Brexit matters

[najaB]

I am not as optimistic as you. I can see it being slipped in as Clause 94 of a ‘Throwing off of European shackles’ Bill. If anybody points out the risks they will be branded as a sour Remainer who can’t get over losing and wants to prevent the English people reaching those sunlit uplands.

It would likely never make it out of committee.

 

[AM9]

I am not as optimistic as you. I can see it being slipped in as Clause 94 of a ‘Throwing off of European shackles’ Bill. If anybody points out the risks they will be branded as a sour Remainer who can’t get over losing and wants to prevent the English people reaching those sunlit uplands. And most of the sheep in the Commons will baa-ck it.

Whoever says that will be a hostage to fortune when the first available failure hits the news. There would be plenty of opportunities for that to befall the chancers who are baying for removal of such 'inconveniences' to their lives.

 

[jon0844]

It would likely never make it out of committee.

Just call them enemies of the people.

It isn't really about doing anything, but just saying you're taking back control and when it doesn't happen you blame someone else or have forgotten why you cared in the first place.

I see plenty of memes along the themes of 'we didn't have to x, y or z, back in 19nn and we all turned out fine'.

 

[najaB]

The Transport Secretary has rejected a request by the aviation industry to allow them to recruit workers from overseas, aviation insiders have told the BBC.
Companies asked for special immigration visas for overseas workers at a meeting with Grant Shapps on Wednesday.
Thousands of holidaymakers have seen their travel plans disrupted this week after flight cancellations and delays at airports.
Understaffing is to blame, say experts.
The half-term break and bank holiday Jubilee weekend is the first major test the industry has faced since all Covid travel restrictions were lifted in March. Nearly 27,000 flights out of the UK have been scheduled between 27 May and 5 June, according to aviation data firm Cirium.
However, the industry has struggled to recruit staff to replace those workers who lost their job or left the sector during Covid.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61671835

Now, if only people from our neighbouring countries were free to work here, it really would help to fill jobs that we're struggling to fill. Ideally, they wouldn't even have to apply for visas.

 

[Mikw]

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61671835

Now, if only people from our neighbouring countries were free to work here, it really would help to fill jobs that we're struggling to fill. Ideally, they wouldn't even have to apply for visas.

They'll be a U turn on this i'm sure - but only after months more of chaos.

 

[AM9]

They'll be a U turn on this i'm sure - but only after months more of chaos.

But there's been so much to discourage potentially valuable workers from the EU that it probably can't just be turned back on like that.

 

[Howardh]

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61671835

Now, if only people from our neighbouring countries were free to work here, it really would help to fill jobs that we're struggling to fill. Ideally, they wouldn't even have to apply for visas.

So those Brexit voters who are stood in a queue for hours waiting for their luggage because they are understaffed can now be told it IS Brexit consequence as Shapps won't allow emergency visas.

They really do know how to shoot themselves in both feet, don't they?!

 

[AlterEgo]

But there's been so much to discourage potentially valuable workers from the EU that it probably can't just be turned back on like that.

The government has actively told aviation and airport workers to consider another career during the pandemic. Many did.

There are plenty of people already living in Britain capable of the work. It is up to the employers to pay and incentivise them properly.

”Brexit has taken hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people out of the employment market and that undoubtedly is having an impact," he told the BBC.

That’s Jet2’s CEO moaning the employment market for his cheap airline and holiday company is smaller and therefore he will have to pay and incentivise staff better.

Everything in this country is cheap cheap cheap.

 

[The Ham]

The government has actively told aviation and airport workers to consider another career during the pandemic. Many did.

There are plenty of people already living in Britain capable of the work. It is up to the employers to pay and incentivise them properly.

”Brexit has taken hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people out of the employment market and that undoubtedly is having an impact," he told the BBC.

That’s Jet2’s CEO moaning the employment market for his cheap airline and holiday company is smaller and therefore he will have to pay and incentivise staff better.

Everything in this country is cheap cheap cheap.

Is it only low paid jobs where there's an issue with finding staff?

From those who I've spoken with (including solicitors, architects & engineers - so hardly low paid) they are all finding it more difficult to find staff.

The breakdown of those aged 16-64 is:
32.6 million employed
1.3 million unemployed
8.8 million economically inactive*

* There's about 2.1 million 16 & 17 year old in full time education or training and about 2.5 million enrolled at universities, which instantly rules out about half of that number out from full time work

Compare the above to the number of vacancies in March, which stood at 1.4 million and we'd need more people to be working than are unemployed.

You could get some economically inactive people to join the labour market, however how many that could be isn't overly clear as the data starts to get a bit difficult to pin down.

However, that assumes that there's the people with the skills/abilities to do all those jobs.

As an example harvesting (where it's difficult to automate) requires quite a skill not to harm yourself whilst picking at the rate required and being very physically fit. As such even if we ignore the last one, few would actually be any good at doing it for quite a while.

Many who have excluded themselves from the labour market do so because of they do work they find themselves losing benefits faster than they can earn them back. Whilst the government has made some inroads to this is still an issue.

There's also about 85,000 people who are legally not allowed to work and cost the government through support payments. Chances are at least some of them would have some of the desirable skills we need across many different areas. Maybe there should be a push to get the law changed in that area.

Unfortunately politically allowing asylum seekers to work wouldn't appeal to certain groups in society, a lot of whom support the current government. As such that's not likely to happen any time soon.

How about the fact that there's about 130,000 diagnosed with cancer each year in that same age range, whilst a lot will carry on working that's only one illness group and so probably not a bag indicator of the number of people who will be dropping out of being economically active due to illness. As such it's not going to be hard to imagine that there's a million people who, due to illness, are unable to work.

However, if we have more people employed, they will then want to buy stuff and use services, which then requires some more workers.

As such, whilst more could be working from within the resident population, it doesn't appear that the numbers would actually stack up (even if there wasn't anything, such as skills or ability, blocking people from taking on the jobs) for the UK to be able to fill all the jobs needed from the current population without significant changes in policy to get those currently not seeking work to seek work.

Even if those policies changed today, it would take time for those to have an impact.

Maybe with the exception of increasing hours worked before benefits are cut, as if you increased this to 20 hours from 16 hours you'd need fewer people to cover the same number of hours and many working those sorts of jobs would do so fairly soon after the rule change.

Now whilst it could mean that the government would have to support some people for longer than they currently do it would be a fairly easy policy change to help those towards the lower end of society, especially with the cost of living crisis. An extra 4 hours a week working at minimum wage would be about £1,700 a year extra.

There would be downsides, however it would be possible to announce it as a 12 month trail (which wouldn't help those on contacted hours unless they can work overtime, however that's likely to be fairly few people) so the government could evaluate its impact. However it could also allow some to up their hours by enough to then work rather than relying on benefits after the trail period.

 

[AM9]

The government has actively told aviation and airport workers to consider another career during the pandemic. Many did.

There are plenty of people already living in Britain capable of the work. It is up to the employers to pay and incentivise them properly.

”Brexit has taken hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people out of the employment market and that undoubtedly is having an impact," he told the BBC.

That’s Jet2’s CEO moaning the employment market for his cheap airline and holiday company is smaller and therefore he will have to pay and incentivise staff better.

Everything in this country is cheap cheap cheap.

I wasn't thinking specifically airlines. Their current mess is of their own making. Their rush to sell seats that they couldn't guarantee fulfilling has exposed the industry to years of problems ahead in an age when optional flying will be considered a frivolous disregard of the environment.

 

[REVUpminster]

Spain looks like it is going to accept US illegal immigrants at the Mexican border to solve their job vacancies; so where is all the Euro labour coming from to fill our vacancies?

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it only low paid jobs where there's an issue with finding staff?

The vast majority.

Security scanning staff, check in agents/ground handlers and baggage staff are most affected. This is because many staff simply went elsewhere during the pandemic and found jobs which they are now six months into and have settled.

 

[The Ham]

The vast majority.

Security scanning staff, check in agents/ground handlers and baggage staff are most affected. This is because many staff simply went elsewhere during the pandemic and found jobs which they are now six months into and have settled.

My question was in general but just airline related.

If there's a shortage generally then it's going to be hard for specific industries (such as airlines).

 

[REVUpminster]

The vast majority.

Security scanning staff, check in agents/ground handlers and baggage staff are most affected. This is because many staff simply went elsewhere during the pandemic and found jobs which they are now six months into and have settled.

and the employers were probably claiming furlough money expecting to get them back.

 

[najaB]

Security scanning staff, check in agents/ground handlers and baggage staff are most affected. This is because many staff simply went elsewhere during the pandemic and found jobs which they are now six months into and have settled.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "low paid" but a cursory search shows that the base take home pay for a ground handler is around £22K/year, with significant opportunities for overtime. Admittedly, you're not going to be buying a Ferrari on that money, but it's better than a lot of other jobs out there.

 

[Mikw]

But there's been so much to discourage potentially valuable workers from the EU that it probably can't just be turned back on like that.

However, current employees of the airlines, but based in Europe, could come over and help. They can't now without a visa.

 

[AlterEgo]

However, current employees of the airlines, but based in Europe, could come over and help. They can't now without a visa.

Yes, all those spare airline and airport staff on low wages just lying around in Europe. Where would you get them from?

 

[najaB]

Yes, all those spare airline and airport staff on low wages just lying around in Europe. Where would you get them from?

To be fair, the situation isn't uniform across Europe. As an example, IAG has been using some Iberia metal to operate BA flights since they haven't been suffering the same levels of cabin crew shortages.

 

[Cloud Strife]

To be fair, the situation isn't uniform across Europe. As an example, IAG has been using some Iberia metal to operate BA flights since they haven't been suffering the same levels of cabin crew shortages.

The situation is quite bad in Berlin, but BER is generally a mess so it doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be fair, the situation isn't uniform across Europe. As an example, IAG has been using some Iberia metal to operate BA flights since they haven't been suffering the same levels of cabin crew shortages.

There is a general shortage of airport and ground staff across Europe. No, it’s not uniform, but there aren’t a whole load sitting around waiting to be employed.

 

[py_megapixel]

Why would anyone want to work as a baggage handler when they'd be paid more to stack the shelves in Sainsburys?

I think we're now learning the answer to this question: they wouldn't.

 

[najaB]

There is a general shortage of airport and ground staff across Europe. No, it’s not uniform, but there aren’t a whole load sitting around waiting to be employed.

The same could be said of most industries. However, it still stands that instead of a potential pool of some 300M people, we now have a pool of ~60M.

 

[AM9]

The same could be said of most industries. However, it still stands that instead of a potential pool of some 300M people, we now have a pool of ~60M.

Actually, it's worse than that, the pool of working age in the UK is well under 45m.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Why would anyone want to work as a baggage handler when they'd be paid more to stack the shelves in Sainsburys?

I think we're now learning the answer to this question: they wouldn't.

Not to mention the difficult access to many airports and the difficult working conditions.

 

[AlterEgo]

The same could be said of most industries. However, it still stands that instead of a potential pool of some 300M people, we now have a pool of ~60M.

That is a good thing for the ordinary British worker. There are billions of people in the world and nearly all of them require permission to work in the UK. I never understood why overwhelmingly white, Christian Europeans should have had free movement for employment over any other appropriate and qualified individual from any other country.

Why would anyone want to work as a baggage handler when they'd be paid more to stack the shelves in Sainsburys?

I think we're now learning the answer to this question: they wouldn't.

Well, quite. The pay and working conditions of baggage handlers isn't great. £23K at Heathrow, in London, £11.50 an hour or thereabouts, barely above the "Living Wage", to hump very heavy bags around all day. Pay them more. And it's fine if the cost of flying goes up, too.

 

[najaB]

I never understood why overwhelmingly white, Christian Europeans should have had free movement for employment over any other appropriate and qualified individual from any other country.

Because British citizens had free movement for employment in EU member states. It had nothing to do with being white or Christian.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because British citizens had free movement for employment in EU member states. It had nothing to do with being white or Christian.

No, that's not what I meant. Why do all the member states have free movement for labour? Just saying "it's reciprocal, and a closed club, so what?" is facile.

Why indeed is this a good policy? What is the benefit to states to disproportionately share labour from, say, countries where people share ethnicity and religion, to the detriment of taking equally qualified people from the United States, India, South Africa, Rwanda or Japan, for example?

Nobody has ever explained why that is good policy, only ever "well it was reciprocal". "OK fine, I'm comfortable with that going, nobody has explained why that's good".

 

[najaB]

Nobody has ever explained why that is good policy, only ever "well it was reciprocal". "OK fine, I'm comfortable with that going, nobody has explained why that's good".

It's one of the four fundamental freedoms that make up the common market. In a single market, taking the UK as an example:

• You are free to live and work in any of the four home nations
• You can move capital between the four home nations without restrictions
• You can buy and sell goods in any of the four home nations without restriction
• You can establish a business in any of the four home nations without restrictions.

If any of those four freedoms is restricted then you don't have a single market.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's one of the four fundamental freedoms that make up the common market. In a single market, taking the UK as an example:

• You are free to live and work in any of the four home nations
• You can move capital between the four home nations without restrictions
• You can buy and sell goods in any of the four home nations without restriction
• You can establish a business in any of the four home nations without restrictions.

If any of those four freedoms is restricted then you don't have a single market.

Why's that good at a country level, and a nominally supranational level (with states of very vaguely similar cultural backgrounds, but vastly unequal economic power!) but not globally?

Why is a UK single market a good idea?

 

[The Ham]

No, that's not what I meant. Why do all the member states have free movement for labour? Just saying "it's reciprocal, and a closed club, so what?" is facile.

Why indeed is this a good policy? What is the benefit to states to disproportionately share labour from, say, countries where people share ethnicity and religion, to the detriment of taking equally qualified people from the United States, India, South Africa, Rwanda or Japan, for example?

Nobody has ever explained why that is good policy, only ever "well it was reciprocal". "OK fine, I'm comfortable with that going, nobody has explained why that's good".

If I wish to move to another country:

- without freedom of movement I need to be fairly sure that it's what I want to do, as I've got to apply for visas and fill out a loan of paperwork

- with freedom of movement it's no different to applying for a job some distance away

Now the second will mean that people are more likely to move about for jobs. It's arguable that universal free movement would be good. However you would also need a lot of other things to be universal to ensure that you didn't end up with people all moving to those places with the best benefits.

Of course, it's not only those looking for work who could benefit. In that those looking to retire somewhere cheaper, warmer, better facilities, etc can also move to somewhere that suits them.

Of course there's arguments against, including that those countries with higher rates of pay will attract people and therefore reduce pay as there's then an over supply of people.