Creating fair sustainable local employment

[dennisr]

This message is hidden because durruti02 is on your ignore list.
and
This message is hidden because nino_savatte is on your ignore list.

There you go

 

[nino_savatte]

pointless unrelated accusations based on response to supposed personal slur.

In fairness - as i now have an ignore list - i'll add you to it

Well, you're wrong and you can shuffle off and put me on ignore.

Like I care.

 

[nino_savatte]

Where you belong, cretin

dennisr
This message is hidden because dennisr is on your ignore list.

It's not as if you had anything useful to contribute.

 

[tbaldwin]

As said already it's not about fighting for our own tiny little slice of the pie, it's about saying that there can be enough houses and jobs for everyone and fighting for that.

.

Fair enough: but if your an Internationalist you look at International consequences.
There is more than enough in the way of land and resources for people internationally. But there are some areas that are overpopulated. And crowding more and more people into overcrowded areas does seem spectactularly stupid.
Socialists should not be arguing to cram more people into small areas, but for an international redistribution of wealth and planned economies not the madness of the free market.

 

[durruti02]

NO I AM NOT

Jeseus feckin christ Durruti you are one puffed up egotistical brain dead cunt.

Get a fecking life. Feck - thats it - the first idiot i have ever put on ignore

how strange .so what DID he mean

cockney rebel suggested i wished to ban people working elsewhere from where they live

so i say "where does banning come into it????"

and dennisr says

"So its like the nice version of 'banning' then? You know - where no one says you are not allowed to apply but you know you won't get the job because of your accent/schooling/gender/skin pigmentation* etc etc (now disguised by terms such as 'locality' or 'priority')"

dennis ( or anyone else) .. maybe i am thick but sorry i can interpret the above exchange in only one way .. that i am in favour of 'bans' based on skin colour .. why am i so certian .. cos Dennisr adds that bit at the end 'now disguised by terms such as locality' .. if that bit was not there it coudl be interpreted as 'it is LIKE' .. but that bit is directed directly at me .. if i am wrong wtf DOES this mean? dennis calls me an idiot but makes no attempt to explain? i wonder why?

oh i am on ignore .. how grown up of you ..

 

[durruti02]

Durutti I do support people being able to work locally, I just disagree with your idea of "local jobs for local people", just as I disagree with "British jobs for British people", because not only do I not think what you say is any solution, I acutally think it will make things worse.

If there are areas of high unemployment in any one area then we should fight for more jobs in that area, but that's very different from saying that jobs should be ringfenced so outsiders can't have them. What you're saying, whether you like it or not, will end up playing one section of the working class against another.

And you say you disagree with the IWCA when they say they want "The safeguarding of tenants’ positions on existing housing lists.". So are you seriously saying that if a family is slightly overcrowded they should take priority over a homeless family if the homeless family is new to the area? (to take just one example)

As said already it's not about fighting for our own tiny little slice of the pie, it's about saying that there can be enough houses and jobs for everyone and fighting for that.

Because what is your solution for unemployment? That every area just fights for themselves and makes sure there is enough jobs for their local area? And what will that mean in reality anyway? It will mean that those areas that are successul will end up having more people move in from other areas that have higher unemployment, just as lots of people moved from the north to the south to get jobs. And if your reply is that they shouldn't have to have moved (and I agree) then a more sensible solution is to fight for full employment and demand jobs in areas where there is unemployment.

As most areas of high unemployment aren't like it because jobs are going to "outsiders", it's because there aren't enough jobs full stop. The same with housing, there is a massive shortage of social housing. Ring fencing off housing all over the place isn't gonna help, the only thing that can stop the problem is a massive national house building programme.

the irony is i have never said i support the phrases "British Jobs for British people" ( a rabble rousing meaningless bullshit) OR 'locals jobs for local people' .. i support people getting work as close to where they live as possible .. and i support local work places employing unemployed locals .. i do NOT understand how you can disagree iwth this

the more general political point is interesting .. yes the is an absolute lack of work .. so my strategy will yes end up with, yes, less e.g. cheap migrant labour, less geordie builders at the olympics etc .. so yes definately we need a struggle around work generally .. but as i said before strength ONLY comes from an organised w/c .. and that can and will only be built in localy

so i do see downsides and it is right you point them out .. BUT the key thing must be that we fight for where we live NOW .. this generalised unity is vacuous .. it does not work .. we need to concentrate on building slowly steadly where we live .. only on these building blocks can you ever get change ..

also did you pick up on the point re neo liberalism .. this forced movement ( your person who wishes to commute daily is surely in a tiny minority )
we deal with currently is a key part of neo liberalism as well as flexible working flexible skills anti trade unions etc .. the affect it has on communities is fundamnetally bad .. we NEED desperately to start to rebuild strength in communities


p.s. ( if you think i was wrong re dennisr post and can explain why please pm me .. )

 

[Gromit]

i support people getting work as close to where they live as possible .. and i support local work places employing unemployed locals .. i do NOT understand how you can disagree iwth this

I still think you are being very niave. That would cause huge problems with companys being unable to respond and exploit market opportunities because they don't have a pre-train workforce available.

Plus people can't follow career dreams any more. Imagine if I wanted to work in Car Manufacture as I've dreamed about building cars all my life and picked my subjects in school with that purpose. The local economy is based on growing and transporting potatoes and so thats my only option. Sorry but Manchester where they build cars is only accepting locals so dream denied.

Buisnesses work in clusters. Often if you want to pursue a specific career you have no choice but to move. E.g. Modeling. You pretty much have to go to London or you can forget it. IT was mainly Basingstoke once upon a time.

 

[durruti02]

I still think you are being very niave. That would cause huge problems with companys being unable to respond and exploit market opportunities because they don't have a pre-train workforce available.

Plus people can't follow career dreams any more. Imagine if I wanted to work in Car Manufacture as I've dreamed about building cars all my life and picked my subjects in school with that purpose. The local economy is based on growing and transporting potatoes and so thats my only option. Sorry but Manchester where they build cars is only accepting locals so dream denied.

Buisnesses work in clusters. Often if you want to pursue a specific career you have no choice but to move. E.g. Modeling. You pretty much have to go to London or you can forget it. IT was mainly Basingstoke once upon a time.

marius .. your examples are valid .. BUT the vast maj of people do jobs that could be done anywhere .. i am talking about the people having opportunity to work WHERE they live instead of being forced , as they currently are , to move, commute or migrate ..
you suggest it would cause problems for companys .. well yes they prefer to take the easiest option .. but surely it is modern companies that have got us into this problem in the first place?

 

[Gromit]

marius .. your examples are valid .. BUT the vast maj of people do jobs that could be done anywhere .. i am talking about the people having opportunity to work WHERE they live instead of being forced , as they currently are , to move, commute or migrate ..
you suggest it would cause problems for companys .. well yes they prefer to take the easiest option .. but surely it is modern companies that have got us into this problem in the first place?

But you can't have a IBM head office everywhere. You can only have one.
Plus not everywhere has the infrastructure for every possible type of business. It would be too inefficient and the waste of the planet's limited resources to even try.

Plus if companies are doing it for a reason what do you think that reason is? To make themselves as competative as possible. Deny them that and the UK can't compete in the global economy. Before you say who needs the global economy I'll quote the example of when the USA tried to be totally self suffient. They had a whole continent's worth of resources more than us and they couldn't even manage it.

 

[durruti02]

But you can't have a IBM head office everywhere. You can only have one.
Plus not everywhere has the infrastructure for every possible type of business. It would be too inefficient and the waste of the planet's limited resources to even try.

Plus if companies are doing it for a reason what do you think that reason is? To make themselves as competative as possible. Deny them that and the UK can't compete in the global economy. Before you say who needs the global economy I'll quote the example of when the USA tried to be totally self suffient. They had a whole continent's worth of resources more than us and they couldn't even manage it.

but this economy,these companies, this competition of which you speak are bringing us all to our knees .. that is the POINT of raising the idea of sustainable employment .. it has to happen at some stage .. yes it might sound very nieve idealistic now but i think over the next few years we all will be talking like this

 

[Gromit]

but this economy,these companies, this competition of which you speak are bringing us all to our knees .. that is the POINT of raising the idea of sustainable employment .. it has to happen at some stage .. yes it might sound very nieve idealistic now but i think over the next few years we all will be talking like this

You can't remove that competition. Unless you want the UK to invade all those pesky foreign countries and run them how it best profits us.

Which considering that even those of us in the UK on the dole are better off than many of them in employment is a blooming cheek to be moaning about.

 

[durruti02]

You can't remove that competition. Unless you want the UK to invade all those pesky foreign countries and run them how it best profits us.

Which considering that even those of us in the UK on the dole are better off than many of them in employment is a blooming cheek to be moaning about.

but marius that competition WILL wipe us out though at some stage .. and if not that it will take out the world ecologically .. why is it wrong to suggest sustainable empplyment at this point in time?


and bumped for CR for my reply to you

 

[durruti02]

there has been some discussion of calling for local employment on the construction/refinaries dispute .. this thread dscussed some of that issue .. though construction is rarely local it emphasises the point of how and why and from how far away employers will employ people to save money and break workers power

 

[nino_savatte]

Wow! Talk about thread archaeology. This one has moss growing on it!

 

[durruti02]

Wow! Talk about thread archaeology. This one has moss growing on it!

indeed .. but talking about exactly the issues that have just blown up