about the public sector is you can close your office door and take a nap.
Open plan offices have put paid to that for many, even at senior levels - perks just ain't what they used to be.
Indded no more secret trysts with the hot young thing down the corridor.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
Having grown up with the Troubles a constant presence in the news, I remember my utter amazement at that photo of Paisley and McGuinness joking with each other. I still find it shocking and quite moving that they became genuine friends (although it's a shame it didn't happen a bit earlier).
A bit selfishly of me, but as someone who grew up without it being a constant presence, it makes be wary when there are news stories about delving back into those times.
It seems like a lot of people and power players made a very hard decision to try to move on, not forgetting all that had happened, but accepting that there would not be justice for all the victims on all sides as part of the price for doing so.
That's obviously overly simplistic, but it is an instinctive reaction.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Outside London (and even inside most of it) the vast majority of the low paid jobs in question are actually done by U.K. residents. And always were.
It may surprise Londoners, but there are an awful lot of Britons in Britain.
Yes, the notion that Brits don't do jobs in Britain is a completely alien one. There isn't a job that people don't do. Overwhelming majority of waiters, care staff or any other job role in the UK are British.
If businesses in London can't hire enough staff at the wages they're offering, they need to increase the wages. That's supply and demand in action. Maybe their staff can afford to pay London house prices then, what's wrong with that?
No, it just means that there are fewer restaurants and bars, and the ones that remain become more expensive and are open for shorter periods. That's what is happening. It's happening here in the South West too. All the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants in Sidmouth are now advertising for summer staff, just as they did last summer. And as was the case last summer the supply of labour will not meet the demand. So, as was the case last summer, a few places will close others will restrict their opening hours and others will stop serving food. No-one wins.
What is happening, I think, is a reversion to an older structure of work. Because of rising wages at the very low end, the number of jobs in certain occupations will shrink, as the overall prices rise.
The cost of personal service will go up. The days when a bunch of teenagers in a park will get pizza delivered to the tree they are sitting under is numbered.
Something similar is being seen in much of the developed world. One suggestion is that COVID pushed the long term low paid out of the jobs they were in and forced them to look around. Another is that rising housing costs have finally broken something - even hideous HMOs are becoming expensive.
Near where I live, Amazon are offering pay way above minimum wage to deliver the last mile. You get to drive the same van each day - your space. Sit in a comfortable cab - clean and dry. Deliver packages - with a low maximum weight. With that about - why would anyone want to wait tables?
There are demographic trends at work here as well. Under employment is the big economic story no one wants to talk about. I know many local councils who are struggling to find staff at all levels - they can't compete financially with the private sector in the professions but the problem is now organisation-wide. Even filling low grade admin jobs is a problem and mnay are carrying 15-20% vacancies which impinges in areas like social work.
And yet when South Cambridgeshire council tried to fix the problem with a 4 day week it was stamped upon immediately..
Like working from home, they view it as a culture war issue
Fixing the problem by moving to a four day week, working fewer hours, for no loss of pay and only for some workers.
😂😂😂😂
Was the difference between finding replacement workers or wasting £x000 advertising for jobs that got zero applications...
Also have to say if you are spend £x000 advertising jobs then perhaps you are part of the problem. When companies I have worked for have needed workers they goto an agency. The agency then gets paid a percentage of the first years salary....when and only when they have supplied an applicant the company accept and employ. You don't need to put ads in the guardian and pay for no applicants you know.
It's local Government.
Spend £10,000 on an agency to find a member of staff and you are going to have awkward conversations with your voters...
The point you seem to miss however that you only pay if they provide you a successful applicant and it is unlikely to be 10k, the average rate is usually 15 to 20% of first year salary. So to pay 10k you would have to be placing a 50k employee minimum. You seem to prefer to spend £x000 advertising and getting zero applicants instead.
May be just me but isn't only spending when you get a successful applicant better than blowing £x000 for no applicants
It's not a point I miss - its something I know would be used to attack the councillor next time round and your argument would simply result in the comment "your mate (the recruitment consultant) did well..
Now I'm not arguing that using agencies to recruit staff is a bad idea, just that politically it's incredibly problematic...
So define what you mean by £x000 which was in your first post? To me as a voter that would just say we wasted the money and got no one. Money down the drain
Do you have the first idea who local Government / Civil service works. You know that to get a job an application form is required and needs to be completed by the applicant...
You don't think agencies will do application forms?
Well they can but as the applicant won't have filled it in, the form isn't valid....
Dont talk bollocks I have applied via agencies where a form is required.....they want to interview me after the agency has put my cv in front of them I fill in the form and sign it digitally....it really isnt rocket science unless you are a public sector person
For a permanent local authority or civil servant job?
I don't believe you and remember I have always been talking about public sector work here...
I have applied for jobs where they have for various reasons required forms to be filled in. Guess what they interviewed first and then said fill in the forms. There is absolutely no reason stopping the public sector doing the same unless they are so anal retentive that everyone has to fill in a form before we can even decide to interview them in which case they are wasteful arseholes.....interview first then even if you decide on a shortlist before final decision then you can interview a 100 decide on 5.
This is just short sighted public sector wankery masquerading as a relevant process and why most of the private sector treats you with the withering scorn you deserve and thinks you waste our taxes for absolutely no reason
So I'm right - you haven't had a public sector job and haven't got a clue why things are done the way they are in the public sector.
You may not like it but this Tory Government has been in power 14 years (heck the Tories have been in power 32 of the last 45 years) and the one thing that no Government has done is change the way public sector recruitment is done.
So
1) I wonder why they do things the way they do? 2) Why do you think even this Government hasn't changed the approach? 3) Yet you know better even though you've provided no evidence to back that up...
I have worked on public sector projects certainly and they were always the worst ones to work on because civil servants were in charge and didn't to be frank know their arse from their elbows
However on the recruitment front
explain to me why all applicants for a job have to fill out a form first before applying rather than narrowing down a couple of hundred applicants down to "These five we really like the look of" to progress to final interview you need to fill out this form?
I have worked for firms where to get the job you needed developed vetting...guess what they didnt require all applicants to go through it, just the final few
Yet more anecdotes that show you haven't got a clue how other things work and put in useless information for the sake of it.
As for why its a form that's because the application process is based on questions -
Identical questions on the form Identical questions at the interview
The person who scores best across the form and the interview gets the job...
No its the public sector that really doesn't have a clue, if I am replying to a job advert I know I am one of probably a hundred or more. Ask me to fill out a form to apply yeah not going to bother. Perhaps why as you say you have zero applicants....do a first interview then say you are on the short list of 5 fill out this form yes I will bother.
The public sector acts like it is a privilege to working for them when they really are just another bunch of idiots
So you ask 100 people to first interview, then ask the chosen five to fill out a form? And you’d do this for every public sector job?
S
It wasnt me saying they had zero applicants for the jobs they advertised, I was merely saying that to me fill out this form to apply would result in a fuck off not bothering, I suspect it puts off a lot of applicants. We have a cv we can send....yeah your form for a job where there might be a 100 other applicants not worth my time and effort
Eek is claiming all 100 must fill out the form
I thought the public sector was an el Dorado of cushy pay, conditions and pensions?
Surely that's worth filling out a form for.
(Which is not to say that creaky HR systems aren't an issue. But they're not the issue.)
Good thing about the public sector is you can close your office door and take a nap.
Open plan offices have put paid to that for many, even at senior levels - perks just ain't what they used to be.
Indded no more secret trysts with the hot young thing down the corridor.
Glass walls with at best partial frosted decals too, it's a damn witchhunt.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
I find it bizarre that Michelle O’Neill’s ascension to First Minister gets so little coverage in Great Britain.
I realise most PBers know this, yet it bears repeating: The daughter of an IRA gunman, who herself declines to renounce IRA killings, spends her Wednesday afternoons visiting Gaelic football community clubs with her deputy, the daughter of a Loyalist gunman. All this to lead a statelet that she wishes to abolish.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
A lot of that was down to the end of the Cold War.
It’s long been rumoured that Bush I and Gorbachev did a back channel deal - “We stop supporting our bastards and you stop supporting yours”.
The coup in Paraguay, where the CIAs Main Man took over and suddenly discovered (after a lifetime as The Big Cheese In Gold Braid) a love of representative democracy*…
And the Czech student martyr who turned out to be a live member of the secret police…
Hence the outbreak of peace and democracy everywhere.
*I want to write a book on this one. Talk about a handbrake turn in midlife.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
White supremacy ended in South Africa too. Then there were Cambodia and Rwanda. In Biafra the leaders on the two sides got handshaky eventually.
There is zero chance of the Israeli leadership accepting there can't be a Jewish-supremacist state in Palestine any more, that the refugees they chased out can all come home, and that there should be one person one vote, just as there is now in South Africa.
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
For me, civilisation peaked on September 10th, 2001.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
White supremacy ended in South Africa too. Then there were Cambodia and Rwanda. In Biafra the leaders on the two sides got handshaky eventually.
There is zero chance of the Israeli leadership accepting there can't be a Jewish-supremacist state in Palestine any more, that the refugees they chased out can all come home, and that there should be one person one vote, just as there is now in South Africa.
Isn’t there currently one person one vote in Israel? (I’m not challenging your other points, but it is a democracy, as far as I can see…)
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
For me, civilisation peaked on September 10th, 2001.
Surely not, Civilization III did not come out for another month after that.
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
For me, civilisation peaked on September 10th, 2001.
This whole grotesque Israel/Muslim neurosis-turned-world-war reminds me what a remarkable thing was achieved in Northern Ireland. There we had the same endless centuries-old grievances, the same embittered generations, decade after decade, 300 years of violence. Famine and bombs, murders and Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday and Warrington
Yet it DID end. Humans woke up and said, This doesn't have to be. And now Ireland and Britain are at peace. it is sometimes grumpy, but it is peace
Well done to all that did that
Yes, I always thought it was the most undrerrated achievement during my time in Parliament (I had nothing to do with it, but still great to see).
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
I find it bizarre that Michelle O’Neill’s ascension to First Minister gets so little coverage in Great Britain.
I realise most PBers know this, yet it bears repeating: The daughter of an IRA gunman, who herself declines to renounce IRA killings, spends her Wednesday afternoons visiting Gaelic football community clubs with her deputy, the daughter of a Loyalist gunman. All this to lead a statelet that she wishes to abolish.
It’s extraordinary when you really think about it . O’ Neill does come across very well in interviews , very charismatic . She has a real star quality .
A stray thought on worker shortages: They appear, from what I can see, very real in this area (Seattle Eastside suburbs), judging from the help-wanted signs. But there are two small chains that don't seem to have problems getting and keeping help, Trader Joe's and Chick-fil-A.
Why? My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the employees in these chains feel valued and enjoy their work. I assume that Chick-fil-A succeeds because of their Christian ethos, but I am not sure what Trader Joe's is doing right toward their employees.
(Incidentally. their prices for staples are competitive; for example, the half gallons of lactose-free milk that I buy regularly now cost $3.99 there, but $4.79 in other grocery stores in this area.)
Watching Scoop, the Prince Andrew thing on Netflix. Not my usual cup of tea but pretty good so far, great cast and Rufus Sewell putting in an uncanny shift as the great man.
‘I don’t know why everyone is making such a fuss about my friendship with Epstein, I knew Jimmy Savile much better, haw, haw!’
Prince Andrew is a soft flabby target. Many of Epstein's associates were extremely powerful men. Melinda Gates cites her husband's association with Epstein as the reason for their divorce. When Netflix goes after Gates I'll be impressed.
Radical thought - is pb (and it’s ilk) one of the reasons pubs are dying? We sit here, randomly chatting rubbish with others, all the time NOT heading the pub to chat rubbish with others. It’s so much easier to get social interaction (of a kind) online, and add in the price of booze in pubs vs Aldi/Lidl and you see why they close.
It is indeed. Not just tinternet, though - there is just a much greater array of ways to spend our time, and (it seems, though no doubt it always did) much less time.
When my Dad was my age, he'd be out at the pub twice a week. I'm lucky if I get out twice a month. Mind you, I've got three times as many kids as he had. Perhaps that's why there's no time.
I reckon also people live on average further (both in distance and time) from their mates. Bit sad to think about to be honest.
True. Though that may be time of life dependent: if I mapped where my friends lived, I reckon I now - at the age of 48 - live on average closer to my friends than at any age since primary school. Reason being, many of my closest friendships now are (indirectly at least) driven again by geography - because they're dads of kids at my daughters' primary school.
I've sketched a graph which I think is a not atypical middle class existence of age against average distance away of friends. At first, your friends are basically kids of your parents' friends, but gradually you get your own; at 11, your circle widens (my school had a large-ish catchment area); between 18 and 21 while your friends are suddenly a long way away you have new, surprisingly close-by people that your drink with; then at 21 suddenly everyone is miles away. But gradually the average distance decreases as you get to know people closer by; this really kicks in when your kids go to primary school.
I have, to my surprise, plenty of people within walking distance I would go drinking with if I could find the time to do so. (Sadly, the pubs round here don't exactly tempt you over the threshold with delicious beer and salubrious surroundings, though it's significantly better than it was ten years ago. Though @ManchesterKurt may disagree!)
Apropos of noting, I just found out that The Expanse episode "CQB" used a graphic for its self-destruct sequence that was an obvious hommage to a similar one in "Alien"
Watching Scoop, the Prince Andrew thing on Netflix. Not my usual cup of tea but pretty good so far, great cast and Rufus Sewell putting in an uncanny shift as the great man.
‘I don’t know why everyone is making such a fuss about my friendship with Epstein, I knew Jimmy Savile much better, haw, haw!’
Prince Andrew is a soft flabby target. Many of Epstein's associates were extremely powerful men. Melinda Gates cites her husband's association with Epstein as the reason for their divorce. When Netflix goes after Gates I'll be impressed.
I liked it as a piece of tv drama but I would be happy for tham to go after all the other rsoles as well as Andrew's soft flabby arse (of which we're given a rather distressing glimpse in the show).
Off-topic: what does it mean in a British state school when a pupil is "asked to write a statement"? I came across this expression in reports about an argument between pupils and a teacher about trans, gender, and cat-identification:
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
I had only just qualified in 1989, and had a great time in the Eighties, but 1989 to 1992 weren't great years. There was significant unrest over the poll tax, brutally high interest rates causing negative equity and the debacle of Black Wednesday. It took a while for the 90s to get going and become enjoyable.
So I wouldn't say 1 Jan 1990 was particularly good at all.
But why has this only become an issue since Brexit?
Because it was possible to get an infinite supply of new people to fill jobs at minimum wage pre-Brexit.
But those new arrivals inevitably created extra demand, so more jobs needed filling, which meant the shortage was never filled and there was never equilibrium.
Now that the supply of minimum wage isn't infinite, employers need to increase wages to reach equilibrium. Why don't you want people paid a living wage instead of minimum wage?
I would like to agree with you but I can't see how it's sustainable. I mean, these pubs barely make a profit at all as is and many don't open. At some point soon we're going to see a load of pubs go bust.
So some go bust.
You then have fewer pubs with more customers per pub in them, whose staff are being paid a living wage.
Its the only sustainable solution, more sustainable than infinite minimum wage.
I think it's not "some". It's most.
I think losing our local pub would be really sad for the community and the staff that have kept it going all these years.
But the sad reality is that there are far fewer drinkers to go round than there once were. What else is there to do but have fewer pubs? The words stick in the craw. But I can't think of another way to do it.
Demographically a growing proportion of young people don't drink alcohol, which is disappointing. I hope that reverses in the future.
Demographic changes explian much of this. Muslims dont drink and i dont think indians drink much either.
Prohibition in 4 out of India's 29 states, including Narendra Modi's stronghold of Gujarat.
Drink may be officially prohibited but it is widely available. When I visited a supplier in Gujarat they set up a bar for me and my colleague in a hotel room. Then half of the suppliers management team showed up and all got shitfaced..
If I could turn the clock back to any time, it would be 1st January 1990. Why? Because everyone who hated the 80s was looking forward to a new decade that was going to be different to the previous 10 years, and everyone who loved the 80s was hoping the 90s would be a continuation of it. So at the start of the 90s most people were in an optimistic mood. Also geopolitical events were pretty favourable, with the Berlin Wall having come down a few weeks earlier, etc.
I had only just qualified in 1989, and had a great time in the Eighties, but 1989 to 1992 weren't great years. There was significant unrest over the poll tax, brutally high interest rates causing negative equity and the debacle of Black Wednesday. It took a while for the 90s to get going and become enjoyable.
So I wouldn't say 1 Jan 1990 was particularly good at all.
Comments
I've also pointed out that this is how it's always been done - to the extent that websites where public sector jobs are advertised and where the forms are hosted.
And if you want to be one of the people who get an interview you spend the time to fill the form in.
One upside of using forms is that you end up with 10-20 applicants all of whom are plausible candidates for the job. It won't be like the private sector where last week an agent I know got 500 applicants within 30 minutes of an advert appearing - none of whom were qualified for the job.
It's existential for both the Iranian regime and for Israel as a nation.
I'm hoping we reach a stalemate that falls short of a massive regional war, but the risk is there.
The people who are willing to work for local Government wages don't want to be tied down Monday - Friday full time, if they want to work full time they will be getting 50-100% more in the private sector (heck down there it's probably 100-150% more with less stress).
The reason why they get zero applicants is that £30,000 a year probably doesn't give you any more than a grotty flat share - and you can earn the same doing the same job up north where £30,000 will allow you to buy a 3 bedroom house....
Given the public sector is having problems in recruiting, it might not be the silliest idea to take look.
And people talk about nutcases in the Middle "East".
We commented earlier on that £35,000 wasn't much to live on in London. £38,000 is a decent public sector salary for a specialist graduate with 3+ years post qualification experience in either social care or planning - top end of scale will for £42,000 or so (so after 8 years experience)..
"Social media could be banned for under-16s to protect them under new plans being considered by ministers"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13307613/Social-media-BANNED-16s-plans-considered-ministers.html
Sadly HR say it's a non-goer, so 100 applicants are being manually sifted through even if their CV's are nonsense. Combined with the brutal Home Office rules about students now - it's really costing a massive amount of cash just reading MSc students CV's claiming to have mastered every skill under the sun while they frantically apply for any/every job going.
Most Britons now think the 1990s and 2000s were a better time to be alive than the present - a big jump since we last asked in 2019
2000s: 60% say were better (+25)
'90s: 57% (+16)
'80s: 45% (+8)
'70s: 34% (+2)
'60s: 33% (+2)
'50s: 16% (=)
'40s: 4% (=)
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1778772114851364984
I only learned yesterday that WhatsApp was until this week banned for under-16s, which came as news to me and all the other parents I know who have been contacting their children on it for years.
The future looks no better to Britons - most across all social groups think life in 2050 will be worse than today
Worse: 56%
About same: 12%
Better: 17%
https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/49129-life-was-better-in-the-nineties-and-noughties-say-most-britons
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1778772121289720052
The answer is very little.
1. There's no analogue in Palestine to the British government.
There's AIPAC, CPMAJO, and the ADL in the USA, but there are no equivalent US-supporting institutions in Israel. Nor is the US army on the streets in Israel. Or a Jewish diaspora army. The only army in Israel is the Israeli army.
2. The "ascendancy" merchants in the 6C, to give ethnic supremacy its local name, may have been a well tooled-up bunch of bible-bashing Catholic-hating thugs, but they didn't dehumanise their opponents - either in theory or in practice - on ANYTHING LIKE the scale that the Israelis do. For instance, Orange Order lodges begin their sessions by praying that Catholics etc. will drop their left-footed ways and become "wise unto salvation". It's true this doesn't square (Masonic pun intended) with Calvinist predestinationism, but nonetheless this is what they do. Yes they burnt some Catholics out of their homes, but they never denied the right of Irish Catholics to live in Ireland. The Israeli political class exceeds Ian Paisley Senior at his "Ulster Says No" worst by about a million miles.
It took some (I would claim intentional) disasters with HP and others consultancies that resulted in staff being TUPEd back in house to fix the banding issues and get IT pay rates up to the point they could actually recruit staff up north.
And the DWP offices are grotty so it's little wonder most people work from home unless they need to be in an office...
I'd much rather be in the private sector where I could have my phone switched on and book doctors and dentists appointments, phone utility companies, book holidays and post on PB during working hours and still somehow be a thrusting engine of productivity.
Twat.
Another example was Mozambique. Lefties like me used to be passionate supporters of Frelimo against the evil Renamo, who seemed barbaric beyond belief. Lo and behold, one day we woke up and found they'd stopped the war and formed a coalition. There are others, too (Colombia, Phillipines, Morocco) where most of the rebels simply gave up in return for amnesty and sometimes a shot at elected office.
It seems like a lot of people and power players made a very hard decision to try to move on, not forgetting all that had happened, but accepting that there would not be justice for all the victims on all sides as part of the price for doing so.
That's obviously overly simplistic, but it is an instinctive reaction.
I realise most PBers know this, yet it bears repeating: The daughter of an IRA gunman, who herself declines to renounce IRA killings, spends her Wednesday afternoons visiting Gaelic football community clubs with her deputy, the daughter of a Loyalist gunman. All this to lead a statelet that she wishes to abolish.
If you want a good laugh check out the ravings of Mad Nad
#Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFAXwCwAayw
It’s long been rumoured that Bush I and Gorbachev did a back channel deal - “We stop supporting our bastards and you stop supporting yours”.
The coup in Paraguay, where the CIAs Main Man took over and suddenly discovered (after a lifetime as The Big Cheese In Gold Braid) a love of representative democracy*…
And the Czech student martyr who turned out to be a live member of the secret police…
Hence the outbreak of peace and democracy everywhere.
*I want to write a book on this one. Talk about a handbrake turn in midlife.
Then there were Cambodia and Rwanda.
In Biafra the leaders on the two sides got handshaky eventually.
There is zero chance of the Israeli leadership accepting there can't be a Jewish-supremacist state in Palestine any more, that the refugees they chased out can all come home, and that there should be one person one vote, just as there is now in South Africa.
Why? My guess, and it is only a guess, is that the employees in these chains feel valued and enjoy their work. I assume that Chick-fil-A succeeds because of their Christian ethos, but I am not sure what Trader Joe's is doing right toward their employees.
(Incidentally. their prices for staples are competitive; for example, the half gallons of lactose-free milk that I buy regularly now cost $3.99 there, but $4.79 in other grocery stores in this area.)
https://x.com/glinner/status/1779646476039442887?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Here's the pics
https://beratnasgas.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/104_selfdestruct.png?w=1024
https://beratnasgas.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/1_jhvcdkohdzrxgvg6kds3ug.png?w=1024
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/teacher-cat-despicable-b2361573.html
Does this kind of "statement" go to Prevent?
Is it a way to say "If you're sure you still think what you said, then write it down. Otherwise write that you recant"? Or what? What is it??
Is there some public-domain official guidance on this?
So I wouldn't say 1 Jan 1990 was particularly good at all.
https://x.com/aussiecossack/status/1779841686878990585