Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Four out of five migrants

danny la rouge said:
I think when there is "downward wage pressure" as you rightly put it, we have to try harder to unionise. And in fact, those are the types of conditions where unionising ought to be easier.
It ought to be, it's a shame that the unions are so fucking shit.
 
MC5 said:
Unionisation of the majority of workers, sorry I didn't post any such thing. :confused:

And the part where I did mention about standing up for the rights of all workers?


I am clearly suggesting that arguing that you will unionise immigrants to a significant level when this is not the case with existing workers is pie in the sky. Or are immigrants more naturally unionisable in the face of adversity and weak trade union laws?
 
danny la rouge said:
I think when there is "downward wage pressure" as you rightly put it, we have to try harder to unionise. And in fact, those are the types of conditions where unionising ought to be easier.

Fuck all chance.
Many of these people are illegals in the Uk, don't speak English and are scared shitless of being found out.
Anyone getting too close is fucked off, not by the boss, but by the workers.
Walk in spouting workers rights and you will get the "no english" treatment regardless of if they can or not. No way they will put their names to anything.

I'm very lucky to be trusted by most I meet. Not many english are.
Maybe I should work in race relations. :D
 
exosculate said:
one would expect high levels of unionisation to already exist in low paid unskilled work with existing workers which it patently does not.
That pre-supposes the variables are all the same. But, especially in the big unions, union beaucracies are in fact lazy, and often little more than an arms length wing of HR. The fact is few unions care enough about low paid unskilled workers to put the effort in.

Your unemployment/unionisation rate correlation is similarly fraught with complications. The unemployed 30s were well unionised. As were the high employed 60s. But the trend since the 70s has been lower unionisation rates, through periods of high unemployement (early 80s) and low unemployement (now) alike.
 
exosculate said:
I am clearly suggesting that arguing that you will unionise immigrants to a significant level when this is not the case with existing workers is pie in the sky. Or are immigrants more naturally unionisable in the face of adversity and weak trade union laws?

I'm suggesting that unionised workers stand up for the rights of migrant workers. Likely to give an impetus to those workers to join a union.
 
big footed fred said:
Many of these people are illegals in the Uk, don't speak English and are scared shitless of being found out.
The number of "illegals" (a term I don't like, since it isn't them people themselves who are illegal) is by definition not known, but is almost certainly lower than is widely supposed. There is much popular confusion between asylum seekers, immigrants, migrant workers who have no intention of settling, and indigenous non-whites. The press is playing the dangerous game of playing on and increasing that confusion.

But you are right, people working without legal sanction are likely to be suspicious. That is certainly one of the challenges. But since it is that very section that is most heavily driving wages downwards, the working class movement needs to try. I suspect showing solidarity before waving union cards about is the way forward, as I discussed in the other thread. And gave historical examples of.
 
danny la rouge said:
The number of "illegals" (a term I don't like, since it isn't them people themselves who are illegal) is by definition not known, but is almost certainly lower than is widely supposed. .

I have no problem with the term as it is describes their status quite well.

I can only speak for the chinese I know but I would say that most of them are illegals.
Just looking at the contact list in my mobile for non british born chinese and only a few have in date visas.
Still I have no problem with them being here as they work like stink to get themselves started in life.
This I can respect.
 
big footed fred said:
They claim to be a voluntary, non political, body - are they ?

Migration Watch's advisory council includes a host of figures linked to a variety of neoconservative outfits and far right groups.

These include Baroness Caroline Cox, who is also a senior member of the Freedom Association, a fundamentalist Christian and a co-president of the Jerusalem Summit - an ultra-Zionist organisation that advocates the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Israel and the occupied territories.

The ideology behind Migration Watch is an updated version of the theories of Thomas Malthus, a 17th century economist obsessed by the notion that the poor were breeding uncontrollably.
 
big footed fred said:
Many do have a very low opinion of the british workers. They work in take aways and employ english delivery drivers.
These guys often don't turn in for work and/or steal the cash or whatever.
.

I'd fuck the grasping cunts over as well given the wages and conditions working for them, I'd turn in late and rob money of them. Fuck them, they do nothing for us.
 
SuburbanCasual said:
I'd fuck the grasping cunts over as well given the wages and conditions working for them, I'd turn in late and rob money of them. Fuck them, they do nothing for us.

And I get called a racist troll :D

You beat me on the cunt stakes any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Sweepstake time - I say you get banned before you hit 100 posts.
Any bets anyone ?
 
SuburbanCasual said:
It's nothing to do with race, most white small businessmen are exactly the same, fuck them all - white, black or chinese.

It's wind up the tory time :D

PS - you forgot the brown people.:p

Oh well I'm off to bed to have a nice dream of a world of capitalism with no marxists or liberals.
We will form a new church where money is the god and we have Rules of Acquisition.

300px-Ferengis1.jpg


:D
 
big footed fred said:
It's wind up the tory time :D

PS - you forgot the brown people.:p

Oh well I'm off to bed to have a nice dream of a world of capitalism with no marxists or liberals.
We will form a new church where money is the god and we have Rules of Acquisition.

:D

:D (and late in the day too).

I actually found that well funny Fred. Well done. ;)
 
a total non-story, as highlighted by the following statement:

Chairman Sir Andrew Green said: "Immigrants are extremely varied. A minority are highly skilled and highly paid, but a large majority will end up as a cost to the taxpayer if they settle here permanently.

"The same applies to the British population since higher earners pay most of the tax bill.

"The crucial difference is that we can, and should, choose which work-related migrants are to be allowed to settle in the UK."

what he is basically saying is that we should admit less burdens on the state as we have enough already.
 
I didn't cost the tax payer anything the first two years I lived and worked here... as part of my marriage visa, I was allowed to work (and did so, paying tax and NI) but couldn't get any benefits. fair enuff... how does an immigrant like me cost the government money?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Migrationwatch may well be a voluntary organisation and non-political, but the same can't really be said of it's members. Theyre as biased as buggery, the rightwing old farts. :)

Foreigner-Paranoia-Watch is not 'non-political' as an organisation though. It has a highly political, hostile-to-immigration agenda, and actively lobbies the Dailies Mail, Express and Telegraph to get its scaremongering onto their front pages, and similarly lobbies selected Tory MPs. All the while posing as a neutral academic research institute.

Any organisation or body happy to use those papers/people as mouthpieces has got to be as biased as fuck.

Good rule of thumb in politics : Instinctively question the vested interest of any claim and anybody making a claim ... I know VP is fully aware of this ...

ETA : and so is MC5 ...

MC5 said:
Migration Watch's advisory council includes a host of figures linked to a variety of neoconservative outfits and far right groups.

These include Baroness Caroline Cox, who is also a senior member of the Freedom Association, a fundamentalist Christian and a co-president of the Jerusalem Summit - an ultra-Zionist organisation that advocates the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Israel and the occupied territories.

The ideology behind Migration Watch is an updated version of the theories of Thomas Malthus, a 17th century economist obsessed by the notion that the poor were breeding uncontrollably.

Includes some stuff there that I didn't know -- ta.
 
Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
Maybe someone can correct me but their maths looks suspiciously like bollocks to me.

It doesnt sound logical at all.

Never mind the fact that anyone who isnt earning 27k is deemed a liability, the labour that they and all the WC provides is completely necessary for those making over 27k to make their living.

The idea that you kick out everyone not earning 27k to better an economy is nonsense, even in a hypothetical model.

That why business leaders are quite happy to lobby the government for "unlimited immigration" (from new EU countries) - http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1222597.ece
 
rennie said:
I didn't cost the tax payer anything the first two years I lived and worked here... as part of my marriage visa, I was allowed to work (and did so, paying tax and NI) but couldn't get any benefits. fair enuff... how does an immigrant like me cost the government money?
You dont - nor do I - plus I pay expensive council tax - the figures are slight of hand, mixed with a kick in the teeth.
 
Migration Watch Maths said:
To make a positive contribution to GDP over the course of a person's lifetime, they must earn £27,000 a year.

This is the equivalent of paying £7,600 a year in income tax and other taxation, and would cover the costs of healthcare and other public services into retirement.

Only 20 per cent of migrants achieve this.

[...]

Britons are in the same position, with eight of ten of those born here not earning £27,000 and higher earners paying the majority of the tax bill.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23364888-details/Four+out+of+five+migrants+'take+more+from+economy+than+they+put+back'/article.do

This is exactly why we have taxxes - and as I already said, the 80% of the native population is just as important and economically beneficial to the economy overall as it always has been.

Increasing the overall population just scales up the numbers proportionally, both increasing "cost" as well as Gross Domestic "profit"...if you follow me.

Its nonsense.
 
SuburbanCasual said:

SuburbanCasual said:
It's nothing to do with race, most white small businessmen are exactly the same, fuck them all - white, black or chinese.


In the late 1700's Robert Owen set up a business as a manufacturer of spinning mules. He was a reformer particularly with regards to child labour (cut the age and hours worked in the mills). Owen was interested in creating a new type of community and was convinced that if he created the right environment, he could produce rational, good and humane people. Owen then decided in 1825 to establish a new community in America based on the socialist ideas that he had developed over the years. Owen purchased an area of Indiana for £30,000 and called the community he established there called New Harmony.

Friedrich Engels
 
niksativa said:
The idea that you kick out everyone not earning 27k to better an economy is nonsense, even in a hypothetical model.
..............

Why dentist may be deported
An NHS dentist has been told she must return to her native India - because she’s not paid enough.

Siddhika Sathyamoorthy’s income is less than the £27,000 per year the Home Office expects a skilled worker to earn, so she was told her visa was not being renewed.

However, after an outcry by her patients and others in the community, the Home Office advised her to re-submit a revised application and she is awaiting the result.

Steve West, local PCS civil service workers’ union rep, said “We understand that the practice is one of the few in Kirkcaldy that actually takes on NHS patients, who are most affected by the current shortage of dentists.”

Siddhika answered the Scottish Executive’s call for more dentists last year.

But she seems to be seen by the Home Office as an immigrant first, and a dentist second.
 
MC5 said:
In the late 1700's Robert Owen set up a business as a manufacturer of spinning mules. He was a reformer particularly with regards to child labour (cut the age and hours worked in the mills). Owen was interested in creating a new type of community and was convinced that if he created the right environment, he could produce rational, good and humane people. Owen then decided in 1825 to establish a new community in America based on the socialist ideas that he had developed over the years. Owen purchased an area of Indiana for £30,000 and called the community he established there called New Harmony.

Friedrich Engels


Why say this, I said most not all?:D
 
Are you actually participating in a competition to see who can be the most egregiously wrong person on Urban or something?

There is no competition for your title. You are the winner by miles you fat sweaty policeman you.
 
In Bloom said:
Migration Watch is run by volunteers, but it's certainly not as "politically neutral" as they like to pretend.
When we were looking at the authority and credibility of sources and resources as part of a journalism course, I vaguely recall that some organisations hit way above their weight, because they are on databases and in journalists' contact books as rent-a-quotes on particular subjects.

So you might get a situation where an organisation that's run by one man and his dog is interviewed regularly on radio and telly and quoted in the press because they're at the end of a phone line, answer the phone when it rings, and return calls promptly, whereas the other side of the argument isn't so well represented because people don't return calls, there aren't 'representative bodies' arguing the opposite case either so vehemently or at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom