Home Secretary announces points-based immigration system
Discussion
shed driver said:
JagLover said:
No expert on the subject but I believe that there are some devices that can replace monitoring down currently by a nurse. Also in Japan (which has embraced automation further) they have robots already that perform some functions in care homes.
You don't need to automate every task, just enough to reduce the labour required.
Not every task needs to be automated, but for many elderly people, the visit from the carer is their only human interaction from day to day. Would you be happy for this to be replaced by a robot? You don't need to automate every task, just enough to reduce the labour required.
SD.
JagLover said:
rscott said:
Take the care sector - one of the areas which has a lot of non UK staff. The vast majority of jobs pay under £10 an hour (with many paying the minimum of £8.21, even for shift work). How can you reduce the labour needed through automation?
Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
No expert on the subject but I believe that there are some devices that can replace monitoring done currently by a nurse. Also in Japan (which has embraced automation further) they have robots already that perform some functions in care homes.Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
You don't need to automate every task, just enough to reduce the labour required.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 19th February 08:49
Don't believe any of this for a single second.
The number of Eastern European forklift drivers, HGV drivers and warehouse pickers is astronomical. And generally they arrive and leave in cycles. Without them we would have to start paying wages which makes the natives want to do these jobs. Which isn't going to happen.
A workaround will be found. And it will be business as usual. I'd wager to get and keep staff without being able to flood the market with labour from Poland, Romania etc means you'd have to increase wages significantly. Which just isn't going to happen.
The number of Eastern European forklift drivers, HGV drivers and warehouse pickers is astronomical. And generally they arrive and leave in cycles. Without them we would have to start paying wages which makes the natives want to do these jobs. Which isn't going to happen.
A workaround will be found. And it will be business as usual. I'd wager to get and keep staff without being able to flood the market with labour from Poland, Romania etc means you'd have to increase wages significantly. Which just isn't going to happen.
rscott said:
Take the care sector - one of the areas which has a lot of non UK staff. The vast majority of jobs pay under £10 an hour (with many paying the minimum of £8.21, even for shift work). How can you reduce the labour needed through automation?
Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
Isn't the point that if you automate jobs in retail, food serve, warehousing etc. which can be automated, this increases the pool of labour available to do the jobs which cannot be automated or need human interaction, such as carers?Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
citizensm1th said:
This is the thing, they will end up making so may exemptions and temperary relaxations due to lobbying it will never end up functioning as advertised.
It’s a bit of a trial at first but presumably it will still achieve the overall aim of ‘taking back control’ and reducing the amount of low skilled workers arriving. Mrr T said:
The policy is successful because brexit supporters will love it. Whether it will have longer term negative consequences does not matter.
Those Brexit supporters will soon be complaining about something else and that will be the very things this policy harms.... NHS as one example.petemurphy said:
rscott said:
Take the care sector - one of the areas which has a lot of non UK staff. The vast majority of jobs pay under £10 an hour (with many paying the minimum of £8.21, even for shift work). How can you reduce the labour needed through automation?
Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
spend less on consultants/councillors more on care workers. do you really want your mum looked after by someone on min wageAny increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
This isn't a local Government funding thread, or the adult social care time bomb thread (we could do with one) but at the risk of derailing it I will just answer the "incorrect" points:
- councils have been cutting social care spending for at least a decade, despite huge rises in demand and intensity of care needed. 20 min visits to give medicine cut to 10 mins. 10 min visits to check welfare move to phone calls. Care company pay rates driven through the floor (outsourcing allowed sharp practice to flourish). The care sector are however pushing back, and will simply cease trading if they can't run at a profit, leaving the council with a.legal duty to ensure provision. There is no way to automate a carer having to manoeuvre, wash and clothe someone, or indeed needing a second carer to hold down the resident who is fighting back because their dementia makes them think they're being attacked.
I am for a decent level of pay so carers don't get exploited, but if people think the current council funding can afford this without drastic cuts to other services then you are just kidding yourselves i'm afraid.
- spend less on councillors you say? So you don't think we should reward those who ensure we have a democracy? Or you think the standard of councillors is already so high we could get away with paying less? Or maybe just remove a layer of local democracy altogether...and then wonder who you can complain to?
- the council I works for spends £1.3m pa on councillors, and about £80m on adult social care....genuinely, it it's not enough to make a difference systemically. Libraries is something like £6m and highway repairs like £10m...so if we're facing a 20% increase in adult social care costs, what areas of spend do councils have to tap into?
- consultants...well, i'm sure there's more than one company director on here who has funded their £100k weekend toy courtesy of public sector consultancy. The alternative to hiring specific skills in is to retain them permanently as part of the council establishment. There are pros and cons with both approaches, but I would point out that typically constants would work on capital projects, which is a source of funding that cannot be used for day to day social care work.
I am disappointed you didn't mention council spending on pensions though...or perhaps the Director of Diversity that everyone thinks we employ on £80k a year...
I see it as statement of intent, perhaps of long term direction. In the short term, there will be backtracking - for example the seasonal arrangement for crop picking. 10,000 immigrant crop pickers is nowhere near enough, and there's zero chance that UK citizens will do the work. Thus, the government will increase the quota rather than have crops rotting in the fields. Eventually, advanced robots will do the work, but in the short term it'll be a fudge, whilst allowing the government to claim that "we have control".
Ian Geary said:
The "correct" points to be answering is how do we value low skilled work, recognising that workers then have to live (and support families) in an expensive country indeed capital, and that all labour is "paid" by "someone" in the economy.
This isn't a local Government funding thread, or the adult social care time bomb thread (we could do with one) but at the risk of derailing it I will just answer the "incorrect" points:
- councils have been cutting social care spending for at least a decade, despite huge rises in demand and intensity of care needed. 20 min visits to give medicine cut to 10 mins. 10 min visits to check welfare move to phone calls. Care company pay rates driven through the floor (outsourcing allowed sharp practice to flourish). The care sector are however pushing back, and will simply cease trading if they can't run at a profit, leaving the council with a.legal duty to ensure provision. There is no way to automate a carer having to manoeuvre, wash and clothe someone, or indeed needing a second carer to hold down the resident who is fighting back because their dementia makes them think they're being attacked.
I am for a decent level of pay so carers don't get exploited, but if people think the current council funding can afford this without drastic cuts to other services then you are just kidding yourselves i'm afraid.
- spend less on councillors you say? So you don't think we should reward those who ensure we have a democracy? Or you think the standard of councillors is already so high we could get away with paying less? Or maybe just remove a layer of local democracy altogether...and then wonder who you can complain to?
- the council I works for spends £1.3m pa on councillors, and about £80m on adult social care....genuinely, it it's not enough to make a difference systemically. Libraries is something like £6m and highway repairs like £10m...so if we're facing a 20% increase in adult social care costs, what areas of spend do councils have to tap into?
- consultants...well, i'm sure there's more than one company director on here who has funded their £100k weekend toy courtesy of public sector consultancy. The alternative to hiring specific skills in is to retain them permanently as part of the council establishment. There are pros and cons with both approaches, but I would point out that typically constants would work on capital projects, which is a source of funding that cannot be used for day to day social care work.
I am disappointed you didn't mention council spending on pensions though...or perhaps the Director of Diversity that everyone thinks we employ on £80k a year...
This is PH please do not demean it with reality. Most of the poster know the local council have departments dealing with diversity. This isn't a local Government funding thread, or the adult social care time bomb thread (we could do with one) but at the risk of derailing it I will just answer the "incorrect" points:
- councils have been cutting social care spending for at least a decade, despite huge rises in demand and intensity of care needed. 20 min visits to give medicine cut to 10 mins. 10 min visits to check welfare move to phone calls. Care company pay rates driven through the floor (outsourcing allowed sharp practice to flourish). The care sector are however pushing back, and will simply cease trading if they can't run at a profit, leaving the council with a.legal duty to ensure provision. There is no way to automate a carer having to manoeuvre, wash and clothe someone, or indeed needing a second carer to hold down the resident who is fighting back because their dementia makes them think they're being attacked.
I am for a decent level of pay so carers don't get exploited, but if people think the current council funding can afford this without drastic cuts to other services then you are just kidding yourselves i'm afraid.
- spend less on councillors you say? So you don't think we should reward those who ensure we have a democracy? Or you think the standard of councillors is already so high we could get away with paying less? Or maybe just remove a layer of local democracy altogether...and then wonder who you can complain to?
- the council I works for spends £1.3m pa on councillors, and about £80m on adult social care....genuinely, it it's not enough to make a difference systemically. Libraries is something like £6m and highway repairs like £10m...so if we're facing a 20% increase in adult social care costs, what areas of spend do councils have to tap into?
- consultants...well, i'm sure there's more than one company director on here who has funded their £100k weekend toy courtesy of public sector consultancy. The alternative to hiring specific skills in is to retain them permanently as part of the council establishment. There are pros and cons with both approaches, but I would point out that typically constants would work on capital projects, which is a source of funding that cannot be used for day to day social care work.
I am disappointed you didn't mention council spending on pensions though...or perhaps the Director of Diversity that everyone thinks we employ on £80k a year...
Ian Geary said:
The "correct" points to be answering is how do we value low skilled work, recognising that workers then have to live (and support families) in an expensive country indeed capital, and that all labour is "paid" by "someone" in the economy.
This isn't a local Government funding thread, or the adult social care time bomb thread (we could do with one) but at the risk of derailing it I will just answer the "incorrect" points:
- councils have been cutting social care spending for at least a decade, despite huge rises in demand and intensity of care needed. 20 min visits to give medicine cut to 10 mins. 10 min visits to check welfare move to phone calls. Care company pay rates driven through the floor (outsourcing allowed sharp practice to flourish). The care sector are however pushing back, and will simply cease trading if they can't run at a profit, leaving the council with a.legal duty to ensure provision. There is no way to automate a carer having to manoeuvre, wash and clothe someone, or indeed needing a second carer to hold down the resident who is fighting back because their dementia makes them think they're being attacked.
I am for a decent level of pay so carers don't get exploited, but if people think the current council funding can afford this without drastic cuts to other services then you are just kidding yourselves i'm afraid.
- spend less on councillors you say? So you don't think we should reward those who ensure we have a democracy? Or you think the standard of councillors is already so high we could get away with paying less? Or maybe just remove a layer of local democracy altogether...and then wonder who you can complain to?
- the council I works for spends £1.3m pa on councillors, and about £80m on adult social care....genuinely, it it's not enough to make a difference systemically. Libraries is something like £6m and highway repairs like £10m...so if we're facing a 20% increase in adult social care costs, what areas of spend do councils have to tap into?
- consultants...well, i'm sure there's more than one company director on here who has funded their £100k weekend toy courtesy of public sector consultancy. The alternative to hiring specific skills in is to retain them permanently as part of the council establishment. There are pros and cons with both approaches, but I would point out that typically constants would work on capital projects, which is a source of funding that cannot be used for day to day social care work.
I am disappointed you didn't mention council spending on pensions though...or perhaps the Director of Diversity that everyone thinks we employ on £80k a year...
we all know theyre on £90 k a year This isn't a local Government funding thread, or the adult social care time bomb thread (we could do with one) but at the risk of derailing it I will just answer the "incorrect" points:
- councils have been cutting social care spending for at least a decade, despite huge rises in demand and intensity of care needed. 20 min visits to give medicine cut to 10 mins. 10 min visits to check welfare move to phone calls. Care company pay rates driven through the floor (outsourcing allowed sharp practice to flourish). The care sector are however pushing back, and will simply cease trading if they can't run at a profit, leaving the council with a.legal duty to ensure provision. There is no way to automate a carer having to manoeuvre, wash and clothe someone, or indeed needing a second carer to hold down the resident who is fighting back because their dementia makes them think they're being attacked.
I am for a decent level of pay so carers don't get exploited, but if people think the current council funding can afford this without drastic cuts to other services then you are just kidding yourselves i'm afraid.
- spend less on councillors you say? So you don't think we should reward those who ensure we have a democracy? Or you think the standard of councillors is already so high we could get away with paying less? Or maybe just remove a layer of local democracy altogether...and then wonder who you can complain to?
- the council I works for spends £1.3m pa on councillors, and about £80m on adult social care....genuinely, it it's not enough to make a difference systemically. Libraries is something like £6m and highway repairs like £10m...so if we're facing a 20% increase in adult social care costs, what areas of spend do councils have to tap into?
- consultants...well, i'm sure there's more than one company director on here who has funded their £100k weekend toy courtesy of public sector consultancy. The alternative to hiring specific skills in is to retain them permanently as part of the council establishment. There are pros and cons with both approaches, but I would point out that typically constants would work on capital projects, which is a source of funding that cannot be used for day to day social care work.
I am disappointed you didn't mention council spending on pensions though...or perhaps the Director of Diversity that everyone thinks we employ on £80k a year...
happy to fund councils more if its not wasted but i see a lot of waste still. eg my village has just spent 7k on flowers as the district councillor had a fund that needed spending by april and no other villages had asked for money. am sure theres absolutely no waste in your council though..
Mrr T said:
Canute said:
It's a political problem that is trying to be fixed with this stupidity, not a real-world problem that needs fixing or changing.
The policy is successful because brexit supporters will love it. Whether it will have longer term negative consequences does not matter. We will still have plenty of immigration and the positives that brings just some more say in who the U.K. lets in.
Marvellous, just waiting on care home fees sky rocketing as the wage bill goes up. I am assuming of course that few UK people are prepared to do the job on the current wage rates, or there wouldn't be the need to fill these roles with people from oversees, so to attract a domestic workforce then pay must increase.
And the Government is providing additional funding for social care, which often pays for this care provision? Didn't see any mention of this in the news release. It's not a sector awash with profitability now, has huge demand and under massive strain.
Looking forward to hotels and hospitality places increasing their prices to pay for an increasing number of staff from the UK. I hope this increased pay also makes them more selective as I've had plenty of examples of surley, grunting under-educated local scrotes serving me breakfast, cleaning rooms like they don't want to be there who compare very badly with the typical EU migrant employee who generally gives an impression that they want to do a good job, want to be there and are grateful of the opportunity.
Bit bizarre David Davis making some point about the threshold being £26,500, a full £10k less than the average wage in the UK. Without any hint of understanding that the vast majority of the roles we're taking about pay significantly less than £26,500 - that being an AVERAGE across the entire economy, not a TYPICAL wage within the sorts of sectors and jobs this will impact most.
I was only mildly hopeful for this Government, but much of what I've seen and heard since the election - bold and confident policy moves - I can see having an awful lot of unintended negative consequences that will be very difficult to row back from politically without a seismic reaction at the next election as people realise that the supposed benefits come with some fairly uncomfortable changes they generally don't want.
And the Government is providing additional funding for social care, which often pays for this care provision? Didn't see any mention of this in the news release. It's not a sector awash with profitability now, has huge demand and under massive strain.
Looking forward to hotels and hospitality places increasing their prices to pay for an increasing number of staff from the UK. I hope this increased pay also makes them more selective as I've had plenty of examples of surley, grunting under-educated local scrotes serving me breakfast, cleaning rooms like they don't want to be there who compare very badly with the typical EU migrant employee who generally gives an impression that they want to do a good job, want to be there and are grateful of the opportunity.
Bit bizarre David Davis making some point about the threshold being £26,500, a full £10k less than the average wage in the UK. Without any hint of understanding that the vast majority of the roles we're taking about pay significantly less than £26,500 - that being an AVERAGE across the entire economy, not a TYPICAL wage within the sorts of sectors and jobs this will impact most.
I was only mildly hopeful for this Government, but much of what I've seen and heard since the election - bold and confident policy moves - I can see having an awful lot of unintended negative consequences that will be very difficult to row back from politically without a seismic reaction at the next election as people realise that the supposed benefits come with some fairly uncomfortable changes they generally don't want.
Brave Fart said:
I see it as statement of intent, perhaps of long term direction. In the short term, there will be backtracking - for example the seasonal arrangement for crop picking. 10,000 immigrant crop pickers is nowhere near enough, and there's zero chance that UK citizens will do the work. Thus, the government will increase the quota rather than have crops rotting in the fields. Eventually, advanced robots will do the work, but in the short term it'll be a fudge, whilst allowing the government to claim that "we have control".
I agree. It takes back control while not being fixed to targets and has plenty of room for exemptions and changes. It’s obviously a bit suck it and see but if you’re leaving the EU, one of the obvious benefits must be having a bit more say in who you let into your country.
petemurphy said:
citizensm1th said:
Highest employment rate ever and will you be willing to spend more per meal or per night to stay in a hotel?
Yes I would plus they can bring down the owners / managers pay to pay a decent living wage without sounding too labour. Market forces should sort it outbiggles330d said:
Marvellous, just waiting on care home fees sky rocketing as the wage bill goes up. I am assuming of course that few UK people are prepared to do the job on the current wage rates, or there wouldn't be the need to fill these roles with people from oversees, so to attract a domestic workforce then pay must increase.
And the Government is providing additional funding for social care, which often pays for this care provision? Didn't see any mention of this in the news release. It's not a sector awash with profitability now, has huge demand and under massive strain.
Looking forward to hotels and hospitality places increasing their prices to pay for an increasing number of staff from the UK. I hope this increased pay also makes them more selective as I've had plenty of examples of surley, grunting under-educated local scrotes serving me breakfast, cleaning rooms like they don't want to be there who compare very badly with the typical EU migrant employee who generally gives an impression that they want to do a good job, want to be there and are grateful of the opportunity.
Bit bizarre David Davis making some point about the threshold being £26,500, a full £10k less than the average wage in the UK. Without any hint of understanding that the vast majority of the roles we're taking about pay significantly less than £26,500 - that being an AVERAGE across the entire economy, not a TYPICAL wage within the sorts of sectors and jobs this will impact most.
I was only mildly hopeful for this Government, but much of what I've seen and heard since the election - bold and confident policy moves - I can see having an awful lot of unintended negative consequences that will be very difficult to row back from politically without a seismic reaction at the next election as people realise that the supposed benefits come with some fairly uncomfortable changes they generally don't want.
Yep - take the care assistant role mentioned earlier. Average salary in Essex for that is about £19k according to several job sites. (eg https://www.adzuna.co.uk/jobs/salaries/essex/care-... , London doesn't seem much better - https://www.totaljobs.com/salary-checker/average-c...And the Government is providing additional funding for social care, which often pays for this care provision? Didn't see any mention of this in the news release. It's not a sector awash with profitability now, has huge demand and under massive strain.
Looking forward to hotels and hospitality places increasing their prices to pay for an increasing number of staff from the UK. I hope this increased pay also makes them more selective as I've had plenty of examples of surley, grunting under-educated local scrotes serving me breakfast, cleaning rooms like they don't want to be there who compare very badly with the typical EU migrant employee who generally gives an impression that they want to do a good job, want to be there and are grateful of the opportunity.
Bit bizarre David Davis making some point about the threshold being £26,500, a full £10k less than the average wage in the UK. Without any hint of understanding that the vast majority of the roles we're taking about pay significantly less than £26,500 - that being an AVERAGE across the entire economy, not a TYPICAL wage within the sorts of sectors and jobs this will impact most.
I was only mildly hopeful for this Government, but much of what I've seen and heard since the election - bold and confident policy moves - I can see having an awful lot of unintended negative consequences that will be very difficult to row back from politically without a seismic reaction at the next election as people realise that the supposed benefits come with some fairly uncomfortable changes they generally don't want.
rscott said:
Take the care sector - one of the areas which has a lot of non UK staff. The vast majority of jobs pay under £10 an hour (with many paying the minimum of £8.21, even for shift work). How can you reduce the labour needed through automation?
Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
My mother is owner/director of a domiciliary care company, providing in home care to the elderly & disabled. There is no machinery, no automation, no efficiency improvements in this sector, its person-on-person physical care. Whenever costs are increased, such as the annual rise in minimum/living wage, all that happens is an increase in charges for the end user. Unfortunately the sector experiences a high turnover in staff, as people quickly realise that they don't want to wipe old people arse for minimum wage, but the market dictates the costs & wages involved.Any increase in costs for that sector (if they were to pay a better wage) would lead to large increases in the amount paid for care, which local councils simply can't afford at present.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff