The Brexit Arms. Please drink ( & post ) responsibly.

[surferjet]

If you follow the logic that migrants from the EU are better qualified therefore chosen over local unemployed people then how is leaving the EU going to help?

When Leavers talk of 'controlling immigration' it's stated that we'd only allow people in who can do jobs we need them to.

If EU migrants have better skills than local people who wins?

I don't agree with the 'EU migrants are taking all our jobs' rhetoric either and I don't think it's as simple as leaving the EU means they'll suddenly be jobs for those locals who are currently unemployed.

Again Bear, we're talking about unskilled employment.

Eastern EU migrants who are often skilled and obviously are bilingual too are doing the unskilled work traditionally done by 'those locals'.

The migrants don't mind doing the crap work which they're over skilled/qualified for because they're getting paid far more doing that job in Britain than they would in their home country doing a skilled job.

The employers pick the Eastern EU applicant who is bilingual, educated, skilled, who is able to use initiative and gives much more value for money than their unskilled, unqualified local counterpart.

Sounds an obvious choice, and why wouldn't^^ you choose the migrant over the local??
Of course you would.

But remember - this is unskilled work.
Cleaners, waitresses, hotel staff, bar staff, etc etc.
Precisely the roles that used to be filled by 'those locals' that were unskilled & unqualified for better paid work.

Morning musings over coffee:

Mango - I tend to agree with you, but I have sympathies for Bear's survival of the fittest approach (if I can call it that), probably because I am not affected by the issues as I have skills and means. If you listen to the reasons that swathes of the North of England voted Leave in remain-supporting safe Labour seats, and couple that with the speed of immigration in some areas, you can see why for many unskilled people who left school at 16, the options have been shut for them. Bear - back to the point about did people vote to make themselves worse off? - These voters probably feel they don't have much to lose, the status quo isn't working, so let's try something new??

Kier Starmer is showing his Labour leadership credentials by finally getting involved in how we Brexit, but do you think those in the North of England safe Labour seats will think he is representing them if we go for the softest of Brexits? UKIP are going to target those seats hard, and with the SNP safe in Scotland, you wonder what real opposition the Govt will face unless the moderate Labour and LIb Dems can get together and form another party that represents the 48% (if I can simplify it to that). Anyone seen Corbyn recently - what are the LP thinking keeping him ?!

mango I don't follow the logic with your argument.

Being bilingual is of no advantage to employers in most of the jobs we are talking about- they just need to speak English.

Say we completely end FOM for all unskilled workers then we have a situation where local people, who are perfctable able to do these jobs now but don't, have to fill the gaps, but if they didn't want to do the work in the first place who gains from that?

This is more about training opportunities for young people but that has nothing to do with Brexit. If the government had wanted to improve that they could have chosen to long ago.

The duration of people's availability is also a factor. An employer is always going to prefer someone who has settled in an area (e.g. a migrant) to someone wanting summer holiday work (e.g. a local student).

The duration of people's availability is also a factor. An employer is always going to prefer someone who has settled in an area (e.g. a migrant) to someone wanting summer holiday work (e.g. a local student).

Completely agree with this and anecdotal evidence from our local pub, cafes bears this out.

This is more about training opportunities for young people

It has literally nothing to do with training opportunities for young people.

We are talking about unskilled work.

The people who do unskilled work do it for the following reasons amongst others:

• They are starting out in the world of work and need a job, any job.

• it is a temporary solution, maybe students for e.g. who need work in their holidays.

• unskilled work is probably the ceiling of their work potential.

mango how is leaving the EU going to change this?

Youre saying EU workers are more skilled, even in unskilled jobs, so in theory would still be chosen over locals unless FOM was completely abolished for unskilled workers.

I'm saying the all these jobs are already available to local people but that they aren't doing them, for whatever reason.

How will Brexit help?

. 45% of all employed in the UK are in unskilled work, mango. Possibly a lot of these people in low-skills jobs might be parents who are taking on part-time jobs to fit around childcare?

In 2013, there were approximately 28.5 million1 people aged 16-64 in employment in the UK; 85 per cent were UK-born, and 15 per cent were non-UK born (of which 6 per cent were born in the European Union (EU) and 9 per cent were born outside the EU). 

. 3.3 There were 12.9 million people working in low-skilled occupations (45 per cent of all employed). Of these, 10.9 million were UK-born and 2.1 million were foreign born2. 

. 3.4 Migrants accounted for approximately 16 per cent of all low-skilled3 employment aged 16-64 in the UK, slightly above the overall share of the population but broadly in line with their share of all employed persons, regardless of skill level. 


Another advantage of non-UK workers in unskilled work is that they tend to be much less aware of UK employment rights and are much more likely to accept questionable working practices. This was highlighted in the HoC investigations of working practices at Sports Direct. (From the other pov the Westminstenders are discussing difficulties as a UK worker in the EU if you don't speak the local language fluently - interesting juxtaposition).

Fawful your stats are interesting. Do you have a linkable source? Am I right in thinking they imply skilled migrants are also proportionately represented in the skilled workforce? Interested in linking back to what I was saying earlier which is that I think it is a mistake to think of low skill migrants plugging short term gaps when in fact the issues in the labour market are more structural. Very difficult to read too much into the figures when there are so many "self-employed" jobs / non jobs driving growth in employment and falls in claimant count. Scotland is showing signs of people actively withdrawing from the labour market and I wonder if this is a factor elsewhere?

Bear, you said that there were loads of Eastern Europeans in your area doing shop and other service work. That is where being bi lingual would be useful. The point being made by the leavers is that if we stopped FOM then the employers would have to go back to considering candidates for these jobs whom they needed to train up or take a punt on a school leaver with no experience. Something they don't need to do at the moment. I'm not necessarily taking about completely unskilled jobs but ones that require some training like bank work, retailing and catering/service. We really don't need to employ people from out with the UK to do these jobs. They should be being done by school leavers/returners. They can be the jobs that give work experience and can sometimes lead to a career in that industry.

Got some answers to my own questions - should have checked the news first

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38313110

People in work quoted at 31.76 million. Unemployment quoted at 1.62 million which is a decrease of 16,000. 8.91 million people of working age classed as economically inactive. This is despite a record 70% participation rate for women and reflects an increase of 76,000.

The headline 4.8% figure may look low but not when you remember the days of Thatcher's Britain when headlines decried unemployment of 1 million and even students could sign on.

I meant to also say that the idea that the government should have done something about it with regard to training and that it's got nothing to do with Brexit is a bit of a daft one. The government and employers have been in the situation where there is a ready supply of experienced, 'skilled' potential employees ready for the picking why would they bother training up anyone if they don't need to.
What it has to do with is FOM and the fact that people have been able to come here freely and take less skilled jobs as they are considerably better paid than in their country for the skilled position they have trained for.

The headline 4.8% figure may look low but not when you remember the days of Thatcher's Britain when headlines decried unemployment of 1 million and even students could sign on.

This is despite a record 70% participation rate for women and reflects an increase of 76,000.

Am I right in thinking that back in the 70-80s 'unemployed' women with children weren't included in the unemployment statistics until their youngest child left school?

"The headline 4.8% figure may look low but not when you remember the days of Thatcher's Britain when headlines decried unemployment of 1 million and even students could sign on."

I remember 3 million as the figure that hit the headlines, certainly not 1 million.

Rather ironic that with one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the EU, as your link says, Britain is leaving for the sake of ending freedom of movement.

But how will that change after leaving the EU corcory?

If there are skilled migrants willing to do unskilled work then what will stop that happening?

The talk on FOM has only been in stopping people without jobs coming here but they could secure those jobs and still come here.

I think so Tucker but I am a SAHM now and so am part of the economically inactive 8.9 million. I think in the past the measure was more clear cut in only counting those signing on for JSA but now the figure also includes survey data on those "seeking work" who cannot sign on? ESA and self-employment levels also muddy the waters significantly.

Bear even "open borders" JC is talking about regulation to stop employers advertising jobs abroad before efforts to recruit locally have been made.

If you follow the logic that migrants from the EU are better qualified therefore chosen over local unemployed people then how is leaving the EU going to help?

i don't follow that logic, when your dealing wish such insanely high numbers of people - the no's of everything gets pushed up, including workers with very low skills.

If I was a ruthless boss who am I going to employ - a clued up Brit, who knows his rights, has proper rent to pay - needs a decent wage...or I could employ a desperate EE who is living in crowded digs, for pennies and yet who can still earn a fortune if I pay them a minimal wage - for sending back home.

I would employ the ignorant - ( of their rights) desperate worker who wont complain and just work.

And its this set up - which is all over the UK, that has prompted the calling of the EU project a Dickension type attitude to workers - shunting them like chattels all over the EU.

Un palatable as the truth is - I think at some point one has to say - the reality on the ground - is different from the picture painted by stats or various media outlets. This is where the anger comes from, this is where UKIPS popularity comes from. It has not come from nowhere.

Kaija at the time of the Conservatives election victory in 1979 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn't_Working unemployment was around 1.3-1.4m and it was a national disgrace. As you say, it subsequently went much higher.

howabout as I think you spotted, my point was that the current 1.62m includes women on benefits whose youngest child is 5 or over (I think?), and of course unemployed men who would have had a job if a mother hadn't been encouraged back to work by having to sign on.

As a proportion of the population who are available for work I think the unemployment rate is slightly lower than it was when Thatcher came to power. It's a higher number though because there are more people available for work overall.

The talk on FOM has only been in stopping people without jobs coming here but they could secure those jobs and still come here

My family are spread out all over the world - my own DP lived abroad and worked, my aunts uncles, siblings etc and DH family too. So I grew up in household always talking about who was living where and what job and sometimes how they didn't get the job, were not allowed to go back for work and so on. I have family on one side split as they cant all live in Oz. So all this is very normal to me.

A friend wanted to live and work in Canada, they could not just go they could not just find a job, and get it and go.

They had to go through a painstaking long process to get there, including, flying to canada to do a written test on the job he said he could do, like - brick laying! He failed the test - it cost over a grand, all told to get there etc. He had to do it all over again, BUT, the employer also had to prove to the government that he was not taking a single Canadians job. That the job had been advertised, and no one came forward, time limits and so on.

It was a GARGANTUAN process and there is no way they would have gone through it - had they not desperately wanted to live in Canada. Now they are there - because they had to work so hard and really want to live there - they appreciate it - respect it and love being there.

I would like to see similar here, I was to see British jobs prioritized for British workers first.

" It has not come from nowhere."

No indeed.

and your point is?

The tabloid press has pushed an anti-EU agenda relentlessly for years, putting the blame for the effects of inequality and austerity on migrants.

The places with the lowest levels of inward migration are the ones most opposed to it. So it is clearly not just coming from people's personal experience.

just skimming back through the thread and seen I have repeated what other posters have said.

Having said that - its all be said many times before, I guess its a question of listening and accepting it -or to keep on denying it and saying its not fair people needed to vote for Brexit due to issues raised earlier.

I feel this is what its coming down too you either understand and accept these issues or you don't. Its how the vacuum was created, particularly within the labour party. Their core voters were experiencing one thing but the MPS were saying something else. They tried to tell their voters what to think, instead of listening and acting on their actual concerns.

The gap widened so far that now we are even wondering if the Labour party will survive. Vacuum, between reality and someones interpretation of it when they actually have no idea.

The places with the lowest levels of inward migration are the ones most opposed to it

I have two Big problems with this.

1. Data captured how? By whom and in what way?

2. With such incredibly high levels of migration and we all understand the figures are always on the conservative side, an area with so called low levels of migration may still be - in astonishingly high. And /or the chances of living near a town which has been saturated by immigrants is also very high.

It is coming from peoples personal experience, and I struggle to understand how even now, its not possible to see that there have been massive issues caused by sudden huge waves of immigration. The report I quoted from earlier in Southampton for instance, some clear outlines of the knock on effects of immigration eg - A and E because an Immigrant may be more likely to go straight there than a doctor. However I suppose if the stats showed this area had low migration ( because there is no data collection) their concerns would be written off .

I guess this is the post truth world.