Shipbuilding Job Losses.

[oaksoft]

Definition of sweeping generalisation?

Yes fair point but it cost us our coal mining industry and our car industry when other developed nations (like Germany for example) were able to keep theirs so there must be some truth in it - however painful to admit.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yes fair point but it cost us our coal mining industry and our car industry when other developed nations (like Germany for example) were able to keep theirs so there must be some truth in it - however painful to admit.

If you think that the attitude and work ethic of the miners is what cost us our coal mining industry your deluded.

As for the car industry, that went the way of ship building - eg cheaper wages and less overheads abroad. The exceptions to this are france and germany. The former is heavily subsidised by government (unofficially) and the latter is the model that we should be following.

However the German industrial model involves lots of small local family business supplying the large manufacturers. Successive governments in the uk have actively discouraged this. Its ok though cause we are a nation of bankers...

Can you imagine the Germans having the french and chinese supply their infrastructure never mind business?

[stlucifer]

That's the problem though.

Without average figures how can anyone be certain that Polish workers are causing a trend?

I'm sure there are guys who will work for less (as in any industry) and TBH, no disrespect but if I'm going for the same job as you I'll set my salary demand at the lowest point I need to beat you to the post.

I'm happy to work for expenses depending on circumstances and have twice worked for 4 months for free to gain experience which allowed me to get a paid position I'd never have got wothout the experience.

I'm not sure enough people are doing this to cause a demonstrable downward trend in wages.

We're not talking about salaries dropping to minimum wage are we so I'm not really sure I see the problem here.

Again Oakie.

I work in the industry and see it first hand the use of Polish electricians etc. by companiies who find it cheaper to pay to bring those people over and pay for accomodation while paying them far less than local workers.

this is a fact and the only way to compete is to accept that far less than the expected rate for the job. Sometimes at rates corresponding to the norm of 5 or 6 years ago.

The difference is that the local workers have families HERE and have to pay for that family's food at UK prices for 2013. This makes it difficult to accept the remuneration offered.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Again Oakie.

I work in the industry and see it first hand the use of Polish electricians etc. by companiies who find it cheaper to pay to bring those people over and pay for accomodation while paying them far less than local workers.

this is a fact and the only way to compete is to accept that far less than the expected rate for the job. Sometimes at rates corresponding to the norm of 5 or 6 years ago.

The difference is that the local workers have families HERE and have to pay for that family's food at UK prices for 2013. This makes it difficult to accept the remuneration offered.

its terrible situation and one that needs fixing though it would be very hard under European law. Companies don't care as they look for the. biggest profit margin Ooksoft take my hat off to you in getting experience

[oaksoft]

Again Oakie.

I work in the industry and see it first hand the use of Polish electricians etc. by companiies who find it cheaper to pay to bring those people over and pay for accomodation while paying them far less than local workers.

this is a fact and the only way to compete is to accept that far less than the expected rate for the job. Sometimes at rates corresponding to the norm of 5 or 6 years ago.

The difference is that the local workers have families HERE and have to pay for that family's food at UK prices for 2013. This makes it difficult to accept the remuneration offered.

Again the problem is that you're saying you can't be specific about wages levels but then go on to say that wages are at levels of 5 or 6 years ago so let me be more direct - what were the specific wages 5 or 6 years ago that you are comparing against and what was the job which attracted those wages? A specific example might help me see where you are coming from.

[oaksoft]

If you think that the attitude and work ethic of the miners is what cost us our coal mining industry your deluded.

As for the car industry, that went the way of ship building - eg cheaper wages and less overheads abroad. The exceptions to this are france and germany. The former is heavily subsidised by government (unofficially) and the latter is the model that we should be following.

However the German industrial model involves lots of small local family business supplying the large manufacturers. Successive governments in the uk have actively discouraged this. Its ok though cause we are a nation of bankers...

Can you imagine the Germans having the french and chinese supply their infrastructure never mind business?

We have had a number of problems which have contributed.

There's been a lot of complacency - no doubt about that.

Resistance to change has been a factor too.

Low wage competition.

Laziness and working to rule has had a part to play.

I'm not against government subsidy but it seems our successive governments have seen it as a bad thing to get involved.

Perhaps they saw a move from a manufacturing to a "knowledge" economy as being the best way for sustained growth and to be fair, IF you have an education this system works brilliantly for you now. Graduates routinely start on £26k without any experience.

The guys who don't have a good education nowadays will find life much more difficult.

I don't think bleating or pining for manufacturing is necessarily worthwhile either.

It isn't coming back because basically we can't do it any more.

What we need are other ideas.

A few less people pining for 1930 and more people prepared to come up with alternatives.

The question is how we overcome this obsession with producing millions of graduates which frankly we don't need and give people other options.

[stlucifer]

Again the problem is that you're saying you can't be specific about wages levels but then go on to say that wages are at levels of 5 or 6 years ago so let me be more direct - what were the specific wages 5 or 6 years ago that you are comparing against and what was the job which attracted those wages? A specific example might help me see where you are coming from.

Why is it a problem that no specific amount is brought forth?

It's more about the principle, or lack of said, that is at stake. In some cases, unscrupulous employers using a system to drive down the living standards simply to increase their profit margins.

People work to live. Not live to work. they are entitled to expect a reasonable return for their endeavours. Finding their salaries being effectively reduced in comparison to inflation and, even worse, reduced in reality is wrong when it is purely to maintain or improve profits.

In a situation where the economy is flat the employers prove themselves morally bankrupt if they feel only the employees should feel the pinch.

If I were to say that an electrician, for instance, is compelled to accept a wage which is equivalent to that of 5 years ago you might suggest it's still, in your eyes, enough to survive on.

That doesn't make it right to force down the salaries of those in the industry by utilising foreign workers.

To employ is to use.... Not abuse.

[oaksoft]

Why is it a problem that no specific amount is brought forth?

Because if you want people to understand where you are coming from then you need to provide some example figures and the proof that it's foreign workers causing the wage drop or it begins to look like an unstructured Daily Mail bigotted rant.

I'm not accusing you of that BTW but surely you can see that you can't make sweeping statements like that without being expected to back it up?

[stlucifer]

Because if you want people to understand where you are coming from then you need to provide some example figures and the proof that it's foreign workers causing the wage drop or it begins to look like an unstructured Daily Mail bigotted rant.

I'm not accusing you of that BTW but surely you can see that you can't make sweeping statements like that without being expected to back it up?

But giving specific examples doesn't mean there is a need for actual salary breakdowns. IOn fact. That could fudge the issue as, in your eyes, given your interpretation of a reasonable amount you would likely say they could live on that amount without considering whether the profit margins reached by the companies is artificially sustained by the reduction in real terms of their workforce's take home.

A fair days pay is not equated by what you discern as "enough to live on".

[Stuart Dickson]

My earnings have gone down in the last six years but it's got absolutely nothing to do with immigrant workers and I'm talking about real actual pay - not real terms against inflation. I checked this afternoon and we only have one Polish engineer and one Romanian on the payroll and they both work in the South East of England. Each year I've had a pay rise, worked more and more overtime, and I've been paid a healthy bonus but many of the "extra benefits" have been eroded.

Six years ago I was paid hourly from the moment I left my home to the moment I got back home despite normally working from an office - that's gone and my pay hours start from the moment I clock in at work. I used to be paid travelling expenses for overtime shifts and shifts where I attended meetings or training. That's gone. There was also an on call payment where we would receive a payment for every "emergency" phone call we took out of hours - in the run up to Christmas this could be worth over £600 per night on top of our earnings and the overtime we'd be able to claim for the time we spent on each call. These days we just get a one off lump sum payment per annum for our on call cover. In the same time the company value has risen from the £6m it was bought for in 2009 to being sold for £56m in 2013 and we're now owned by one of the largest multi national companies in the energy sector.

So why did I put up with the erosion of benefits? Well three reasons really.

1. I was still going to be unlikely to earn the same kind of pay and benefit rates with any of our competitors even with the cuts.

2. I accepted that losing the benefits would be OK so long as it meant no redundancies.

3. I knew I'd been damned fortunate to gain from the kind of benefits I'd been getting

[oaksoft]

But giving specific examples doesn't mean there is a need for actual salary breakdowns. IOn fact. That could fudge the issue as, in your eyes, given your interpretation of a reasonable amount you would likely say they could live on that amount without considering whether the profit margins reached by the companies is artificially sustained by the reduction in real terms of their workforce's take home.

A fair days pay is not equated by what you discern as "enough to live on".

A fair days pay is certainly defined by having enough to live on comfortably.

That's why I'm happy to strongly support a living wage of around £10 per hour or thereabouts because I don't think it's possible to live a reasonable life on much less than that (although I accept many do).

Beyond that it's down to the market and the issue of fairness doesn't exist.

I'm financially worth what I can negotiate.

If I was unhappy with my pay I'd quit.

I've done that many times over the years.

I genuinely don't see the problem.

ETA: I know where you are coming from. You are wondering about whether it's fair that your salary is reduced when you do all the work but the head honcho who relies on your efforts sees a salary increase.

I'd hesitate to use the phrase "fair" in that sense for the following reason:-

Who exactly is stopping me from earning that amount?

Who is stopping me from gaining promotion to that job?

Who is stopping me from getting myself into a position where I might be able to rectify that situation?

The answer is me. Nobody else would be stopping me. So I'd consider doing something about it.

Fairness doesn't come into it as long as I'm currently paid above the living wage.

Edited November 18, 2013 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

My earnings have gone down in the last six years but it's got absolutely nothing to do with immigrant workers and I'm talking about real actual pay - not real terms against inflation. I checked this afternoon and we only have one Polish engineer and one Romanian on the payroll and they both work in the South East of England. Each year I've had a pay rise, worked more and more overtime, and I've been paid a healthy bonus but many of the "extra benefits" have been eroded.

Six years ago I was paid hourly from the moment I left my home to the moment I got back home despite normally working from an office - that's gone and my pay hours start from the moment I clock in at work. I used to be paid travelling expenses for overtime shifts and shifts where I attended meetings or training. That's gone. There was also an on call payment where we would receive a payment for every "emergency" phone call we took out of hours - in the run up to Christmas this could be worth over £600 per night on top of our earnings and the overtime we'd be able to claim for the time we spent on each call. These days we just get a one off lump sum payment per annum for our on call cover. In the same time the company value has risen from the £6m it was bought for in 2009 to being sold for £56m in 2013 and we're now owned by one of the largest multi national companies in the energy sector.

So why did I put up with the erosion of benefits? Well three reasons really.

1. I was still going to be unlikely to earn the same kind of pay and benefit rates with any of our competitors even with the cuts.

2. I accepted that losing the benefits would be OK so long as it meant no redundancies.

3. I knew I'd been damned fortunate to gain from the kind of benefits I'd been getting

My income has also fallen for various reasons.

I have changed careers, gone back to uni and I'm now starting afresh.

The freedom of not being trapped to a particular salary is incredibly liberating.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

My earnings have gone down in the last six years but it's got absolutely nothing to do with immigrant workers and I'm talking about real actual pay - not real terms against inflation. I checked this afternoon and we only have one Polish engineer and one Romanian on the payroll and they both work in the South East of England. Each year I've had a pay rise, worked more and more overtime, and I've been paid a healthy bonus but many of the "extra benefits" have been eroded.

Six years ago I was paid hourly from the moment I left my home to the moment I got back home despite normally working from an office - that's gone and my pay hours start from the moment I clock in at work. I used to be paid travelling expenses for overtime shifts and shifts where I attended meetings or training. That's gone. There was also an on call payment where we would receive a payment for every "emergency" phone call we took out of hours - in the run up to Christmas this could be worth over £600 per night on top of our earnings and the overtime we'd be able to claim for the time we spent on each call. These days we just get a one off lump sum payment per annum for our on call cover. In the same time the company value has risen from the £6m it was bought for in 2009 to being sold for £56m in 2013 and we're now owned by one of the largest multi national companies in the energy sector.

So why did I put up with the erosion of benefits? Well three reasons really.

1. I was still going to be unlikely to earn the same kind of pay and benefit rates with any of our competitors even with the cuts.

2. I accepted that losing the benefits would be OK so long as it meant no redundancies.

3. I knew I'd been damned fortunate to gain from the kind of benefits I'd been getting

And you regularly post your annoyance at the pay and benefits of public sector workers on here...

[Stuart Dickson]

And you regularly post your annoyance at the pay and benefits of public sector workers on here...

Yep. However there is a vast difference. The benefits I got were from a private sector company who's owners were rewarding staff who had built to company up from a part of Siemens that had been bought for £1 to a company that made record profits year on years until they sold to venture capitalists for £5.6m. The benefits were then cut and substituted by the new management team who were brought in to make the venture capitalists more money. In turn they grew the company quickly both in terms of clients and in terms of profits before selling to one of the most profitable companies in Europe right now.

Public sector workers work for an organisation that is making huge losses, is heavily in debt and had they been a private company would have been closed down a long time ago with all the employees dumped on to the dole.

If the organisation you work for is doing well then no-one could possibly argue with bonuses, and benefit packages. I've said before I've got no problem with an NHS manager earning a £1m per annum wage so long as he's able to demonstrate that his efforts alone have resulted in savings of £10m per annum or more without affecting services. But when it's doing shit you should have to expect all your benefits being cut back, wage freezes, and wholesale redundancies.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yep. However there is a vast difference. The benefits I got were from a private sector company who's owners were rewarding staff who had built to company up from a part of Siemens that had been bought for £1 to a company that made record profits year on years until they sold to venture capitalists for £5.6m. The benefits were then cut and substituted by the new management team who were brought in to make the venture capitalists more money. In turn they grew the company quickly both in terms of clients and in terms of profits before selling to one of the most profitable companies in Europe right now.

Public sector workers work for an organisation that is making huge losses, is heavily in debt and had they been a private company would have been closed down a long time ago with all the employees dumped on to the dole.

If the organisation you work for is doing well then no-one could possibly argue with bonuses, and benefit packages. I've said before I've got no problem with an NHS manager earning a £1m per annum wage so long as he's able to demonstrate that his efforts alone have resulted in savings of £10m per annum or more without affecting services. But when it's doing shit you should have to expect all your benefits being cut back, wage freezes, and wholesale redundancies.

Your post is nonsense.

You just make stuff up.

[Stuart Dickson]

Your post is nonsense.

You just make stuff up.

Oh right? What part? It won't take much searching on Google to find the figures on the internet for the company that I work for. The sale was major international news only a few months ago although one Scottish newspaper that isn't afraid of the odd exaggeration claimed the sale wasn't for £56m but was instead £100m.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Stuart Dickson

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Oh right? What part? It won't take much searching on Google to find the figures on the internet for the company that I work for. The sale was major international news only a few months ago although one Scottish newspaper that isn't afraid of the odd exaggeration claimed the sale wasn't for £56m but was instead £100m.

Well that's 1 paragraph out of 3

[Stuart Dickson]

Well that's 1 paragraph out of 3

Nope - the article in was poorly written shite. Other, better, publications were more accurate in their reporting.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Nope - the article in was poorly written shite. Other, better, publications were more accurate in their reporting.

WHOOSH! In fact there's so many in there that I'm now confused. Its like a whoosh tornado spiralling out of control

[RickMcD]

Both the public and private sectors reward chronic failure to a sickening degree.

[oaksoft]

Both the public and private sectors reward chronic failure to a sickening degree.

Well you can do a Dicko spin on it that way and we can all feel aggrieved about it.

Or you can represent it for what it really is.

These guys negotiate a release clause regardless of success or failure on top of success bonuses.

Without that clause you won't get to hire them.

They don't need the money.

They'll happily let you hire someone else.

That's business and the best in ANY walk of life can always dictate the terms of a deal.

Getting angry about it and calling it something it's not won't solve the problem.

The question here isn't about "rewarding failure" or any other Daily Record dumbed down headline like that.

It's about why companies and governments are so convinced that this one person is the only person who can save them.

[RickMcD]

Well you can do a Dicko spin on it that way and we can all feel aggrieved about it.

Or you can represent it for what it really is.

These guys negotiate a release clause regardless of success or failure on top of success bonuses.

Without that clause you won't get to hire them.

They don't need the money.

They'll happily let you hire someone else.

That's business and the best in ANY walk of life can always dictate the terms of a deal.

Getting angry about it and calling it something it's not won't solve the problem.

The question here isn't about "rewarding failure" or any other Daily Record dumbed down headline like that.

It's about why companies and governments are so convinced that this one person is the only person who can save them.

I'm not surprised to hear you read the Daily Record. I get the feeling that the last two lines of your post negates the earlier part but as many have pointed out before now, it's difficult to know how your mind works. You state that the best in any walk of life dictate their own terms. That's probably fair comment but how many times do we have to see Joe Average get a super deal and f**k this up quick time. I have little faith in even huge international conglomerates picking 'The Best', whatever that is. They think they do but regularly don't. Bullshit baffles brain and an awful lot of bullshitters get to the top. But not usually for long.

[oaksoft]

I'm not surprised to hear you read the Daily Record. I get the feeling that the last two lines of your post negates the earlier part but as many have pointed out before now, it's difficult to know how your mind works. You state that the best in any walk of life dictate their own terms. That's probably fair comment but how many times do we have to see Joe Average get a super deal and f**k this up quick time. I have little faith in even huge international conglomerates picking 'The Best', whatever that is. They think they do but regularly don't. Bullshit baffles brain and an awful lot of bullshitters get to the top. But not usually for long.

I don't read any newspapers apart from occasionally the Scotsman on Sunday.

Your sentence in bold doesn't make sense. Did you mistype something?

BTW I don't have any faith in anybodies ability to pick the best person and I agree with your end sentences.

That's what I was saying above - the important thing is they THINK they're getting the best and will agree to pretty much anything to get them.

[RickMcD]

I don't read any newspapers apart from occasionally the Scotsman on Sunday.

Your sentence in bold doesn't make sense. Did you mistype something?

BTW I don't have any faith in anybodies ability to pick the best person and I agree with your end sentences.

That's what I was saying above - the important thing is they THINK they're getting the best and will agree to pretty much anything to get them.

No, I didn't mistype anything. I just don't think the get it right and earn a fortune or make an absolute balls of it and still earn a fortune scenario is in any way defensible. It seemed to me that your original post defended that. Put a square peg in a round hole and it will end in tears. What percentage of the workforce is rewarded hugely for failure? Not a lot.

I now accept that maybe our opinions might not be a million miles apart.

[oaksoft]

No, I didn't mistype anything. I just don't think the get it right and earn a fortune or make an absolute balls of it and still earn a fortune scenario is in any way defensible. It seemed to me that your original post defended that. Put a square peg in a round hole and it will end in tears. What percentage of the workforce is rewarded hugely for failure? Not a lot.

I now accept that maybe our opinions might not be a million miles apart.

I'm not defending it at all.

I can explain it but I don't agree with it.

As you say, I think our opinions are pretty close on this.

It depresses me to think how good life could be if everyone worked together as equals without so many trying to shaft everyone else for themselves.

I can't imagine what kind of person pays his staff the bare minimum and yet is happy to take home £10 million a year for himself on the backs of their efforts.

I can't imagine what kind of person is so rich he can't spend it all but feels the need to outsource his manufacturing to a cheaper country simply because profits drop by a few percent - chucking all the guys who made that company what it is today straight onto the scrap heap.

I also can't imagine why we consider these people to be gods (Alan Sugar, Dyson etc) when they bleed workers dry, pocket the money from their efforts and then turf them out when a cheaper worker appears.

I'm very glad that I'm not that type of person.