The Brexit thread

[Horse]

Really? In the last couple of years I've had colleagues from:
Singapore
South Africa
Canada
Italy
France
India
and many more besides. Including Wales.

The company, as far as I know, didn't 'dig around' for them.

All low or semi-skilled blue collar workers?

Industry experts, or well-qualified and becoming experienced in their fields.

[Asian Boss]

Maybe we just need to accept that there are some jobs folk don't really want to do in "this day and age" because they're a bit crap? And if the industries don't want to pour money into training and wages and the government refuses to help (to make a point?) then just let those industries die.

Market forces innit.

Abattoir worker wages start at 9.50 an hour by the way. Who wouldn't want some of that sweet, sweet Brexit gold?

The plucky but unfortunately unemployed Brexit voting job seekers are lucky the recycling industry has automated so much in recent years.

Those facilities were truly the dark satanic mills of the 21st century. And the coal face jobs were mainly filled by EU workers, many of whom have been Brexited away of course.

[Count Steer]

I posted the stuff from the CIPD because there had been discussion about lack of preparation re the workforce. The fact that some companies that use cheap labour have been looking for new sources is hardly surprising is it? The fact that some of them may or may not raise wages is another issue but isn't using home grown labour supposed to be a step in the right direction?

I was more surprised that some companies that don't have EU workers planned to reduce training and development budgets which is pretty disappointing.

The whole thing is worth a read. http://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/brexit- ... ce-trends

It's not like the CIPD are grinding political axes.

[Horse]

Exactly, people with skills and mobility.

Not quite sure how that aligns with:

Employers looking to save money on their workforce are the ones that dig around in all corners looking for people to recruit that won't demand high pay and packages.

So employers either look abroad for skills or no skills. Ok ....

[Count Steer]

I'm not so keen on people in these Chartered organisations telling people what's happening out there, for a couple of reasons that aren't for this thread. I say this based on my experience of being Chartered through two of the biggest ones.

So we can all ignore the outputs of Chartered organisations and professional institutes because you have a beef with yours?

Based on my experience of being Chartered and a member of one of the biggest Eng. institutes I beg leave to differ.

Maybe people can read it and make their own minds up eh?

[Count Steer]

So we can all ignore the outputs of Chartered organisations and professional institutes because you have a beef with yours?

Based on my experience of being Chartered and a member of one of the biggest Eng. institutes I beg leave to differ.

Maybe people can read it and make their own minds up eh?

I don't have a "beef" with mine, they have their uses, I'm saying my experience tells me it's better to talk to business leaders about what is actually going on in their industries rather than the consultants hanging around writing press pieces for institutions.

Yebbut. Not everyone has free access to the captains of industry so, they might like to read what institutions that do have to say y'know. So, I posted a link.

Not that I give a monkeys, they'll probably believe what they like eh?

[Mussels]

Interestingly, organisations that employ EU nationals were significantly more likely than employers that don’t recruit EU nationals to be investing in training and seeking to recruit from a wider range of under-represented or disadvantaged groups, such as older workers or those from minority ethnic backgrounds. This strongly indicates that organisations which employ EU migrants were typically doing so as part of wider efforts to find the labour they require and to build workforce skills, not because they were failing to invest in UK-born workers or looking to cut costs.'

Translated that means they looked at more cost effective ways to recruit people rather than running the sort of schemes that the majority of native prospective employees would engage with.

Employers looking to save money on their workforce are the ones that dig around in all corners looking for people to recruit that won't demand high pay and packages. They're much more likely to recruit from older workers or those from minority ethnic backgrounds and then try to train them to do what they want them to do - it's cheaper.

I think it's simpler than that, cooked numbers.
Nine small family firms and McDonald's, very easy to say the only firm that employs Europeans is the only firm with formal training plans.

[Count Steer]

I think it's simpler than that, cooked numbers.
Nine small family firms and McDonald's, very easy to say the only firm that employs Europeans is the only firm with formal training plans.

That's an interesting analysis. I wonder why the CIPD would want to skew the stats like that? Any thoughts?

[Horse]

cooked numbers.

Nine small family firms and McDonald's

That's an interesting analysis. I wonder why the CIPD would want to skew the stats like that? Any thoughts?

https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/resourcin ... 100907.pdf

Loads of tables and infographics with real numbers.

The CIPD’s Resourcing and talent planning survey, in partnership with Omni, is now in its twenty-second year. It is a valued survey with a sample this year of over 1,000 UK-based HR professionals.

Those nine family firms must have huuuuge HR departments

[Count Steer]

cooked numbers.

Nine small family firms and McDonald's

That's an interesting analysis. I wonder why the CIPD would want to skew the stats like that? Any thoughts?

https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/resourcin ... 100907.pdf

Loads of tables and infographics with real numbers.

The CIPD’s Resourcing and talent planning survey, in partnership with Omni, is now in its twenty-second year. It is a valued survey with a sample this year of over 1,000 UK-based HR professionals.

Those nine family firms must have huuuuge HR departments

I thought I must have misread the bits where they referenced 1016 companies Hoss.

Still I was interested in the conspiracy theory.

[cheb]

Hang on, up there chartered professionals were being talked about. Now it seems they were talking to HR departments

[Cousin Jack]

When was the last time you met a young person who got a job as an apprentice HGV driver?

Has such a thing ever existed? It's not something that's ever struck me as needing an apprenticeship.

Such apprenticeships ae rare. What the industry seems to expect is that people shell out for their own training and test. Which is a major part of the reason HGV (or LGV if you want to be pedantic) drivers are mostly an aging population.

[Horse]

Such apprenticeships ae rare. What the industry seems to expect is that people shell out for their own training and test. Which is a major part of the reason HGV (or LGV if you want to be pedantic) drivers are mostly an aging population.

You could substitute 'nurse' into that instead.

A nursing degree costs £9250 in fees every year. Apprenticeships have just been introduced.

[Mussels]

I think it's simpler than that, cooked numbers.
Nine small family firms and McDonald's, very easy to say the only firm that employs Europeans is the only firm with formal training plans.

That's an interesting analysis. I wonder why the CIPD would want to skew the stats like that? Any thoughts?

I was on my phone earlier and missed the link. It's a long document and looks like it isn't trying to hide anything* but I can't find any information in there that links employers of EU nationals and training programmes.

* It even explains how it applied weighting to the results which is a refreshing bit of openess these days.

[wheelnut]

Translated that means they looked at more cost effective ways to recruit people rather than running the sort of schemes that the majority of native prospective employees would engage with.

Employers looking to save money on their workforce are the ones that dig around in all corners looking for people to recruit that won't demand high pay and packages. They're much more likely to recruit from older workers or those from minority ethnic backgrounds and then try to train them to do what they want them to do - it's cheaper.

Hasn’t that always been the case?

The UK employs more cost effective labour from the EU for roles that UK nationals turn their noses up at.

Mexicans keep the southern US states ticking over with cheap labour.

The UAE has massive amounts of Phillipino and Pakistani cheap labour.

In Yambo’s neck of the woods, the whole tourist industry is kept ticking over by the Kurdish who flock west for the summer and work for peanuts (although technically not foreign migrant labour).

It’s a global economy with a mobile workforce. Employers are going to take advantage of that.

[Cousin Jack]

You could substitute 'nurse' into that instead.

A nursing degree costs £9250 in fees every year. Apprenticeships have just been introduced.

And about time too. Far too many industries seem to think people should get specialist training at their own expense.

When I was a lad, apprenticeships were the norm for anything that involved any sort of manual dexterity. Nurses were trained by the hospitals, electricians were trained by electrical companies. Technical colleges supplied the theory bits. It wasn't perfect, but it worked.

Now half the world gets a degree in something, and then finds out the hard way that it is not always a good preparation for real work.

[Horse]

Hang on, up there chartered professionals were being talked about. Now it seems they were talking to HR departments

Do you need to find a chartered accountant to check that report's figures?

[Horse]

You could substitute 'nurse' into that instead.

A nursing degree costs £9250 in fees every year. Apprenticeships have just been introduced.

And about time too. Far too many industries seem to think people should get specialist training at their own expense.

My mistake, I misread something. Further check shows they've been available for ages:

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/ ... undertaken

But - the same for truckers as nurses and many other professions - retention is as much an issue, if not more, than recruitment.

[Count Steer]

I think it's simpler than that, cooked numbers.
Nine small family firms and McDonald's, very easy to say the only firm that employs Europeans is the only firm with formal training plans.

That's an interesting analysis. I wonder why the CIPD would want to skew the stats like that? Any thoughts?

I was on my phone earlier and missed the link. It's a long document and looks like it isn't trying to hide anything* but I can't find any information in there that links employers of EU nationals and training programmes.

* It even explains how it applied weighting to the results which is a refreshing bit of openess these days.

I don't think they give raw data but the section I was looking at Section 6? gave the analysis. I did look to see if the actual questionnaire was on-line. I'm also getting a bit confused now 'cos I've been looking at 3 reports inc. the 2019 one. There's not really anything v controversial and it's all pretty much reporting things straight, as it were.
I just found it interesting to see something a bit more in depth on the response to employment issues inc. those Brexit related. They cover salary, recruitment etc inc stuff about replacing EU staff with migrant labour from elsewhere.
Something for everyone in a Brexit debate.

[Hot_Air]

I don’t see the CIPD cooking the numbers because it surveyed 1,018 businesses of different sizes and from different sectors.

These businesses included all manner of company sizes. Additionally, the CIPD survey comprised private sector businesses, public sector employers and voluntary sector employers.

The CIPD is a professional body, not a consultancy, and I fail to see any skewing.