If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Interesting reading all threads of recent days. My take on things is that we have for a long time (since Maggie) been in an apparently settled centre-left consensus middle ground. I say 'apparently' because I never felt that was where the true political centre ground actually lay. Brexit has exposed this and we seem to be settling on a slightly more centre-right middle ground. This is probably a bit closer to the actual average worldview in the UK. But it is only a bit further right. May is not Pinochet or Hitler! She's a decent vicar's daughter who seems to care about a somewhat broader church of our countrymen and their concerns than the preceding left-liberal elites did. That's surely a good thing. The wailing and gnashing is coming mainly from those on the left who see the centre ground moving away from them a bit further.
Quite. The fact that politically Cameron and Osborne are indistinguishable from Clegg and Alexander, tells you all you need to know about the 2010-2016 government, that same could be said about Blair's ministry. I agree that these politicians did not come close to mapping onto the common ground of politics. They did however did map very well onto the metropolitan liberal middle class ground of politics, the noisy opinionated bit of the electorate. This group which is now feeling dispossessed as the Tories drift slightly to the right on some policies and to the left on others but more to the point are not giving them all the attention and right-on policies they feel they deserve.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
Well said. Blindingly obvious common sense that remains in short supply whilst huff puffing surrounds us.
Oh god, not the 'common sense' defence.
The classic deflection for moronic, unthinking, reactionary politics.
That you defend it says it all.
Or you could play the ball rather than the man, that would be refreshing.
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Indeed but it's not simply the government's fault. The problem with FOM has always been that business has seen it as a way to recruit without having to to bother with investment in skills for their industry.
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Which is why it is a joke. Nations break the state aid rules on a regular basis to prop up their failing industries while the EU waits for an ECJ judgement despite having many of the same already. Either there is no state aid or there is, this in between solution we have where governments can prop up companies with taxpayer money and wait 6-8 years for the EU to order the company to pay it back is a joke.
Weak, toothless and slow, surely not. This cannot be the same ECJ that regularly extended its reach, interfered and prevented the UK doing anything in terms of state aid (e.g. on Port Talbot) that we heard about 6 months ago.
Actually if you read Rudd's comments in the Guardian, she and May are really only kicking ideas around here.
The new government is trying to get a feel for what will and will not fly, I think. May likes insurance policies and fall backs before she acts. She loves to be 'popular'.
That's an interesting final comment. Politicians like to be popular - who doesn't? - but the successful politician also has to deal with being unpopular. Cameron's principal failing in my eyes was he never took well to unpopularity - he hated people arguing back to him and generally wanted everyone to love him.
The Thatchers and the Blairs of this life don't court unpopularity but they don't let it get to them though I would argue Margaret Thatcher enjoyed being unpopular and especially being told she was wrong by "experts" as it only convinced her of how right she was.
May hasn't yet experienced unpopularity - she will - and how she deals with that unpopularity will speak volumes about her ability to lead the country. It worries me she is more concerned with being popular than doing the right thing and everything she says is about increasing the size of her tent and wanting people to like her.
Sometimes in politics (and Brexit may be one of those times), a leader has to say unpleasant things and do unpopular things not because they want to but because it is the right thing to do for the country. May is all about being nice and reassuring at the moment - I worry that's all she wants to be.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Isn't the solution to ban foreign language and overseas advertising for jobs that have not been advertised in the UK for some amount of time? I'll use my office as an example again, it's probably about 50% foreign with Americans, Australians and Europeans making up the non-British 50%, should the management be shamed for that?
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
It may be that the government is leaning in your direction and is going for an EEA or at least FOM approach to BrExit, and as a result cannot legally control immigration. She may still feel it has to do something to at least looks like she is trying to reduce immigration, to the majority of voters that want immigration reduced, otherwise the kippers get 50 seats in 2020.
Rudd is right in one issue - and it is refreshing to hear it: we really do need to have a proper conversation about immigration. We are of course beginning to have it. I appreciate that net immigration will always be at the mercy of migration, but we all need to work out what and who we want in this country.
Nick R again asked her to name a sector (given that Javid had mentioned Polish builders favourably, and plenty of other sectors have been deemed immigration-friendly) and although she elegantly side-stepped the question, it is the right one to ask.
Mr. Charles, a policy in those terms would be absolutely fine, as the recruitment approach is designed to minimise the chances of a Briton getting the job.
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
Yes, very interventionist. Worryingly so.
It's beginning to sound a lot like "Big Government Conservatism", and I'm sure I heard someone peddling that about 15 years ago across the pond...
The media should lay off and give her an easy ride like they do Corbyn!!
LSE report finds 75% of press coverage misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn – we can't ignore media bias anymore We all want and need a strong and a critical media, but maybe we do not need an attack dog that kills off anyone who challenges the status quo?
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
Yes, very interventionist. Worryingly so.
It's beginning to sound a lot like "Big Government Conservatism", and I'm sure I heard someone peddling that about 15 years ago across the pond...
Cue all the free-market people who voted for Brexit acting surprised at this blindingly obvious outcome.
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
Yes, very interventionist. Worryingly so.
It's beginning to sound a lot like "Big Government Conservatism", and I'm sure I heard someone peddling that about 15 years ago across the pond...
Cue all the free-market people who voted for Brexit acting surprised at this blindingly obvious outcome.
The Conservative Party has been dead from the neck up for a generation. It's not 'conserving' anything - least of all the right of the average man to go about his business unmolested by the state for the most part.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Thing is, the safety issue is a real one (even if used disingenuously in this case). Building is as dangerous a job as front line soldiering, and you wouldn't want soldiers in the same unit unable to understand each other.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Which is why it is a joke. Nations break the state aid rules on a regular basis to prop up their failing industries while the EU waits for an ECJ judgement despite having many of the same already. Either there is no state aid or there is, this in between solution we have where governments can prop up companies with taxpayer money and wait 6-8 years for the EU to order the company to pay it back is a joke.
Weak, toothless and slow, surely not. This cannot be the same ECJ that regularly extended its reach, interfered and prevented the UK doing anything in terms of state aid (e.g. on Port Talbot) that we heard about 6 months ago.
Are there two separate ECJs, perhaps?
Some European governments (like the UK) don't do anything on the basis that the ECJ will likely come and slap it down later. (The Italians are like that right now with their banks.)
Other European governments (like France) give a Gallic shrug of the shoulders, and remember that it'll be somebody else's problem in about five years time.
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
But the main reason British workers don't want the jobs, is because the pay and conditions are not attractive enough compared to the benefits that they receive. The pay itself for unskilled work has been kept down because there are workers from the EU willing to do the work in supermarkets, care homes, leaflet delivery, fast food etc for minimum wage (or just above). If these EU workers were not available then the wage rates would be higher and conditions better (eg zero hour contracts) and some businesses such as some fast food outlets would not exist.
The alternative would be to cut benefit rates back by a massive amount such as halving the number of people able to get housing benefit. That is not an option I could countenance although I would hold down benefit payments below inflation for a few years.
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
Yes, very interventionist. Worryingly so.
It's beginning to sound a lot like "Big Government Conservatism", and I'm sure I heard someone peddling that about 15 years ago across the pond...
Indeed, I didn't ever think the Tory party would be the one to propose wiping voters' arses for them and tucking them into bed every night. Theresa May has always had a big brother streak, now we are seeing it in government.
May hasn't yet experienced unpopularity - she will - and how she deals with that unpopularity will speak volumes about her ability to lead the country. It worries me she is more concerned with being popular than doing the right thing
Really?
The Party Chairman who told her own party that some saw them as the Nasty Party?
The Home Secretary who told the Police Federation's Conference that either they reformed, or the government would do it for them?
The Home secretary who told our most important ally to Foxtrot Oscar on an extradition case.
I think May decides 'what's the right thing to do' then (almost) 'bugger the consequences'
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
I've worked in a job that was only advertised in English. I'm not sure it would have been a great idea to target Japanese people who didn't speak English as they they'd have had a hard time communicating with the other people on the team. [*]
[*] Although admittedly as things happened to turn out all the English-speaking people who didn't speak Japanese ended up quitting or getting fired.
[**] Then we hired a Japanese person but she moved to America. The world is a deeply confusing place.
Whilst I sympathise with the notion of droning Assange...
Wikileaks Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, "it would have been a joke." https://t.co/MnALounJo0
'eyes downcast, stammering'. Yeah, biased editorializing there. Full quote
“I don't recall any joke,” Clinton said, when asked about the allegations at a press conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday. “It would have been a joke, if it had been said, but I don't recall that.”
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Indeed but it's not simply the government's fault. The problem with FOM has always been that business has seen it as a way to recruit without having to to bother with investment in skills for their industry.
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Let me give you an example of a company I'm involved in. About five years ago, we hired a fabulous (British) guy who showed real natural programming ability, but who'd been in prison, and so nobody wanted to hire him. He was trained up, which took a lot of time from senior programmers, and then once he'd been trained and rehabilitated by having spend 18 months in a job, he left for more money. It was undoubtedly a massively positive investment for him, and massively negative for us as a company.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
The problem is that many people leave university without the right skills. Businesses need to be incentivised to train people up, otherwise they will always prefer to poach, or to hire foreigners with the right skills.
One real example of working life, 2016 UK style. A relative who is a uni student working this year's summer holidays for a plane cleaning company via an agency (2nd year at it). They wondered why all directly hired workers were Spanish. They asked the supervisor how a friend could get work and the response was "via the agency" and that the directly hired people were always recruited from Spain as easier to dismiss and cheaper. Some checks on internet found no uk recruitment adverts from that company.
The Party Chairman who told her own party that some saw them as the Nasty Party?
The Home Secretary who told the Police Federation's Conference that either they reformed, or the government would do it for them?
The Home secretary who told our most important ally to Foxtrot Oscar on an extradition case.
I think May decides 'what's the right thing to do' then (almost) 'bugger the consequences'
Nice try but we all know being Chairman of a Party in hopeless Opposition is one thing (and there was as much coverage of her footwear as her words if memory serves).
As for the other comments, sounding tough on a well publicised extradition case was again playing to the gallery - I believe the Mail supported her strongly.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
I'll use my office as an example again, it's probably about 50% foreign with Americans, Australians and Europeans making up the non-British 50%, should the management be shamed for that?
I think if your company could give a good reason why that was the case, it might actually educate some people. I think the problem is that a majority of people in the UK are hostile to the free market, believe in the lump of labour fallacy and think its all a zero sum game. A problems Mays big government philosophy is not going to deal with.
As I write, I discover that King’s College London is hosting an "Exploring Emotional Intelligence" workshop for the aspirant emotionally correct student. For those who want something a bit stronger, freshers arriving at Oxford this week will be made to attend a controversial "consent class", which teaches students not to sexually assault others.
The same courses will be reportedly run at Cambridge on an opt-out basis. Add to this the bewildering variety of the other workshops on sexuality, alcohol consumption, drugs, racism, misogyny and religious intolerance being run at other universities up and down the country, and you are left asking why aren’t undergraduates being trusted to work things out for themselves any more?
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Indeed but it's not simply the government's fault. The problem with FOM has always been that business has seen it as a way to recruit without having to to bother with investment in skills for their industry.
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
...... Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
rcs1000 - it almost needs some form of indentured apprenticeship to be possible, as it once used to be.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
The issue there is that you've trained someone up and then are trying to avoid paying them the market rate for the skills they now have.
If you train someone up and then don't pay them the going market rate for their new skill set you are gambling that they will stay for other reasons. Some people may but it ain't a risk I would take...
There is a reason why he left - and self inflicted no sympathy would be my viewpoint to HR....
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Indeed but it's not simply the government's fault. The problem with FOM has always been that business has seen it as a way to recruit without having to to bother with investment in skills for their industry.
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Let me give you an example of a company I'm involved in. About five years ago, we hired a fabulous (British) guy who showed real natural programming ability, but who'd been in prison, and so nobody wanted to hire him. He was trained up, which took a lot of time from senior programmers, and then once he'd been trained and rehabilitated by having spend 18 months in a job, he left for more money. It was undoubtedly a massively positive investment for him, and massively negative for us as a company.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
The problem is that many people leave university without the right skills. Businesses need to be incentivised to train people up, otherwise they will always prefer to poach, or to hire foreigners with the right skills.
Or businesses should follow the building trade with its levy-based Construction Industry Training Board (CITB). Arguably the professions are or used to be similar with articled clerks.
Why are we all getting so het up by a journalist in a leftwing paper inventing a phrase that wasn't actually used?
This morning the phrase she used was "flush out"
Much better, right?
With reference to companies who would rather hire foreigners than Brits, if it was accurately reported here.
I would expect companies that don't hire ethnic minorities or women to have to be able to be held to account for that. Similarly for those that don't hire Brits.
I think if your company could give a good reason why that was the case, it might actually educate some people. I think the problem is that a majority of people in the UK are hostile to the free market, believe in the lump of labour fallacy and think its all a zero sum game. A problems Mays big government philosophy is not going to deal with.
Most countries seem to approach this by requiring the company to have advertised the position to nationals for a set amount of time before opening it to foreign competition, and to be able to provide evidence if required that they had interviewed local candidates and rejected them for valid reasons. Logically if the local market is unable to fulfil the companies requirements, filling from the international market would then be uncontroversial. It should also be unlawful to recruit on the basis of nationality or national language any more than it is acceptable to recruit on the basis of sex, age or race.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Isn't the solution to ban foreign language and overseas advertising for jobs that have not been advertised in the UK for some amount of time? I'll use my office as an example again, it's probably about 50% foreign with Americans, Australians and Europeans making up the non-British 50%, should the management be shamed for that?
Yes and massive fines such as 10 times the annual salary for the job.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Indeed. I'm surprised that PB has hopped on the outrage bus about this.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
The same courses will be reportedly run at Cambridge on an opt-out basis. Add to this the bewildering variety of the other workshops on sexuality, alcohol consumption, drugs, racism, misogyny and religious intolerance being run at other universities up and down the country, and you are left asking why aren’t undergraduates being trusted to work things out for themselves any more?
Who actually says "holy moly" any more ? Wasn't that what Penfold used to say to Dangermouse ?
More seriously, the only thing I needed to know when I started University longer ago than I care to remember was how to cook anything other than beans, eggs, instant mash and Findus Crispy Pancakes. The diet was a bit uninspiring.
@patrickwintour: Given Witney by-election, presume Tory candidate will now survey local firms to flush out proportion of their workforce that are foreign.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Sadly true - see my spanish example of airplane cleaning. This is an area where unions could do a lot of good work if they focused on the needs of their uk members. Alas, just like the Labour party, most unions care more about politics than the working class.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
The issue there is that you've trained someone up and then are trying to avoid paying them the market rate for the skills they now have.
If you train someone up and then don't pay them the going market rate for their new skill set you are gambling that they will stay for other reasons. Some people may but it ain't a risk I would take...
There is a reason why he left - and self inflicted no sympathy would be my viewpoint to HR....
If you put the full burden of giving workers skills, and they bear all the cost of training, then they will do less training, and will prefer to only hire experienced staff.
If we hadn't trained said person up, the UK economy would be poorer. So we - who did the training - lost out economically. We are disincentivised to help the UK economy.
@PolhomeEditor: Leaders of SNP, Plaid and Greens jointly condemn "the most toxic rhetoric on immigration seen from any government in living memory". #CPC16
A search party has been sent out for the Labour leader...
F1: going to check the weather forecast for Suzuka.
Worth noting a couple of things. The forecast a few days ago had it wet. If that holds up, Red Bull may be in tasty shape (especially regarding Rosberg, who, of the Red Bull-Mercedes drivers, appears clearly the weakest in the wet). If it's dry, may be worth considering Vettel. He's had a podium there every year from 2009-15, although he has been ropey of late.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
I think it's just companies that don't look for UK workers - there was a case last year that hired a Warsaw based agency and advertised in Polish only. When they were prosecuted they claimed it was a safety issue as Polish was the first language for most of their employees. That sort of arrangement isn't on.
Thing is, the safety issue is a real one (even if used disingenuously in this case). Building is as dangerous a job as front line soldiering, and you wouldn't want soldiers in the same unit unable to understand each other.
Indeed.
I walked past a building site about a year ago. Many of the workers had their job title on the back of their hivis (banksman, etc.)
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
Cameron used to talk about payment by results training bonds for companies that rehabilitated ex-cons. Seems like you company is doing a public good you should get paid back for
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
Or pay then even less while you are training them. In the skilled trades for example an apprentice plumber gets paid very little in many cases not much more than NMW because he is being carried by his boss, and because the professional indemnity insurance on an apprentice is hair-raising. As soon as his card is signed off and his is licensed he earns massively more ofc.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
The issue there is that you've trained someone up and then are trying to avoid paying them the market rate for the skills they now have.
If you train someone up and then don't pay them the going market rate for their new skill set you are gambling that they will stay for other reasons. Some people may but it ain't a risk I would take...
There is a reason why he left - and self inflicted no sympathy would be my viewpoint to HR....
If you put the full burden of giving workers skills, and they bear all the cost of training, then they will do less training, and will prefer to only hire experienced staff.
If we hadn't trained said person up, the UK economy would be poorer. So we - who did the training - lost out economically. We are disincentivised to help the UK economy.
Nope as I highlighted in my following example you didn't structure your employment and training contract correctly. That's a common problem with small firms and one that larger firms with experience know how to deal with note my example of a bus company with clauses for those who take the bus training course.
In fact most large firms (even Goldman Sachs but especaially accountancy firms) understand that their is a benefit in training people up early on - as some that leave eventually become highly profitable customers in the future.
Heavy rain probable, but in the morning, ahead of the race. If that's accurate, it'll be dry, but a shift of a few hours could make it torrential. So, I'd avoid betting early for now.
Not sure if it's on Channel 4 live, but qualifying's from 7am and the race from 6am. So, another heroic effort to get up at half past five to walk the hound will be required.
The Party Chairman who told her own party that some saw them as the Nasty Party?
The Home Secretary who told the Police Federation's Conference that either they reformed, or the government would do it for them?
The Home secretary who told our most important ally to Foxtrot Oscar on an extradition case.
I think May decides 'what's the right thing to do' then (almost) 'bugger the consequences'
Nice try but we all know being Chairman of a Party in hopeless Opposition is one thing (and there was as much coverage of her footwear as her words if memory serves).
As for the other comments, sounding tough on a well publicised extradition case was again playing to the gallery - I believe the Mail supported her strongly.
Nice dodge - but what other Party figures have confronted their parties in that way? The only one I can think of is Kinnock & Labour - but no Tories. Ditto Home secretaries and the police, or extradition cases......but do feel free to draw up a list.....
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
Never heard of them......nice colour for the website tho......
Their example of a negative article about Corbyn being one where he was criticised for saying 'he couldn't see what there was to commemorate about the 1st World War' also suggests they might not be as neutral as they like to imagine.
As I write, I discover that King’s College London is hosting an "Exploring Emotional Intelligence" workshop for the aspirant emotionally correct student. For those who want something a bit stronger, freshers arriving at Oxford this week will be made to attend a controversial "consent class", which teaches students not to sexually assault others.
The same courses will be reportedly run at Cambridge on an opt-out basis. Add to this the bewildering variety of the other workshops on sexuality, alcohol consumption, drugs, racism, misogyny and religious intolerance being run at other universities up and down the country, and you are left asking why aren’t undergraduates being trusted to work things out for themselves any more?
I saw on Facebook yesterday a photo of a consent class at Clare College Cambridge, to which 0 freshers had turned up. It cheered me enormously to see the defiance of the PC lunatic brigade. Rape doesn't happen because people don't understand consent, it happens because some people don't care about it and workshops will do nothing to fix that.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
The issue there is that you've trained someone up and then are trying to avoid paying them the market rate for the skills they now have.
If you train someone up and then don't pay them the going market rate for their new skill set you are gambling that they will stay for other reasons. Some people may but it ain't a risk I would take...
There is a reason why he left - and self inflicted no sympathy would be my viewpoint to HR....
If you put the full burden of giving workers skills, and they bear all the cost of training, then they will do less training, and will prefer to only hire experienced staff.
If we hadn't trained said person up, the UK economy would be poorer. So we - who did the training - lost out economically. We are disincentivised to help the UK economy.
Nope as I highlighted in my following example you didn't structure your employment and training contract correctly. That's a common problem with small firms and one that larger firms with experience know how to deal with note my example of a bus company with clauses for those who take the bus training course.
In fact most large firms (even Goldman Sachs but especaially accountancy firms) understand that their is a benefit in training people up early on - as some that leave eventually become highly profitable customers in the future.
What's that nice quote -
Q: What happens if you train up your employees and they leave? A: What happens if you don't train them up and they stay?
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
Or, you could pay them market rates, and make the money back over a longer period of time, while retaining the services of your well-trained staff, who have the added bonus of deeper knowledge of how your organization works; that tends to proportionately improve their output relative to that which would be delivered by someone who has not been indoctrinated in your ways of working.
We also find it takes 3 years to train, rather than two, so we run our apprenticeships as more structured 3 year programmes.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
INdeed, in software most of your useful skills are ones you have learned informally. There's also a culture of hiring in contractors for a specific job or skill
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
When my friend became a trainee pilot for BA he had to go to a bank and take out a loan over three years to cover his training costs which he gave to BA, they then undertook to shoulder the monthly repayments on the loan for as long as he was their employee, should he leave before the loan was repaid the cost of repaying the loan reverted to him personally. Seemed like a sensible way to handle things.
Like EiT I'm tempted to laugh quite hard at all the free marketeer Brexiters who can't believe the turn of events we've seen. Th idea that what Kipper-facing Tory voters wanted was for the government to complete in Nigel Lawson's words 'Thatcher's revolution' never had any basis. Whatever you think of May her approach is probably the only one in British politis at the moment that can secure 38-40% of the vote. Not bad in fractured times.
Patrick referred to the liberal left consensus post-Thatcher. Of course that depends how you define left and right but I don't think many people thought any post-1990 government had been on the left - with the exception maybe of Gordon Brown 2007-10.
Surprisingly The Mail,Express,Sun did not report these findings
(1) How does that compare to other politicians? (2) The authors appear to believe (if accurately reported) that the media should have given him a free ride. Why?
Like EiT I'm tempted to laugh quite hard at all the free marketeer Brexiters who can't believe the turn of events we've seen. Th idea that what Kipper-facing Tory voters wanted was for the government to complete in Nigel Lawson's words 'Thatcher's revolution' never had any basis. Whatever you think of May her approach is probably the only one in British politis at the moment that can secure 38-40% of the vote. Not bad in fractured times.
Patrick referred to the liberal left consensus post-Thatcher. Of course that depends how you define left and right but I don't think many people thought any post-1990 government had been on the left - with the exception maybe of Gordon Brown 2007-10.
Blair was on the left. State spending rose dramatically during his time in office. He had a very left wing Chancellor.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
Get them looking for security holes in your stuff after they leave in return for bug bounties. That way the time you've spent teaching them how it works doesn't go to waste and you benefit from the stuff they learn in their next job too.
Pound now dropping again 1.13 acc to Google.. if people have not noticed. .. see previous thread..... they bloo ming well will do soon. Hire car last yr 100 pounds this yr 123.89. Some will carry on blissfully ignorant of the effect of the falling pound.. the pound in your pocket will be affected...
Its OK, the Brexiteers don't travel abroad or buy from abroad so they'll be fine. In fact you are being unpatriotic and a scoundrel by holidaying abroad. Watch our for naming and shaming of your type.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
Sorry but that is just the cost of developing a complex system. You review code to make sure things work correctly (software is not as simple as a welded pipe which can be shown to be fine once you throw water down it.).
The expensive part of a software system is a bug discovered late on. Focussing on finding issues early saves money over the long run - heck there are consultancies who will happily sell you 2 developers at large sums a day to pair program as they can show that bugs found early are far cheap than bugs discovered later.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
When my friend became a trainee pilot for BA he had to go to a bank and take out a loan over three years to cover his training costs which he gave to BA, they then undertook to shoulder the monthly repayments on the loan for as long as he was their employee, should he leave before the loan was repaid the cost of repaying the loan reverted to him personally. Seemed like a sensible way to handle things.
Would he have been responsible for the costs if he'd been made redundant?
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
What his new employer paid him was presumably the market rate for his skills otherwise they would not be offering it, would it not have been the case that if you had offered him the same rate you would have retained him ?
Absolutely. Imagine this simplified view of the world:
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 25000 15000 20000 -20000 Year 2 30000 0 40000 10000
Total -10000
Salary Training Output Benefit to Company Year 1 35000 0 40000 5000 Year 2 35000 0 40000 5000
Total 10000
In the first instance you hire somebody and train them up. To make a positive return on the training investment, you need to pay them sub-market rates for a period to make up for the time they were losing you money.
No you don't you give him a contract that states that to take this training course you need to pay back £x,000 if you leave in the next y months. You then pay him appropriately and increase his pay to the market rate as that course is paid off.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
I agree that something like that will need to be done. But historically, it's not been the case in the technology or service sectors.
It's also less clear cut in tech as there will be a lot of 'on the job' type training (experienced programmers reviewing code and suggesting improvements / clarifying house approach etc.) which costs time/money, but isn't just 'this training course cost £X'
INdeed, in software most of your useful skills are ones you have learned informally. There's also a culture of hiring in contractors for a specific job or skill
That opens up an entirely different can of worms. Especially when you see the IR35 Public Sector Consultation documents and the changes to CLone (the framework under which such specialists should be recruited to the public sector)....
Thank you - it would have been helpful to supply the LSE Link in the first place, rather than the mis-reported Huffington Post one.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....
@sarahoconnor_: Dear Home Office, there are 3.45m non-Brits working in U.K, and 1.63m unemployed people.
They should raise unemployment benefit, that way the government will get more money when they kick the foreigners out and unemployment drops to minus 1.82 million.
Comments
The word "shame" does not appear.
Why are we all getting so het up by a journalist in a leftwing paper inventing a phrase that wasn't actually used?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/05/fraser-nelson-class-and-education-dont-always-go-hand-in-hand-my/
Much better, right?
There was a thread on here a while back on tech recruitment in the City and it was clear people just do not get it.
Are there two separate ECJs, perhaps?
The Thatchers and the Blairs of this life don't court unpopularity but they don't let it get to them though I would argue Margaret Thatcher enjoyed being unpopular and especially being told she was wrong by "experts" as it only convinced her of how right she was.
May hasn't yet experienced unpopularity - she will - and how she deals with that unpopularity will speak volumes about her ability to lead the country. It worries me she is more concerned with being popular than doing the right thing and everything she says is about increasing the size of her tent and wanting people to like her.
Sometimes in politics (and Brexit may be one of those times), a leader has to say unpleasant things and do unpopular things not because they want to but because it is the right thing to do for the country. May is all about being nice and reassuring at the moment - I worry that's all she wants to be.
Nick R again asked her to name a sector (given that Javid had mentioned Polish builders favourably, and plenty of other sectors have been deemed immigration-friendly) and although she elegantly side-stepped the question, it is the right one to ask.
The word "shame" does not appear.
The media should lay off and give her an easy ride like they do Corbyn!!
LSE report finds 75% of press coverage misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn – we can't ignore media bias anymore
We all want and need a strong and a critical media, but maybe we do not need an attack dog that kills off anyone who challenges the status quo?
Wikileaks
Hillary Clinton, eyes downcast, stammering: If I talked about droning Julian #Assange, "it would have been a joke." https://t.co/MnALounJo0
Other European governments (like France) give a Gallic shrug of the shoulders, and remember that it'll be somebody else's problem in about five years time.
The alternative would be to cut benefit rates back by a massive amount such as halving the number of people able to get housing benefit. That is not an option I could countenance although I would hold down benefit payments below inflation for a few years.
The Party Chairman who told her own party that some saw them as the Nasty Party?
The Home Secretary who told the Police Federation's Conference that either they reformed, or the government would do it for them?
The Home secretary who told our most important ally to Foxtrot Oscar on an extradition case.
I think May decides 'what's the right thing to do' then (almost) 'bugger the consequences'
[*] Although admittedly as things happened to turn out all the English-speaking people who didn't speak Japanese ended up quitting or getting fired.
[**] Then we hired a Japanese person but she moved to America. The world is a deeply confusing place.
“I don't recall any joke,” Clinton said, when asked about the allegations at a press conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Tuesday. “It would have been a joke, if it had been said, but I don't recall that.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-julian-assange-229123#ixzz4MCSO42Ti
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Wow, it's been 69 days, more than 2 months, since Trump last held a press conference.
Do we want to hire someone at £25k and train them, or take advantage of someone else having trained them, and poach them for £35k after a year? The company that takes the second option will be more profitable, and likely put the first out of business.
The problem is that many people leave university without the right skills. Businesses need to be incentivised to train people up, otherwise they will always prefer to poach, or to hire foreigners with the right skills.
As for the other comments, sounding tough on a well publicised extradition case was again playing to the gallery - I believe the Mail supported her strongly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-labour-mainstream-press-lse-study-misrepresentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/jeremy-corbyn-media-coverage_n_8653886.html
Surprisingly The Mail,Express,Sun did not report these findings
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/walking-out-of-consent-classes-whats-wrong-with-snowflake-studen/
As I write, I discover that King’s College London is hosting an "Exploring Emotional Intelligence" workshop for the aspirant emotionally correct student. For those who want something a bit stronger, freshers arriving at Oxford this week will be made to attend a controversial "consent class", which teaches students not to sexually assault others.
The same courses will be reportedly run at Cambridge on an opt-out basis. Add to this the bewildering variety of the other workshops on sexuality, alcohol consumption, drugs, racism, misogyny and religious intolerance being run at other universities up and down the country, and you are left asking why aren’t undergraduates being trusted to work things out for themselves any more?
If you train someone up and then don't pay them the going market rate for their new skill set you are gambling that they will stay for other reasons. Some people may but it ain't a risk I would take...
There is a reason why he left - and self inflicted no sympathy would be my viewpoint to HR....
I would expect companies that don't hire ethnic minorities or women to have to be able to be held to account for that. Similarly for those that don't hire Brits.
That was your question. I gave you the answer.
Heck even bus companies do that to trainees....
More seriously, the only thing I needed to know when I started University longer ago than I care to remember was how to cook anything other than beans, eggs, instant mash and Findus Crispy Pancakes. The diet was a bit uninspiring.
If we hadn't trained said person up, the UK economy would be poorer. So we - who did the training - lost out economically. We are disincentivised to help the UK economy.
A search party has been sent out for the Labour leader...
But the report was not by the LSE, as you wrote, but 'The Media Reform Coalition'
http://www.mediareform.org.uk
Never heard of them......nice colour for the website tho......
Worth noting a couple of things. The forecast a few days ago had it wet. If that holds up, Red Bull may be in tasty shape (especially regarding Rosberg, who, of the Red Bull-Mercedes drivers, appears clearly the weakest in the wet). If it's dry, may be worth considering Vettel. He's had a podium there every year from 2009-15, although he has been ropey of late.
I walked past a building site about a year ago. Many of the workers had their job title on the back of their hivis (banksman, etc.)
One of them was "interpreter".
In fact most large firms (even Goldman Sachs but especaially accountancy firms) understand that their is a benefit in training people up early on - as some that leave eventually become highly profitable customers in the future.
Heavy rain probable, but in the morning, ahead of the race. If that's accurate, it'll be dry, but a shift of a few hours could make it torrential. So, I'd avoid betting early for now.
Not sure if it's on Channel 4 live, but qualifying's from 7am and the race from 6am. So, another heroic effort to get up at half past five to walk the hound will be required.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-media-bias-attacks-75-per-cent-three-quarters-fail-to-accurately-report-a7140681.html
Q: What happens if you train up your employees and they leave?
A: What happens if you don't train them up and they stay?
We also find it takes 3 years to train, rather than two, so we run our apprenticeships as more structured 3 year programmes.
Patrick referred to the liberal left consensus post-Thatcher. Of course that depends how you define left and right but I don't think many people thought any post-1990 government had been on the left - with the exception maybe of Gordon Brown 2007-10.
I must have missed that.
(2) The authors appear to believe (if accurately reported) that the media should have given him a free ride. Why?
The expensive part of a software system is a bug discovered late on. Focussing on finding issues early saves money over the long run - heck there are consultancies who will happily sell you 2 developers at large sums a day to pair program as they can show that bugs found early are far cheap than bugs discovered later.
Interesting study.
The reporting of The Daily Mirror is most balanced with almost 60% of its news articles about Corbyn using sources from both the pro- and anti-Corbyn camps, similarly and more surprisingly The Daily Mail and The Daily Express also have a high degree of balanced reporting,
But I do think the authors need to find a 'safe space'.....they treat news as if its all serious, and jokes about Corbyn are all attacks - who knows, he might have enjoyed 'The Sexpot Trot'.....