Immigrant workers are scab workers?

[belboid]

You really are dumb aren't you baldwin. The problem is immigration is it? Not housing or jobs? Can you actually follow a line of thought or does your knee simply jerk whenever the subject is raised?

what is the actual nature of the economic crisis facing this country? Is it immigration, or is it lack of employment rights, housing, jobs, etc?

 

[exosculate]

I tell you what; you can decide for me what my opinions are, then post them here - it'll save me posting on another immigration thread.

Behave yourself, exo.

Ok, but one can only summise, I was referring to things like snadges post.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Are they scabs? possibly.

Is that a bad thing? probably.

What is it all a result of? EU capitalist fundementalism. But it aint all bad, at least now labour has the same right to move as capital within the EU.

The EU expansion was IMO a bit rushed and ill thought through because the capitalists couldnt wait to get their hands on bigger markets and more natural space to fuck up with "development"

Most of those who moan about migration are perfectly happy about all the cheap goodies capitalism brings them. But when capitalism turns up more foreigners on our shore its a problem. Double standards.

 

[tbaldwin]

what is the actual nature of the economic crisis facing this country? Is it immigration, or is it lack of employment rights, housing, jobs, etc?

Its all of them.
There are millions of people in the UK who are Unemployed or Underemployed probably in the region of 8 Million.
Millions of people who have been written off by the Political establishment...

But worse than that is the state internationally...And economic migration has dire consequences for the poorer nations and the people left behind in those countries.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ok, but one can only summise, I was referring to things like snadges post.

Hmmm. So snadge and I are legally one person, like a married couple? Exo, you're a fine chap, but this isn't the first time you've decided what you think my opinion is, then got annoyed at the imagined opinion.

Consider yourself warned.

 

[belboid]

Its all of them.
There are millions of people in the UK who are Unemployed or Underemployed probably in the region of 8 Million.
Millions of people who have been written off by the Political establishment...

But worse than that is the state internationally...And economic migration has dire consequences for the poorer nations and the people left behind in those countries.

aah, so you think there was a jewish problem, fair enough.

 

[tbaldwin]

aah, so you think there was a jewish problem, fair enough.

ho ho ho..
Why dont you try and constuct an arguement that contradicts my view that economic migration has catastrophic consequences for poorer countries?

 

[exosculate]

Hmmm. So snadge and I are legally one person, like a married couple? Exo, you're a fine chap, but this isn't the first time you've decided what you think my opinion is, then got annoyed at the imagined opinion.

Consider yourself warned.

No I think you have misunderstood me.

OK, lets put it another way, how should Snadge deal with the problem he is experiencing? Should he be calling for more Polish + Romanian/Bulgarian welders to come to the UK.

Yes or No?

ps - What do you mean warned - have you got secret mod status?

 

[danny la rouge]

No I think you have misunderstood me.

That's entirely possible.

OK, lets put it another way, how should Snadge deal with the problem he is experiencing? Should he be calling for more Polish + Romanian/Bulgarian welders to come to the UK.

Yes or No?

The issue is much more complex than a yes or no to that question. And it isn't about immigration or nationality.

I'll answer a similar question, though: if you were to ask me should he be calling for the labour market to be saturated with welders willing to take very low pay, then the answer is clearly no.

ps - What do you mean warned - have you got secret mod status?

I'm Robo-mod.

 

[audiotech]

ho ho ho..
Why dont you try and constuct an arguement that contradicts my view that economic migration has catastrophic consequences for poorer countries?

Migrants come here to work because of the obvious fact that there is work here and comparatively higher unemployment in their own countries.

You could argue that economic migrants shore up countries that are economically weaker by assisting their families back home from the ravages of the 'free market'.

On another positive, migrants from the UK enjoy the change from dullards who are always moaning and negative, they buy cheap property, retire, enjoy the warm climate and have extended holidays. They return to the UK to visit and after a few days can't wait to get back there.

It's such a wonderful world innit. Watch now, somebody will come along in a minute and spoil it with arguments for more detention centres, border guards and nationalist inspired xenophobia.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Even more millions of poor flooding into western Europe and North America.

And people accusing us of being Moselyites It didn't take long, as soon as the orthodox liberal left dross can't answer they have to resort to screaming wascist at us.

Re-read trashpony's post.

She hasn't called you a Mosleyite, she asked if you'd read any of his political works.

Poor little simpleton, running around bleating that he's been accused of being a racist.

 

[ViolentPanda]

1. Unemployment is only counted from those who are eligible to claim jobseekers' allowance - which is extremely hard to qualify for. Real unemployment is higher than officially-recognised unemployment. I knew someone.for instance, who was out of work but could not obtain work via the jobcentre because they didn't qualify for jobseekers' allowance - therefore, they did not count as unemployed. Orwellian nonsense it certainly was - but there you go.

While you have a point about "straight" unemployment figures, it's reasonably simple to look up the stats for economic activity and calculate a reasonably robust "real world" figure by sifting out the long-term sick and disabled from the total.

2. Capital needs a very small number of workers. Smaller than it has ever needed - hired and fired on capital's own terms with no industrial muscle to speak of to oppose it. That amounts to freeing itself from labour in my book.

3. Those small number of workers are then pretty much at the mercy of employers to work any number of hours - often unpaid - in order to get their work completed or face the consequences. If they don't like it, there's always the pool of unemployment they can join.

Your implication was of an ever-shrinking labour force that would result in capital "freeing itself of labour", something that is unlikely to happen for as long as production of goods is a reality.
As for the "complete your work or face the consequences" point, with that being the case what does the worker have to lose if he and his co-workers organise in a militant manner? The boss is going to kill him slowly, so why not take the risk of dying quickly?

 

[belboid]

Why dont you try and constuct an arguement that contradicts my view that economic migration has catastrophic consequences for poorer countries?

done it before, you fucked off and didn't reply iirr (they you might have done so, cant honestly recall).

It's interesting that you have chosen that particular argument to hang your hat on, previously you tried umpteen differnt tacks, all of which were thrown back in your face, and your arguments trounced, until you are left with but one. One which, I have to admit, I dont really think you hold much store by, it's just to make you look less of a little englander, almost blairite even.

And still, it's a crap argument, that is simply untrue. I note that you dont even attempt to define what you mean by 'poorer' countries, best to leave everything as vague as possible really isnt it? Do you include people moving from france to germany (or vice versa, not sure which is poorer)? Or does such a movement also have 'catastrophic consequences'? (there's another undefined - and unexampled - thing - whatever these 'catastrophic consequences' are - i suspect they are a touch of sound and fury signifying nothing). Ireland (as was noted ono a previous thread) had very high levels of emigration (fucking scum, trying to improve their lives), to such an extent that the government was forced to actually, mm, sort out their economy and make it the fastest growing in europe with concomitant levels of immigration. Total basket case Ireland now, isnt it?

Aah, I can hear you splutter, but I meant the really poor places like the third world. Except it doesnt work there either. You know, the monies sent back by overseas workers to their families is more than double the monies given in aid to third world countries according to rthe World Bank! $52.8billion v $23billion - a sum vastly greater than those people could have epxected to earn if they had 'stayed home'. So emigration actually leads to a siginificant inflow of monies to the third world - they activiely benefit from it. And those monies never have to be repaid!

Oh, but its the loss of skilled workers thats the real problem, I hear you whine. And so, assuming you are a logical and consistent person, you support the free movement of non-skilled workers? Dont matter if they leave does it? Lets assume you are not logical tho, how would your argumwent hold up then? Answer - it wouldnt! Skilled workes will always be recruited by richer countries in this kind of economy, and if we can effect enough change to alter that, then we can change the entire fucking world, and this whole discussion becomes irrelevant. If all you would want to change in those circumstances were a couple of immigration laws, then you would be even more right-wing than I assume you to be.

The problem with skilled workers moving over here, isnt the moving over here, its the fact that they dont go back to share any new skills they have learnt (and they very probably would learn new skills given the better facilities generally available). And why cant they go back? Bloody immigration laws, which meant that if they did, then they could probably never return. In order to go back and forth - to learn new skills etc etc - such people are obliged to get british residency, otherwise its one visit and fuck off. most people actually want to return to their country of origin (as most poles have already according to many of the reports, undoubtedly a very high number have done so), but are effectively trapped here.

& you know what group of overseas workers are the most qualified on average when they come over? Not the 'economic migrants', but the refugee's & asylum seekers. Were you to be consistent, you would be arguing for them to stay home and resist their oppressors. Indeed, you should be shouting out as you pass them in the street that they are scabs for leaving their friends and families back home.

And then theres the fact that the very fucking reason much of the third world is so fucking poor is that the west stole their bloody resources and continues to superexploit them every single day (most migrants still go to whichever country was their former colonial master). We can rob them, but god forbid they should come and try and share in some of the wealth they created!

The very term 'economic migrant' is a vile one that anyone with a touch os nouse should reject immediately anyway. It's almost funny, one day a country could be being destroyed in a war and its residents generously allowed to come here, but the day after the war ends, when the country populace are merely facing massive inescapable poverty, disease and, probably, rampant violence still, anyone wanting to leave would be a scab on their community. A country undergoing a famine - would anyone there be allowed to leave by you balders, or would they be scabbing too? Fucking scum, trying not to die n all.

I actually want a world where there has been a fucking massive redistribution of wealth so that people are not forced to migrate merely to survive, but do so because they like the climate or the music or the food of another country. Narrow minded protectionism does not help bring that world about in the slightest. In fact it does exactly the opposite.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are they? Many of the arguments made in favour of an immigration free for all (well free for the middle classes anyway!) is that we should show support for these brave workers who only want to provide for their families and work hard for the benefit of the 'economy'. Much the same was said by the right about those who scabbed on the miner's strike, indeed the rightwing press of the day smeared the striking miners with similer epiphets to those used by the liberal left against those workers who question what benefits immigration brings them now.

The left didn't support scabs then, why now?

You always seem to be posing these rhetorical questions about immigrants.

You don't like them very much, do you?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Are they? Many of the arguments made in favour of an immigration free for all (well free for the middle classes anyway!) is that we should show support for these brave workers who only want to provide for their families and work hard for the benefit of the 'economy'. Much the same was said by the right about those who scabbed on the miner's strike, indeed the rightwing press of the day smeared the striking miners with similer epiphets to those used by the liberal left against those workers who question what benefits immigration brings them now.

The left didn't support scabs then, why now?

I'm sure there's no connection, but whenever I see your name, I think about that BNP member who died as a result of autoerotic asphixiation.

A boner in his pants, and ligatures on his neck.

 

[Main Street]

Are they? Many of the arguments made in favour of an immigration free for all (well free for the middle classes anyway!) is that we should show support for these brave workers who only want to provide for their families and work hard for the benefit of the 'economy'. Much the same was said by the right about those who scabbed on the miner's strike, indeed the rightwing press of the day smeared the striking miners with similer epiphets to those used by the liberal left against those workers who question what benefits immigration brings them now.

The left didn't support scabs then, why now?

Two different things. A scab is a worker replacing a striking worker. An immigrant worker is just that an immigrant worker.

A great demo chant I heard in Vancouver goes like this, "We didn't cross the border - the border crossed us."

 

[Jessiedog]

ho ho ho..
Why dont you try and constuct an arguement that contradicts my view that economic migration has catastrophic consequences for poorer countries?

Except, of course, as bellboid has so elegantly elucidated, this simply isn't true.

Remember The Philippines, tbaldwin? You never responded to my posts elsewhere. Under the policies you espouse, the country would collapse and hundreds of thousands - probably millions - would starve to death.

There are some disruptions - nurses from The Philippines are attracted to overseas work and this can create temporary shortages. But what you may not know, is that some 50,000 peeps a year in The Philippines are starting nursing school for the sole purpose of trying to get a job overseas. Many of these people could study other subjects, but (surprise, surprise,) nursing is one of the most popular choices of study in the country today.

Of these @ 50,000 peeps a year graduating from nursing school, many will leave the country, many will be unable to for a whole variety of reasons. The NET effect will be an increase in the number of nursing staff available in The Philippines - especially once the overseas workers begin to return, as the vast majority always do.


Your "one trick pony" objection to immigration is spurious to the point of being ridiculous.



Woof

 

[poster342002]

There isn't a "massive immigration problem in the UK at the moment" - there is a significant housing and jobs problem.

Which is not alleviated by increasing the ratio of workers to jobs and houses.

 

[belboid]

but surely there aren't any workers any more anyway?

if you are too thick to understand the comment, then dont bother commenting on it.

 

[poster342002]

Firstly the word scab is woefully inadiquate to describe workers who are needed to do jobs that we either wont or cant do

Or do not get the chance to do because of the increased competition?

 

[poster342002]

but surely there aren't any workers any more anyway?

if you are too thick to understand the comment, then dont bother commenting on it.

I see your methaphorical car is still parked up Lost Argument Avenue. You might want to move it - it's probably got a parking ticket by now.

 

[poster342002]

but surely there aren't any workers any more anyway?

There are even fewer jobs and houses.

 

[belboid]

but you didnt understand the comment, did you? either that or you misunderstood it deliberately.

like balders, you prefer to blame the victims rather than the culprits. you have done pretty poorly on this thread so far, everything you have said has been (immediately and easily) dismissed as nonsense. as was that comment.

 

[belboid]

There are even fewer jobs and houses.

there's a negative number of houses!! what a weird world you live in.

 

[poster342002]

As for the "complete your work or face the consequences" point, with that being the case what does the worker have to lose if he and his co-workers organise in a militant manner? The boss is going to kill him slowly, so why not take the risk of dying quickly?

They just get sacked and replaced with workers drawn from the vast pool of unemployed.

 

[belboid]

but, they dont. despite the weakening of union power and loosening of employment laws, workers dont just get sacked at the drop of a hat.

 

[poster342002]

but, they dont. despite the weakening of union power and loosening of employment laws, workers dont just get sacked at the drop of a hat.

Yeah, first there's the formality of dismissal/appeal proceedures which just about ALWAYS are exactly that - just a formality that rubber-stamps the bosses decision to sack.

 

[belboid]

insert all the roll eyes you like, you are still talking nonsense.

If you think you are not, try actually backing your statements up.

 

[poster342002]

insert all the roll eyes you like, you are still talking nonsense.

If you think you are not, try actually backing your statements up.

Sorry - I was obviously wrong. Dismissal and appeal proceedures always take the benevolent view and reinstate sacked workers against the wishes of the bosses. Silly me.

x100000

 

[dash]

Seems ridiculous to frame the debate in terms of 'let no-one in' versus 'let everybody in', as the only countries which adopt the former are crapholes like North Korea, and no country which can afford to allows the latter.

Better to focus on how many people should be allowed to settle annually and what qualities you're looking for, or discuss whether guest worker schemes have any merit (not sure that they do IMO).