Immigration "small benefit" to UK

[durruti02]

I think you're overlooking the fact that unionisation makes little difference, when there's a large number of workers chasing a limited amount of work.
If there's not enough work to go round, then some people will always work for less rather than have no work at all.

You can tell them they shouldn't, but they might be inclined to reply, well it's do that, or my family'll be homeless, -- are you telling me I should make my family homeless?

Are you?

top posting and thank you for the lesson in basic trade unionism .. it is sorely needed around here




( p.s. NOT sarcastic!)

 

[durruti02]

Nobody here is denying the concerns of many of the low-paid over the issue of immigration - this often confused with migration btw. Posters have already suggested what can be done, although in a small way, to remedy this.

It's the failure of this government to radically deal with the worst excesses of these exploitative practices that's at fault and it appears a failure to foresee/plan for the extra pressures put on certain services in certain areas.

MC pull the other one .. poster after poster on urban has said immigration does NOT affect anyone and is in fact GOOD for us .. this has got less and less recently as people are starting to open their eyes


but demon has you by the short and curlies yes of course it is the fault of the govt!! .. but HOW to affect that govt?? they have NO wish to chnage anything at the moment being neo liberal thru and thru .. so we have no choice but to rebuild from the base .. and as demo says it is stupid to think you can rebuild without prioritising those who are here rather than those the spivs want to import

 

[audiotech]

no justification of that answer? .. no alternative?? .. thats poor mate

Don't you get it yet? I'm never going to agree with your anti-immigration stance. Simple as.

The reserve army of labour that you talk about, with reference to the four million plus unemployed in the eighties?

I doubt very much you would have called for a ban on the unemployed entering the labour market, because they were likely to under-cut wage rates at the time?

So, why the difference when it's immigrant workers?

 

[audiotech]

you no they say when people do what you are doing they have lost the arguement

i expect a better standard of arguement from you mate

You are anti-immigration and therefore against immigrants working here no?

 

[durruti02]

Don't you get it yet? I'm never going to agree with your anti-immigration stance. Simple as.

The reserve army of labour that you talk about, with reference to the four million plus unemployed in the eighties?

I doubt very much you would have called for a ban on the unemployed entering the labour market, because they were likely to under-cut wage rates at the time?

So, why the difference when it's immigrant workers?

never say never!

re reserve army in the 8ts .. the local unemployed ARE part of the local labour market .. it is daft to think otherwise .. they are NOT people who bosses are actively recruiting from abroad while ignoring teh local unemployed as we have now are they????

 

[durruti02]

You are anti-immigration and therefore against immigrants working here no?

nonsense logic mate and you know it .. i am against how immigration is USED .. i am against immigrants being USED for cheap labour .. it is clear you are again suggesting i am anti immigrant .. and you use it to smear .. to be against how immigration USED is an entirely differrent thing as you well know

 

[audiotech]

MC pull the other one .. poster after poster on urban has said immigration does NOT affect anyone and is in fact GOOD for us .. this has got less and less recently as people are starting to open their eyes


but demon has you by the short and curlies yes of course it is the fault of the govt!! .. but HOW to affect that govt?? they have NO wish to chnage anything at the moment being neo liberal thru and thru .. so we have no choice but to rebuild from the base .. and as demo says it is stupid to think you can rebuild without prioritising those who are here rather than those the spivs want to import

British jobs for British workers, as I said reactionary drivel. Who'ld have thought that an NF slogan would now be so popular, first with the Labour party and now some dozy ex anarchists.

 

[audiotech]

nonsense logic mate and you know it .. i am against how immigration is USED .. i am against immigrants being USED for cheap labour .. it is clear you are again suggesting i am anti immigrant .. and you use it to smear .. to be against how immigration USED is an entirely differrent thing as you well know

You're not for calling for an end to immigration then?

 

[durruti02]

British jobs for British workers, as I said reactionary drivel. Who'ld have thought that an NF slogan would now be so popular, first with the Labour party and now some dozy ex anarchists.

some days you can be a right prat mate .. shakes head at your in this instance totally inability to reason and then quick descent into abuse

 

[audiotech]

never say never!

re reserve army in the 8ts .. the local unemployed ARE part of the local labour market .. it is daft to think otherwise .. they are NOT people who bosses are actively recruiting from abroad while ignoring teh local unemployed as we have now are they????

When did you last sign on?

The unemployed here are required to sign on with agencies. They are also expected to attend training, or be in education. If they refuse their benefits are at risk.

 

[audiotech]

some days you can be a right prat mate .. shakes head at your in this instance totally inability to reason and then quick descent into abuse

I made a salient point, which I see has thrown you somewhat.

 

[durruti02]

You're not for calling for an end to immigration then?

er NO!! LOL and never have .. dear oh dear oh dear mate .. where you been??

to repeat what i have said over and over and over .. but for you ..

i am a big fan of immigration and emigration and moving and exchange and change and mixing and creation etc etc etc .. what i am against is neo liberalism and how it uses immigration to drive down wages to break unions and communities .. and it is this form that dominates immigration in the last few years .. it is this form of immigration that is a key political issue at the moment

 

[audiotech]

never say never!

007

 

[durruti02]

I made a salient point, which I see has thrown you somewhat.

you call it 'salient' suggesting that what i suggest ( a anti immigration control , workerist , build from the base , attacking the ENGLISH bosses etc) is in ANYWAY similar to what the scummy bourgois racist NF proposed ??? FFS mate .. do me a favour

 

[durruti02]

007

shakes head smiles and goes to bed

 

[audiotech]

er NO!! LOL and never have .. dear oh dear oh dear mate .. where you been??

to repeat what i have said over and over and over .. but for you ..

i am a big fan of immigration and emigration and moving and exchange and change and mixing and creation etc etc etc .. what i am against is neo liberalism and how it uses immigration to drive down wages to break unions and communities .. and it is this form that dominates immigration in the last few years .. it is this form of immigration that is a key political issue at the moment

You're against low pay! Hey we agree!

So why this obsession with immigrants?

 

[Spion]

Fucking ridiculous. Me trying to make capitalism work. I'd like to see the UK abandon capitalism altogether, maybe first making investments in loads of other country's economies, so as to provide a national income so that we can then let the pound slide without starving.

'Abandon capitalism by making investments in other economies'? I've never heard anything so wrong-headed in my life

The only way to truly undermine capitalism is by subverting the role of profit in deciding what is and isn't produced (and at the same time fulfilling the needs of the bulk of people) by fighting for workplace and community control of production

 

[Spion]

I think you're overlooking the fact that unionisation makes little difference, when there's a large number of workers chasing a limited amount of work.
If there's not enough work to go round, then some people will always work for less rather than have no work at all.

Yes, of course that will be the case often. But I don't think that that's a state of affairs that should be settled for

You can tell them they shouldn't, but they might be inclined to reply, well it's do that, or my family'll be homeless, -- are you telling me I should make my family homeless?

OK, so that one goes and gets the no-union low pay job, which means someone else who he's undercut becomes homeless too. Is that what you'd want? I doubt it, but that's the trouble with your position - you're accepting a fight over scraps from the table rather than combining to force the bosses to pay more for more jobs and housing etc

 

[Spion]

which is excatly what i agree with / and DO do .. LOL and a fuck site more than most on urban!! .. i actually have a stewards position where i recruit migrants into the union .. and we recently got back in house a whole section of mainly muslim pakistani and extremely badly paid workers .. we have got them back on equal/ good rates etc etc ..

your and MCs accusations against me just do not hold any water at all

you at one point NEED to deal with how immigration is being USED in ukinc today without slipping into MC's daft 'anti immigrant' nonsense

If you've found a post where you agree with something I've said why not just say so instead of turning it into another fight?

Anyway, good work on the unionisation front. It seems to me you're doing exactly the right thing.

But, I'm puzzled, do you ever practice what you were preaching the other day by denying incoming workers and favouring 'local' ones?

 

[Demosthenes]

Yes, of course that will be the case often. But I don't think that that's a state of affairs that should be settled for

OK, so that one goes and gets the no-union low pay job, which means someone else who he's undercut becomes homeless too. Is that what you'd want? I doubt it, but that's the trouble with your position - you're accepting a fight over scraps from the table rather than combining to force the bosses to pay more for more jobs and housing etc

So I take it you are telling whoever it is, "don't accept that low-pay job, for the sake of the union, make your family homeless. Our principles are more important."

 

[Demosthenes]

'Abandon capitalism by making investments in other economies'? I've never heard anything so wrong-headed in my life

The only way to truly undermine capitalism is by subverting the role of profit in deciding what is and isn't produced (and at the same time fulfilling the needs of the bulk of people) by fighting for workplace and community control of production

Well, if radical socialists did have control of the government, and instituted radical anti-capitalist policies, you'd see the pound slide to such an extent that unless we'd sorted out where our national income was going to come from, probably many people would starve. We don't grow much food here, and we don't have any manufacturing industry to make things to sell to give us an income. We live off our capital. Ignoring the facts of the matter for the sake of ideological principles is pointless.

 

[Spion]

So I take it you are telling whoever it is, "don't accept that low-pay job, for the sake of the union, make your family homeless. Our principles are more important."

You really haven't read/understood my post have you?

It's not about principles. This hypothetical person could take the job, and in so doing is undercutting someone else and making them homeless. Is that what you want? I'm sure it's not, but that's what you're arguing

All workers suffer if we have a no-union, low-wage economy. The point of being pr-w/c is to get workers to combine to ensure one cannot be played off against the other, tho you seem to miss that point altogether

 

[Spion]

Well, if radical socialists did have control of the government, and instituted radical anti-capitalist policies, you'd see the pound slide to such an extent that unless we'd sorted out where our national income was going to come from, probably many people would starve.

You really are blinkered by parliamentary politics and the capitalist system, aren't you?

By the time a 'radical socialist' government existed there would be something wrong, IMO, if workers the length and breadth of the country had not seized control of production and begun to plan it for our own needs. The pound sliding is an irrelevancy.

Go and learn some history, FFS

 

[tarannau]

. We don't grow much food here, and we don't have any manufacturing industry to make things to sell to give us an income. We live off our capital. Ignoring the facts of the matter for the sake of ideological principles is pointless.

Well precisely. But seeing as we have a distinctinctly low cost consumerist society relying heavily on international trade, exactly how would pulling up the drawbridge and severing links with Europe provide prosperity? It's not as though we'd suddenly discover a self sufficient mnaufacturing and agricultural base.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well precisely. But seeing as we have a distinctinctly low cost consumerist society relying heavily on international trade, exactly how would pulling up the drawbridge and severing links with Europe provide prosperity? It's not as though we'd suddenly discover a self sufficient mnaufacturing and agricultural base.

No, you're right. The only solution I can see is to legalise some or all drugs and base our economy on selling quality drugs and music festivals. We could be the one of the tourist capitals of the world. Particularly if we accepted a drastic cut in the value of the pound.

 

[Demosthenes]

You really are blinkered by parliamentary politics and the capitalist system, aren't you?

By the time a 'radical socialist' government existed there would be something wrong, IMO, if workers the length and breadth of the country had not seized control of production and begun to plan it for our own needs. The pound sliding is an irrelevancy.

Go and learn some history, FFS

I'm beginning to think you're someone who thinks you're frightfully well-informed, but hasn't really much of a clue.

 

[Spion]

I'm beginning to think you're someone who thinks you're frightfully well-informed, but hasn't really much of a clue.

Cue the ad homs. Always a sign of someone floundering

 

[Demosthenes]

You really haven't read/understood my post have you?

It's not about principles. This hypothetical person could take the job, and in so doing is undercutting someone else and making them homeless. Is that what you want? I'm sure it's not, but that's what you're arguing

All workers suffer if we have a no-union, low-wage economy. The point of being pr-w/c is to get workers to combine to ensure one cannot be played off against the other, tho you seem to miss that point altogether

No. I understood your post, though I don't see why undercutting someone else necessarily makes them homeless.

My point though was that you didn't answer their question. or mne.

"Are you telling me I should make my family homeless for the sake of the union?"

Are you?

 

[Spion]

No, you're right. The only solution I can see is to legalise some or all drugs and base our economy on selling quality drugs and music festivals. We could be the one of the tourist capitals of the world. Particularly if we accepted a drastic cut in the value of the pound.

LOL

Thanks god for that - you were joking all along

 

[Demosthenes]

Cue the ad homs. Always a sign of someone floundering

So what was "go learn some history ffs." ?