Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

You have to earn £38,700 before your overseas partner/spouse can live in the UK

I vaguely recall that Indian restaurants are susceptible to this particular problem, because many of the children of the owners want to go to university and go into the professions, they don't want to go into the family business, and arguably that's also what their parents want for them.

And although many people think of them as 'Indian' restaurants, many of the chefs come from Bangladesh. And the earnings level and other visa requirements make it tough for restaurant owners to recruit.

Easy to say that it's the fault of business owners for not investing in training, for paying their staff too little. But the reality is that loads of businesses in the hospitality sector go bust every year. Lots of start-ups go bust in the first year or two. The failure rate of new restaurants is relatively high.

Yes, the pandemic claimed many casualties in the sector, but punters don't want to pay a lot, so budgets are squeezed, and there's a lot of competition. Add in Brexit and there being a fall in the number of mainland Europeans working in the sector, plus the increase in costs - fuel/energy, ingredients, staff, etc, and many are struggling to get by, they're not lording it as you seem to think.

I recall someone from Birmingham telling me that the council or others managed to create a local training programme for the Bangladeshi restaurants but it didn't flourish in part due to graduates expectations of salary.

Which partially explains why a group purporting to be their industry group endorsed Leave. They were hoping to get a liberalisation of immigration rules
 
ah thanks i didnt pick up on that
yes adult education stats have gone down a lot

Tbh it's always been a problem, probably dating back to the guilds. It was always difficult to find training to get into one of the more lucrative trades without paying a private training provider. There were various schemes and provision, sometimes by HE providers, sometimes voluntary sector providers and sometimes big companies themselves, but they were very low/no paid and predominantly aimed at the young who were still living with parents and had no housing costs.

There were ways round it though. You get more or less get away with taking a part time degree whilst on the dole for example. You could volunteer full time whilst on benefits and whoever you were volunteering for might invest in training. A lot of lone parents on benefits went into some form of education or training once the kids got older. Some of the more elite trades like recording studios, michelin restaurants, elite salons and the like ran exploitative and unpaid internship type schemes aimed at people on benefits (these still exist but now only go to rich kids because it's difficult fit them around benefit eligibility criteria).

There was also a network of smaller community based non profits who would bid for funding and provide training (I worked for one in the 90s). Sometimes this was targeted at marginalised groups like ex offenders, or over 50s. It tended to be low level but was popular - we ran an NVQ Level 2 Care course and it was always oversubscribed. In fact anything that would lead to a real job, or real skills, such as a forklift licence, had people queuing down the road.

A lot of the money came from Europe via local councils, big colleges and TECS who would bid and then subcontract to local groups. Funding was usually based on qualifications (NVQs) achieved. Most of that funding has disappeared, most of the providers closed, and where it does exist it's based on job outcomes, not training outcomes, meaning providers are incentivised to push people into low paid, often temporary work.

Blair's welfare reforms and the New Deal smashed all of that up as private providers like Reed and A4E outbid everyone and instead of subcontrcating out decided to run everything in house. Basically the privatised welfare to work sector took over the voluntary/public funded vocational training sector and subsequent welfare reforms were dedicated to propping that up. It took a long time to completely smash up everything but when the massively increased conditionality regime came in under Iain Duncan Smith that was the final nail in the coffin. Colleges got sick of ever changing criteria or students dropping out because they got sent on some shitty employability scheme by the jobcentre and so moved away from vocational training. Voluntary sector providers closed down because they couldn't or wouldn't compete with ever more draconian workfare style schemes run by huge profit making companies. And of course EU funding has now disappeared.

Apprenticeships were a belated to attempt by the government to address this rampant de-skilling (which they had caused). And whilst there are some good schemes as mentioned upthread, provision is patchy and those schemes are hard to find. Also a lot of Apprenticeships are basically what used to just be called entry level jobs, paid at a proper salary and not the (government subsidised) apprenticeship rate which applies for the first year. So you can be an apprentice to do bar/kitchen work or be an assistant in a hairdressers.

Tl:dr - over the last 30 years the obsession with getting people off benefits and into low paid work has destroyed the already meagre vocational training sector. Capital wants fully trained up job ready workers but won't pay for them. Successive governments have been too obsessed with job outcomes and lining the pockets of the welfare to work sector to provide decent training and has been happy to let migration fill the gap. And even when they try and launch schemes like apprenticeships to address what is now a crisis, capital will just find loopholes and use them as an excuse to not pay people proper wages whilst they train.
 
The way out is really simple btw. Scrap benefit conditionality and divert the huge sums directed at the welfare to work sector back into colleges and HE providers to provide quality acredited vocational training. Also allow people in full time training to access housing benefit and raise benefit levels to cover living costs.

This might mean a tiny minority will decide they are okay with living on benefits, or create a very small number of perpetual students - the two things that were used to justify all this shit. But really who cares, hardly anyone will and hardly anyone ever did. Most people want a decent standard of living and something relatively interesting to do with their time. The obsession with punishing a tiny number of so called scroungers has led to the devastation of not just the social security system, but also largely destroyed vocational training - which has directly led to business looking overseas for workers from countries that still invest in providing the working class with training and education.
 
I recall someone from Birmingham telling me that the council or others managed to create a local training programme for the Bangladeshi restaurants but it didn't flourish in part due to graduates expectations of salary.

Which partially explains why a group purporting to be their industry group endorsed Leave. They were hoping to get a liberalisation of immigration rules
Yes, many were suckered into thinking that curtailing the flow of migrants from the European mainland would leave to improved prospects for more migrants from Commonwealth countries.
 
Tbh it's always been a problem, probably dating back to the guilds. It was always difficult to find training to get into one of the more lucrative trades without paying a private training provider. There were various schemes and provision, sometimes by HE providers, sometimes voluntary sector providers and sometimes big companies themselves, but they were very low/no paid and predominantly aimed at the young who were still living with parents and had no housing costs.

There were ways round it though. You get more or less get away with taking a part time degree whilst on the dole for example. You could volunteer full time whilst on benefits and whoever you were volunteering for might invest in training. A lot of lone parents on benefits went into some form of education or training once the kids got older. Some of the more elite trades like recording studios, michelin restaurants, elite salons and the like ran exploitative and unpaid internship type schemes aimed at people on benefits (these still exist but now only go to rich kids because it's difficult fit them around benefit eligibility criteria).

There was also a network of smaller community based non profits who would bid for funding and provide training (I worked for one in the 90s). Sometimes this was targeted at marginalised groups like ex offenders, or over 50s. It tended to be low level but was popular - we ran an NVQ Level 2 Care course and it was always oversubscribed. In fact anything that would lead to a real job, or real skills, such as a forklift licence, had people queuing down the road.

A lot of the money came from Europe via local councils, big colleges and TECS who would bid and then subcontract to local groups. Funding was usually based on qualifications (NVQs) achieved. Most of that funding has disappeared, most of the providers closed, and where it does exist it's based on job outcomes, not training outcomes, meaning providers are incentivised to push people into low paid, often temporary work.

Blair's welfare reforms and the New Deal smashed all of that up as private providers like Reed and A4E outbid everyone and instead of subcontrcating out decided to run everything in house. Basically the privatised welfare to work sector took over the voluntary/public funded vocational training sector and subsequent welfare reforms were dedicated to propping that up. It took a long time to completely smash up everything but when the massively increased conditionality regime came in under Iain Duncan Smith that was the final nail in the coffin. Colleges got sick of ever changing criteria or students dropping out because they got sent on some shitty employability scheme by the jobcentre and so moved away from vocational training. Voluntary sector providers closed down because they couldn't or wouldn't compete with ever more draconian workfare style schemes run by huge profit making companies. And of course EU funding has now disappeared.

Apprenticeships were a belated to attempt by the government to address this rampant de-skilling (which they had caused). And whilst there are some good schemes as mentioned upthread, provision is patchy and those schemes are hard to find. Also a lot of Apprenticeships are basically what used to just be called entry level jobs, paid at a proper salary and not the (government subsidised) apprenticeship rate which applies for the first year. So you can be an apprentice to do bar/kitchen work or be an assistant in a hairdressers.

Tl:dr - over the last 30 years the obsession with getting people off benefits and into low paid work has destroyed the already meagre vocational training sector. Capital wants fully trained up job ready workers but won't pay for them. Successive governments have been too obsessed with job outcomes and lining the pockets of the welfare to work sector to provide decent training and has been happy to let migration fill the gap. And even when they try and launch schemes like apprenticeships to address what is now a crisis, capital will just find loopholes and use them as an excuse to not pay people proper wages whilst they train.

This reminds me of one of my First posts on urban. Way back in 2006. Asking about a certain company. I don’t know if it’s similar now because I’m not looking but there were a few companies offering Crash courses in various Microsoft technologies, Boasting guaranteed jobs with high salaries. and definite placement, if you passed all the exams within a given time. The snack was this was virtually impossible from what I read later. I think this cost around five grand at the time. not illegal but a bit devious. I went for an interview, preliminary one. but seem pretty obvious the amount of work you had to do in the timeframe was not feasible for most people if you actually had a job. The rep more or less talked me out of it anyway.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t disagree with a lot of what you say , both soaring rent and utility costs have had an impact . After covid my son had two consecutive pay rises in order to keep him at his cafe due to some of the other factors you mentioned. Exactly for the same reasons £26k for a good chef is on the low side in central Manchester .

My point wasn’t that anyone was lording it , my main point was that very often the business model in the hospitality sector , even without soaring rents and utility costs , built on the assumption of a never ending stream of low wages and off the peg skilled staff isn’t sustainable.
My local high street is stuffed with often empty restaurants which I can't really see add much utility to the area but presumably can totter on due to low wages.
 
Still shit innit. Even if you are on £29K there would be a constant fear that the next planned increase could happen at any minute.

I'd have thought once they're in, they're in, aren't they?

Surely they wouldn't get chucked out if your earnings subsequently drop below the threshold? They'd need to check your income every year.
 
I'd have thought once they're in, they're in, aren't they?

Surely they wouldn't get chucked out if your earnings subsequently drop below the threshold? They'd need to check your income every year.
Unfortunately not. The initial spouse visa is temporary and you have to go through the application process a few times, and I think they have to live in the UK for 5 years before applying for the permanent visa.

So if your spouse flew in today and you are on £29K, you could apply for an initial spouse visa, but would be fucked if it goes up anytime in the next 5 years.
 
Well, this current shower will be gone by next Xmas, whether Keith will stop the increases is another matter though.
 
I'd have thought once they're in, they're in, aren't they?

Surely they wouldn't get chucked out if your earnings subsequently drop below the threshold? They'd need to check your income every year.

As I mentioned up thread the government have failed to clarify this. You might think deliberately.
 
I'd have thought once they're in, they're in, aren't they?

Surely they wouldn't get chucked out if your earnings subsequently drop below the threshold? They'd need to check your income every year.

If someone qualifies to come and live in Britain (fuck knows why they would want to nowadays) that should be that.
 
Unfortunately not. The initial spouse visa is temporary and you have to go through the application process a few times, and I think they have to live in the UK for 5 years before applying for the permanent visa.

So if your spouse flew in today and you are on £29K, you could apply for an initial spouse visa, but would be fucked if it goes up anytime in the next 5 years.
How often do you have to re-apply for a spouse visa? I take it you are a British citizen? If so your good lady can apply for citizenship after being married to you for 3 years. I believe the 5 years is after being settled here but not married to a UK citizen.
 
How often do you have to re-apply for a spouse visa? I take it you are a British citizen? If so your good lady can apply for citizenship after being married to you for 3 years. I believe the 5 years is after being settled here but not married to a UK citizen.
Two years nine months, assuming you are actually married. If the partner comes along as a fiancé it's a mere six months.
 
Two years nine months, assuming you are actually married. If the partner comes along as a fiancé it's a mere six months.
Call me cynical but that can't possibly be a co-incidence. Three months before he/she can apply to become a citizen they have to apply for the right to stay here in order to do it?
 
Call me cynical but that can't possibly be a co-incidence. Three months before he/she can apply to become a citizen they have to apply for the right to stay here in order to do it?
Of course it isnt! I think there is an element of wanting to check it's not a 'sham' marriage, but, mostly, it's about being a bunch of shits.
 
Back
Top Bottom