That’s literally why and when they introduced these policies?Nonsense. How has me safeguarding against employing a nonce as a babysitter got anything to do with the hostile environment?
That’s literally why and when they introduced these policies?Nonsense. How has me safeguarding against employing a nonce as a babysitter got anything to do with the hostile environment?
That’s literally why and when they introduced these policies?
That's reasonable, no?Some employers require people they are recruiting to show a passport.
More stringent right to work checks.Which policies?
AFAIK, the relevant legislation actually dates from Blair III (2006), but I do remember the practical implications of the implementation seemed to coincide with May's hostile environment.It's very simple and nothing to do with the hostile environment. If you want someone to employ you, prove who you are.
More stringent right to work checks.
The Problem is that vulnerable groups often struggle to provide the necessary ID.That's reasonable, no?
I don't see this as a matter of preventing employers doing anything; quite the opposite. Having accepted that neoliberal capital requires free flows of labour, the state has out-sourced and imposed "right-to-work" check responsibility to employers.A sound example of why the notion that an employer should ever be prevented from thoroughly confirming the identities of those they employ in positions of trust (and that's everyone), is utterly ludicrous.
It doesn't have to be a passport to prove you've a right to work (sorry, I'm aware others are already making this point anyway).T
The Problem is that vulnerable groups often struggle to provide the necessary ID.
surely that was ended. brexit means brexit
Even a birth certificate and a council tax bill are difficult for someone who is, for example, vulnerably housed, to provide.It doesn't have to be a passport to prove you've a right to work (sorry, I'm aware others are already making this point anyway).
I don't see this as a matter of preventing employers doing anything; quite the opposite. Having accepted that neoliberal capital requires free flows of labour, the state has out-sourced and imposed "right-to-work" check responsibility to employers.
Google and Facebook already know everything about you and no one gives a shit, what's the problem with the government having your details?. A centralised ID store makes so much sense.
The legislation says, as an employer, you have to do these checks on behalf of the HO; you are the unpaid subbie.Good.
As an employer, I should be able to check who you are and refuse you employment for a variety of reasons, including the fact that doing so would be illegal.
That's reasonable, no?
Oooh, get you with your modern, new-fangled plastic licence!Facebook know very little about me. They deleted my account for lack of use years ago, and I can't be arsed to sort it out.
I'm sure digital licences will suit some people, but I rather suspect that they won't work on my elderly phone, like loads of other things (looking at you Brighton parking app, and the NHS system that sent me a link to book a flu vaccination that didn't work). And I don't find it any hardship to just keep the plastic licence in my purse, along with my bus pass and bank cards.
Why should someone who has no need of a passport go to the expense of getting one in order to get a job?
Why should someone who has no need of a passport go to the expense of getting one in order to get a job?
Why should someone who has no need of a passport go to the expense of getting one in order to get a job?
There have, of course, been many employers more than happy to exploit those unable to provide the right paperwork.As said later, it doesn't need to be a passport specifically. Why should someone give anybody a job who can't prove they are who they say they are?
That's essentially what employers do whether or not you can provide paperwork though.There have, of course, been many employers more than happy to exploit those unable to provide the right paperwork.
yes, but I have seen, first-hand, how (farm-owning/gangmaster) employers can intensify the standard exploitation of labour when they hold the lack of paperwork as a 'sword of Damocles' over migrant labour. In a related theme C4 News did a piece the other evening exploring the extent of undocumented labour in Californian farming and the impact that Trump's threatened deportations would have on the industry.That's essentially what employers do whether or not you can provide paperwork though.
How?
Has there ever been a time when needing to carry a driving licence (which, again, you don't) has adversely affected your day?
Because pretty much every day I waste time waiting in line behind some fuckwit who has their debit card or train ticket on their phone but didn't bother to unlock it or find the correct app ahead of time.
The problem is people not being patient.It's no difference to the people who do their shopping and then look almost surprised they have to pay and take an age to find their wallet in their bag and then find the money.
The problem here is not technology.
There have, of course, been many employers more than happy to exploit those unable to provide the right paperwork.
Of course, the farmy bastards outsource the risk of prosecution to the gangmaster/agencies and then turn a blind eye.That's a completely different matter. There'll always be bastards out to exploit any system. That's not a reason to avoid measures that provide more advantages than disadvantages. It's a reason to enact measures to crack down on the bastards.