Isn't the real problem the large number of feckless Brits who sit watching Jeremy Kyle rather than putting in a day's graft?
Are there 'any' of them left? With UK unemployment are low levels one might think that migrant workers are a necessity to meet peak demand at harvest time.
The Carse of Gowrie and Perthshire are probably the biggest fruit picking areas in Scotland. Unemployment in Dundee is currently 3,300.
Tbf requirement for fruit pickers is currently 0.
True, but the descriptions given by others of guest workers provided with accommodation by farmers but organised by gang masters etc is spot on. I don't expect this year to be any different. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about this, not just underemployed Brits.
But the answer to that is not to limit or ban guest workers. It is to deal with the underlying criminal or antisocial practices. We don't ban cars because people speed or get drunk behind the wheel. Or because they use them to commit bank robberies.
If we fully accepted guest workers as part of our ecomomy, made it as easy as possible for them to come here to work but at the same time clamped down properly on gang masters and on employers who circumvent rules for he sake of cut price labour then I would be very hard pressed to think of a valid reason for objecting to their presence
Provided our own youth had equal opportunities to obtain the employment I would agree with you. But they don't at the moment. Farmers would far rather deal with 1 gang master promising them 50 workers than try to employ locally. It is also the case that the guest workers undercut what would otherwise be the going rate for the work.
I would really like to see the evidence for that last assertion.
As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected, if they are employed by an agency in their host country and are then transferred by that agency to the UK then under the Posted Worker Directive the relevant employment standards, subject to certain minima, are those of the host country not the UK. In short the UK Minimum Wage does not apply.
Does there come a point when we should become concerned about the falls in most of the worlds leading stock markets? The FTSE has now lost pretty much all of its gains over the last 12 months. The Dow has lost a fair chunk of its gains but is still up roughly 20% over that period.
I think that this is asset values recalibrating to a world where interest rates will not be on the floor indefinitely but it seems out of step with the glowing international picture that is currently being painted.
The unreal period has been the post-Brexit/Trump false boom. Hopefully things will level out at a sensible level.
@DavidL@RottenBorough - Thanks, yes, it might be as simple as the Crown grabbing it. However, that seems a bit odd, because the beneficial owner is the missing shareholder, not the dissolved company.
Edit: Companies Act 2006: When a company is dissolved, all property and rights whatsoever vested in or held on trust for the company immediately before its dissolution (including leasehold property, but not including property held by the company on trust for another person) are deemed to be bona vacantia
The shares are not an asset of the company. They are an asset of the shareholder but once the company is dissolved they have no value. The right to a share of the distribution vests in the shareholders but if you can't find them the money goes to the State. Directors, who are responsible for the distribution, should insure to protect them from claims that they did not do enough to trace the shareholders. I presume that the suggestion made by Alastair has been exhausted.
It seems that not enough Romanians want to work hard enough for low enough wages in bad enough conditions.
The idea that better pay and conditions might attract more workers does not seem to have occurred. But then the idea of better pay and conditions for the rural working class appears to be anathema to metropolitan leftists. I suspect that the average Guardian journalist would think that the Tolpuddle Martyrs got off too lightly.
Apparently the UK is on the brink of starvation because there were 4,300 job vacancies in the agricultural sector last year.
That's about 1% of the total agricultural workforce.
Alternatively those agricultural job vacancies were about 5% of the number of 18-24 year olds who had been unemployed for more than a year or about 1% of the number of unemployed immigrants.
With eastern England now resembling the Ukraine in 1933 perhaps we need to look at drastic measures.
LOL. It is funny that the Guardian seems to have missed the fact there was actually an increase in the number of migrant workers last year.
"British youth are too often jot willing to actually work for a living and they are rewarded for that through our social security system."
There may be truth in that, but if I were sixteen again and presented with modern days options now, I might be tempted to look elsewhere too.
Says he, trying not to sound like an old git ... "Them young 'uns, don't know they're born nowadays."
Apologies for the sweeping statements. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyome. But it does apply to a significant number of people.
Sorry Richard but you don’t do yourself any favours with such gross oversimplification. Wages are a function of labour demand and supply; clearly since 2004 the latter has increased immensely. That has had a negative impact on wages for people at the bottom of the income distribution. Why should the people you expect to do those jobs just accept it? Perhaps it would be better if consumers couldn’t pay just 50p for a cucumber. I strongly suspect the broader costs to our society of this kind of production, in terms of infrastructure and wage subsidies, make it a lossmaker overall.
Wages were once a function of Labour demand and supply. Then we introduced the minimum wage. That has had the effect of setting both a floor and in some cases a ceiling on the wages for menial jobs. And of course I don't expect the workers to accept it. Under our current system they can choose not to do the work and there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who are willing to do it in their stead. And if we close off that route and demand that the farmers pay more they will very quickly find their produce replaced in the supermarkets by that from Spain or Chile or Kenya. That is the reality you seem to be railing against.
As DavidL pointed out, Eastern Europeans can be paid substantially less than the U.K. minimum wage thanks to EU law. As for the reality that they would be replaced by imports, that’s only the case if we have no import tariffs.
Did you have a chance to consider my betting proposal on the previous thread? (£10 at 5-1 on Corbyn becoming PM within 6 months of the next General Election)
No worries either way.
Sorry - I forgot about it. I want to win more than £10!! How about we meet in the middle and do £25 at 5-1? I am good for it, I promise!!
"British youth are too often jot willing to actually work for a living and they are rewarded for that through our social security system."
There may be truth in that, but if I were sixteen again and presented with modern days options now, I might be tempted to look elsewhere too.
Says he, trying not to sound like an old git ... "Them young 'uns, don't know they're born nowadays."
Apologies for the sweeping statements. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyome. But it does apply to a significant number of people.
Sorry Richard but you don’t do yourself any favours with such gross oversimplification. Wages are a function of labour demand and supply; clearly since 2004 the latter has increased immensely. That has had a negative impact on wages for people at the bottom of the income distribution. Why should the people you expect to do those jobs just accept it? Perhaps it would be better if consumers couldn’t pay just 50p for a cucumber. I strongly suspect the broader costs to our society of this kind of production, in terms of infrastructure and wage subsidies, make it a lossmaker overall.
Wages were once a function of Labour demand and supply. Then we introduced the minimum wage. That has had the effect of setting both a floor and in some cases a ceiling on the wages for menial jobs. And of course I don't expect the workers to accept it. Under our current system they can choose not to do the work and there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who are willing to do it in their stead. And if we close off that route and demand that the farmers pay more they will very quickly find their produce replaced in the supermarkets by that from Spain or Chile or Kenya. That is the reality you seem to be railing against.
As DavidL pointed out, Eastern Europeans can be paid substantially less than the U.K. minimum wage thanks to EU law. As for the reality that they would be replaced by imports, that’s only the case if we have no import tariffs.
So now you are advocating both protectionism and substantial food inflation.
Just out of interest, are there any advanced industrial economies where agricultural work isn’t largely done by immigrant labour? I am guessing Japan might be one, and Australia and New Zealand, but what about in Europe and North America? France maybe?
@DavidL@RottenBorough - Thanks, yes, it might be as simple as the Crown grabbing it. However, that seems a bit odd, because the beneficial owner is the missing shareholder, not the dissolved company.
Edit: Companies Act 2006: When a company is dissolved, all property and rights whatsoever vested in or held on trust for the company immediately before its dissolution (including leasehold property, but not including property held by the company on trust for another person) are deemed to be bona vacantia
The shares are not an asset of the company. They are an asset of the shareholder but once the company is dissolved they have no value. The right to a share of the distribution vests in the shareholders but if you can't find them the money goes to the State. Directors, who are responsible for the distribution, should insure to protect them from claims that they did not do enough to trace the shareholders. I presume that the suggestion made by Alastair has been exhausted.
It seems that not enough Romanians want to work hard enough for low enough wages in bad enough conditions.
The idea that better pay and conditions might attract more workers does not seem to have occurred. But then the idea of better pay and conditions for the rural working class appears to be anathema to metropolitan leftists. I suspect that the average Guardian journalist would think that the Tolpuddle Martyrs got off too lightly.
Apparently the UK is on the brink of starvation because there were 4,300 job vacancies in the agricultural sector last year.
That's about 1% of the total agricultural workforce.
Alternatively those agricultural job vacancies were about 5% of the number of 18-24 year olds who had been unemployed for more than a year or about 1% of the number of unemployed immigrants.
With eastern England now resembling the Ukraine in 1933 perhaps we need to look at drastic measures.
LOL. It is funny that the Guardian seems to have missed the fact there was actually an increase in the number of migrant workers last year.
Indeed.
They've also missed that agricultural employment is at its highest for twenty years.
Perhaps a little more capital investment and productivity improvements is what the NFU should be concetrating on instead of whining to the Guardian.
True, but the descriptions given by others of guest workers provided with accommodation by farmers but organised by gang masters etc is spot on. I don't expect this year to be any different. There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about this, not just underemployed Brits.
But the answer to that is not to limit or ban guest workers. It is to deal with the underlying criminal or antisocial practices. We don't ban cars because people speed or get drunk behind the wheel. Or because they use them to commit bank robberies.
If we fully accepted guest workers as part of our ecomomy, made it as easy as possible for them to come here to work but at the same time clamped down properly on gang masters and on employers who circumvent rules for he sake of cut price labour then I would be very hard pressed to think of a valid reason for objecting to their presence
Provided our own youth had equal opportunities to obtain the employment I would agree with you. But they don't at the moment. Farmers would far rather deal with 1 gang master promising them 50 workers than try to employ locally. It is also the case that the guest workers undercut what would otherwise be the going rate for the work.
I would really like to see the evidence for that last assertion.
As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected, if they are employed by an agency in their host country and are then transferred by that agency to the UK then under the Posted Worker Directive the relevant employment standards, subject to certain minima, are those of the host country not the UK. In short the UK Minimum Wage does not apply.
How much the right to have the applicable law of, say, Rumania, instead of the UK is used in practice I would be a lot less confident about. Anecdotally, I have had farmers as clients who paid less than the minimum wage in the UK but more than the minimum wage in the source country although they would argue it was a package including accommodation and food.
I see that the Guardian is continuing its campaign on behalf of expolitative farmers. It seems that not enough Romanians want to work hard enough for low enough wages in bad enough conditions.
The idea that better pay and conditions might attract more workers does not seem to have occurred. But then the idea of better pay and conditions for the rural working class appears to be anathema to metropolitan leftists. I suspect that the average Guardian journalist would think that the Tolpuddle Martyrs got off too lightly.
"British youth are too often jot willing to actually work for a living and they are rewarded for that through our social security system."
There may be truth in that, but if I were sixteen again and presented with modern days options now, I might be tempted to look elsewhere too.
Says he, trying not to sound like an old git ... "Them young 'uns, don't know they're born nowadays."
Apologies for the sweeping statements. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyome. But it does apply to a significant number of people.
Sorry Richard but you don’t do yourself any favours with such gross oversimplification. Wages are a function of labour demand and supply; clearly since 2004 the latter has increased immensely. That has had a negative impact on wages for people at the bottom of the income distribution. Why should the people you expect to do those jobs just accept it? Perhaps it would be better if consumers couldn’t pay just 50p for a cucumber. I strongly suspect the broader costs to our society of this kind of production, in terms of infrastructure and wage subsidies, make it a lossmaker overall.
Wages were once a function of Labour demand and supply. Then we introduced the minimum wage. That has had the effect of setting both a floor and in some cases a ceiling on the wages for menial jobs. And of course I don't expect the workers to accept it. Under our current system they can choose not to do the work and there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who are willing to do it in their stead. And if we close off that route and demand that the farmers pay more they will very quickly find their produce replaced in the supermarkets by that from Spain or Chile or Kenya. That is the reality you seem to be railing against.
As DavidL pointed out, Eastern Europeans can be paid substantially less than the U.K. minimum wage thanks to EU law. As for the reality that they would be replaced by imports, that’s only the case if we have no import tariffs.
So now you are advocating both protectionism and substantial food inflation.
A degree of protectionism in agriculture is perfectly acceptable, reflecting the importance of food security and the role of farmers in preserving our countryside. Your alternative of turning the eastern half of the country into a featureless prairie and gutting sheep, chicken and other types of farming would not be popular.
The population spends about 10% of income on food; even the lowest decile spends 16%. A small amount of inflation is a price worth paying.
"But we also have to recognise that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty in Venezuela, improving literacy and improving the lives of many of the poorest people."
Pressed on whether he regretted supporting Mr Maduro when he was elected, he said: "I gave the support of many people around the world for the principle of a government that was dedicated towards reducing inequality and improving the life chances of the poorest people."
Did you have a chance to consider my betting proposal on the previous thread? (£10 at 5-1 on Corbyn becoming PM within 6 months of the next General Election)
No worries either way.
Sorry - I forgot about it. I want to win more than £10!! How about we meet in the middle and do £25 at 5-1? I am good for it, I promise!!
"But we also have to recognise that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty in Venezuela, improving literacy and improving the lives of many of the poorest people."
Pressed on whether he regretted supporting Mr Maduro when he was elected, he said: "I gave the support of many people around the world for the principle of a government that was dedicated towards reducing inequality and improving the life chances of the poorest people."
Just as well for the people of NI that there won't be a hard border!
Here we have Jeremy Corbyn’s particular brand of evil. The fact that Venezuelans are starving and fleeing the country is less important than the fact that their government is in principle dedicated to reducing inequality and has tried to do so.
It seems that not enough Romanians want to work hard enough for low enough wages in bad enough conditions.
The idea that better pay and conditions might attract more workers does not seem to have occurred. But then the idea of better pay and conditions for the rural working class appears to be anathema to metropolitan leftists. I suspect that the average Guardian journalist would think that the Tolpuddle Martyrs got off too lightly.
Apparently the UK is on the brink of starvation because there were 4,300 job vacancies in the agricultural sector last year.
That's about 1% of the total agricultural workforce.
Alternatively those agricultural job vacancies were about 5% of the number of 18-24 year olds who had been unemployed for more than a year or about 1% of the number of unemployed immigrants.
With eastern England now resembling the Ukraine in 1933 perhaps we need to look at drastic measures.
LOL. It is funny that the Guardian seems to have missed the fact there was actually an increase in the number of migrant workers last year.
The number of EU citizens working for the NHS also rose last year - but the Guardian only reported the figures for the ones who left not the ones who joined! Cos of course bright young professionals in the medical profession never change jobs or move countries to advance their careers!
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
How much the right to have the applicable law of, say, Rumania, instead of the UK is used in practice I would be a lot less confident about. Anecdotally, I have had farmers as clients who paid less than the minimum wage in the UK but more than the minimum wage in the source country although they would argue it was a package including accommodation and food.
Actually you do misunderstand it.
"In 2007, the European Court of Justice chose to give two decisions, whose effect appeared to suggest that employers are only required to pay their workers the rate they would receive in their home country, provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to."
Note what that says - "provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to"
The Posted Workers Directive explicitly cannot be used to pay less than the minimum wage in the UK.
Completely O/T, but I haven't been able to find the answer anywhere else, and PB is a great repository of expertise: If you have a company which is wound up, with funds available to be distributed to shareholders, what happens if some of the shareholders are untraceable? Presumably the money has to be held somewhere in case they turn up, but where? And what happens if they never turn up?
From vague memory I believe it’s held by the registrar (equitini or compushare) but after a period of time it goes to the crown
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
The poor also will need to pay more for their fruit. I'm not sure they're quite as relaxed about that idea as you are.
"But we also have to recognise that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty in Venezuela, improving literacy and improving the lives of many of the poorest people."
Pressed on whether he regretted supporting Mr Maduro when he was elected, he said: "I gave the support of many people around the world for the principle of a government that was dedicated towards reducing inequality and improving the life chances of the poorest people."
Just as well for the people of NI that there won't be a hard border!
Here we have Jeremy Corbyn’s particular brand of evil. The fact that Venezuelans are starving and fleeing the country is less important than the fact that their government is in principle dedicated to reducing inequality and has tried to do so.
It puts our Brexit feuds into perspective.
"Brand of Evil"
Oh Dear
Oh Deary Deary me.
I mean seriously you don't have to look as far as that for a much richer country starving its own people (whilst giving millionaires tax cuts)
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
The poor also will need to pay more for their fruit. I'm not sure they're quite as relaxed about that idea as you are.
If the EU didn't impose such high tariffs to protect European farmers we could all enjoy cheaper fruit and help people in poorer parts of the world by buying their goods instead.
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
The poor also will need to pay more for their fruit. I'm not sure they're quite as relaxed about that idea as you are.
If we need to support the poor financially that should be a question of welfare not of agricultural policy
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
The poor also will need to pay more for their fruit. I'm not sure they're quite as relaxed about that idea as you are.
If the EU didn't impose such high tariffs to protect European farmers we could all enjoy cheaper fruit and help people in poorer parts of the world by buying their goods instead.
That way British farmers won't need to pay a living wage to labourers because they will be priced out of the market. I'm not sure that's what many of your fellow Leavers want but it would make for some fascinating election results in rural areas next time round.
Martin Schulz exits German coalition in bid to stave off revolt
Angela Merkel’s new coalition government was thrown into disarray before it has even taken office on Friday as the leader of her main partner announced he would not take up his cabinet post.
Martin Schulz, leader of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), was named as foreign minster on Wednesday after agreeing a coalition deal with Mrs Merkel four months since the election.
But just 48 hours later he dramatically announced he was withdrawing his candidacy and would not serve in the government, after party members reportedly lost faith in him.
I had previously foreseen that the solution preferred by Leavers would be self-picking fruit. I was not far-sighted enough. It seems that Leavers' preferred solution is not to want fruit at all.
No: it’s that the well off should be willing to pay more for their fruit so that farmers can pay labourers a living wage
The poor also will need to pay more for their fruit. I'm not sure they're quite as relaxed about that idea as you are.
But, think of this. The lotus-eaters would be taking less of your income if they were earning more.
Woo - I was canvassing in the area with the biggest pro Con swing!
South Dorset seems to be one of a number of very White, working class/lower middle class seats, where the Conservatives did very well under Thatcher, Labour did very well under Blair, but which have now shifted firmly right, giving the Conservatives bigger leads than they had in 1992.
How much the right to have the applicable law of, say, Rumania, instead of the UK is used in practice I would be a lot less confident about. Anecdotally, I have had farmers as clients who paid less than the minimum wage in the UK but more than the minimum wage in the source country although they would argue it was a package including accommodation and food.
Actually you do misunderstand it.
"In 2007, the European Court of Justice chose to give two decisions, whose effect appeared to suggest that employers are only required to pay their workers the rate they would receive in their home country, provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to."
Note what that says - "provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to"
The Posted Workers Directive explicitly cannot be used to pay less than the minimum wage in the UK.
Of course in the UK, as the article points out, these sort of collective agreements are quite rare so those with skills such as construction remain vulnerable to being out competed with by other EU workers. In the agriculture sector the risk of this will be less because so many of the workforce is on minimum wage anyway.
There have been a series of cases about what value should be given to accommodation and food for guest workers. This remains contentious and has a significant impact on the actual wages received by agricultural workers.
Woo - I was canvassing in the area with the biggest pro Con swing!
South Dorset seems to be one of a number of very White, working class/lower middle class seats, where the Conservatives did very well under Thatcher, Labour did very well under Blair, but which have now shifted firmly right, giving the Conservatives bigger leads than they had in 1992.
It was only ever a marginal Parly constituency under Blair, and didn't fall in '97. There are pockets of wealth, though, in pretty much every town in South Dorset. And, I suspect, though don't have the stats to hand, that the demographics have changed a lot - an awful lot of holiday homes/turning into retirements by the sea, plus reduction in military employees, has reduced the number of younger families and replaced them with pensioners - specifically since 2005.
I did quite a bit for Richard Drax in 2010 - it was clear from the first couple of evenings of the campaign that he could win big.
Comments
I presume that the suggestion made by Alastair has been exhausted.
They've also missed that agricultural employment is at its highest for twenty years.
Perhaps a little more capital investment and productivity improvements is what the NFU should be concetrating on instead of whining to the Guardian.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posted_Workers_Directive_1996
How much the right to have the applicable law of, say, Rumania, instead of the UK is used in practice I would be a lot less confident about. Anecdotally, I have had farmers as clients who paid less than the minimum wage in the UK but more than the minimum wage in the source country although they would argue it was a package including accommodation and food.
Starvation is too good for the Carrot Munchers.
The population spends about 10% of income on food; even the lowest decile spends 16%. A small amount of inflation is a price worth paying.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/08/venezuela-migrants-colombia-brazil-borders
Our (possible) future PM on the subject:
"But we also have to recognise that there have been effective and serious attempts at reducing poverty in Venezuela, improving literacy and improving the lives of many of the poorest people."
Pressed on whether he regretted supporting Mr Maduro when he was elected, he said: "I gave the support of many people around the world for the principle of a government that was dedicated towards reducing inequality and improving the life chances of the poorest people."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/jeremy-corbyn-refuses-condemn-venezuelan-presidentnicolas-maduro/
Just as well for the people of NI that there won't be a hard border!
It puts our Brexit feuds into perspective.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/11/if-eu-nationals-are-leaving-the-nhs-why-are-their-numbers-going-up/
"In 2007, the European Court of Justice chose to give two decisions, whose effect appeared to suggest that employers are only required to pay their workers the rate they would receive in their home country, provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to."
Note what that says - "provided this matches minimum wages and working conditions in the country they are posted to"
The Posted Workers Directive explicitly cannot be used to pay less than the minimum wage in the UK.
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Oh Dear
Oh Deary Deary me.
I mean seriously you don't have to look as far as that for a much richer country starving its own people (whilst giving millionaires tax cuts)
Angela Merkel’s new coalition government was thrown into disarray before it has even taken office on Friday as the leader of her main partner announced he would not take up his cabinet post.
Martin Schulz, leader of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), was named as foreign minster on Wednesday after agreeing a coalition deal with Mrs Merkel four months since the election.
But just 48 hours later he dramatically announced he was withdrawing his candidacy and would not serve in the government, after party members reportedly lost faith in him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/09/martin-schulz-exits-coalition-bid-stave-revolt/
Of course in the UK, as the article points out, these sort of collective agreements are quite rare so those with skills such as construction remain vulnerable to being out competed with by other EU workers. In the agriculture sector the risk of this will be less because so many of the workforce is on minimum wage anyway.
There have been a series of cases about what value should be given to accommodation and food for guest workers. This remains contentious and has a significant impact on the actual wages received by agricultural workers.
I did quite a bit for Richard Drax in 2010 - it was clear from the first couple of evenings of the campaign that he could win big.