PDA

View Full Version : Scots "workshy" according to Jackie Stewart



sasguru
28th October 2007, 13:53
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2753976.ece

AtW
28th October 2007, 14:08
Lazy gits they are.

Next.

NoddY
28th October 2007, 16:24
Only poor people work.

wendigo100
28th October 2007, 19:50
Praising Poles and Australians, who he said were prepared to work hard in the service industry, he accused Scots of relying on cosy jobs in the country’s burgeoning public sector.

“I am constantly disappointed by the fact that the Scots don’t want to work,” he said. “In things like the service sector which is absolutely vital for tourism, I’m served by South Africans, Australians, New Zealanders and Polish people who are really working hard.

“I think social services are too prolific. If you have a job in government you’re not going to be sacked. You have a job for life. You don’t have to work too hard and you don’t have to present yourself well because it is not competitive.” It's not only the Scots...

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 07:13
I think he is missing the point. It is not only in Scotland.
Stay in a Hotel anywhere in Europe and you are unlikely to hear a local accent apart from in the smaller family run establishments.

The lower end of the food chain is being forced down towards (if not at) minimum wage. Many people just can not afford to work at that rate.
Many businesses are being proped up by employing migrants who have lower overheads.

I am not sure if it is greed to drive profits, or to keep costs down to customers, but it seems that business would rather pay for cheaper staff.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 08:06
I think he is missing the point. It is not only in Scotland.
Stay in a Hotel anywhere in Europe and you are unlikely to hear a local accent apart from in the smaller family run establishments.

The lower end of the food chain is being forced down towards (if not at) minimum wage. Many people just can not afford to work at that rate.
Many businesses are being proped up by employing migrants who have lower overheads.

I am not sure if it is greed to drive profits, or to keep costs down to customers, but it seems that business would rather pay for cheaper staff.


spoken like a true trade unionist

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 08:22
spoken like a true trade unionistI have leanings in that direction yes, but that is not what drives my feelings on this subject.

You say trade union like it is a bad thing. Why?
Sure they have gone power mad on occasions but the pendulum eventualy settles somewhere sensible till another Scargil gives it a push.
Trade Unions were a necessary counter to the mill, mine and factory owners of the day. People (including children) were being exploited and were working in dangerous conditions. They had no say. Often their housing was tied into their job so losing their work meant begging for survival. It was not a good way to be if you didnt own the business.
Trade Unions were needed as was the Labour movement.

What I see today (on a global scale) is movement back towards those days. The owners/share holders have all the power again.
Somebody needs to stand up for the little bloke.

I am all for capitalism, I am a contractor after all, but I do believe that there needs to be some form of responsibility in business.

This could go on for a long arguemnt, but I think you have read enough of my posts to know the rest.

sasguru
29th October 2007, 09:34
I have leanings in that direction yes, but that is not what drives my feelings on this subject.

You say trade union like it is a bad thing. Why?
Sure they have gone power mad on occasions but the pendulum eventualy settles somewhere sensible till another Scargil gives it a push.
Trade Unions were a necessary counter to the mill, mine and factory owners of the day. People (including children) were being exploited and were working in dangerous conditions. They had no say. Often their housing was tied into their job so losing their work meant begging for survival. It was not a good way to be if you didnt own the business.
Trade Unions were needed as was the Labour movement.

What I see today (on a global scale) is movement back towards those days. The owners/share holders have all the power again.
Somebody needs to stand up for the little bloke.

I am all for capitalism, I am a contractor after all, but I do believe that there needs to be some form of responsibility in business.

This could go on for a long arguemnt, but I think you have read enough of my posts to know the rest.

You are quite right that capitalism is in in one of its frequent pendulum swings. In this country its because Labour are terrified of being seen as "anti-business". This causes them to lick the arse of the big corps a little too much.
Real capitalism would support the smaller entrepreneur.

wendigo100
29th October 2007, 09:39
spoken like a true trade unionistDodgy, I just knew you'd pop up in this thread! :D

Perhaps while we have a few million UK people on benefits, including the much-abused incapacity benefit, where is the incentive for them to take these lower-paid jobs?

I thought the introduction of the minimum wage was supposed to incentivise them!

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 09:48
Dodgy, I just knew you'd pop up in this thread! :D

Perhaps while we have a few million UK people on benefits, including the much-abused incapacity benefit, where is the incentive for them to take these lower-paid jobs?

I thought the introduction of the minimum wage was supposed to incentivise them!

The best incentives you can give these people (and it is not just the scots) is to give them the same incentives as the Poles, the Australians and the South Africans which is take their benefits away from them.

As for LG, that was not a point you made but a diatribe. You do not seem to understand that just as employers are free to hire people on low wages (as long as they are above the minimum) workers are free to hawk themselves to the higher payers.

And if what you are endorsing is that the minimum wage should rise then are you prepared to pay more for your hotel, beer, coffee? as the law of unintended consequences always applies itself whenever HMG passes legislation, you may find everyone else wanting higher wages to pay for the increases in labour costs.

lilelvis2000
29th October 2007, 10:02
The lower end of the food chain is being forced down towards (if not at) minimum wage. Many people just can not afford to work at that rate.
Many businesses are being proped up by employing migrants who have lower overheads.



If an immigrant can live on minimum why cannot someone who is benefits live on it? I don't get that point. Obviously if you are indebt up to your eyeballs and expect your employer to feel sympathy and give you an increase - you're in the wrong system.

I think you are also missing out that many jobs natives just don't want to do. Immigrants are perfectly happy to do them. Why complain that immigrants are taking our jobs - when these would be jobs that 'we' wouldn't do anyway?

This is odd in a country where the overall eduation level is not particularily very high.

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 10:07
The best incentives you can give these people (and it is not just the scots) is to give them the same incentives as the Poles, the Australians and the South Africans which is take their benefits away from them.

As for LG, that was not a point you made but a diatribe. You do not seem to understand that just as employers are free to hire people on low wages (as long as they are above the minimum) workers are free to hawk themselves to the higher payers.

And if what you are endorsing is that the minimum wage should rise then are you prepared to pay more for your hotel, beer, coffee? as the law of unintended consequences always applies itself whenever HMG passes legislation, you may find everyone else wanting higher wages to pay for the increases in labour costs.Sorry if I went on a bit Dodgy, it is a bit of a pet subject. Problem is I dont have the answers. It is a complex problem.
I agree that the workshy should have their benefits adjusted. BUT some of the unemployed are there because of the minimum wage and the influx of foreign workers. Gets to be a vicious circle.

What I see is a return to victorian working conditions with owners throwing people out of work simply because they can replace them with a cheaper workforce. The cheaper workforce is only available because NL want to be seen as business friendly.

Yes I would be willing to pay more for my goods and services in this situation, but I would rather see a reduction in some of the scandalous profits declared by some of these companies first.
The alternative is an unemployed indigenous population and a country full of foreign workers on minimum wage.

wendigo100
29th October 2007, 10:09
The best incentives you can give these people (and it is not just the scots) is to give them the same incentives as the Poles, the Australians and the South Africans which is take their benefits away from them.

As for LG, that was not a point you made but a diatribe. You do not seem to understand that just as employers are free to hire people on low wages (as long as they are above the minimum) workers are free to hawk themselves to the higher payers.

And if what you are endorsing is that the minimum wage should rise then are you prepared to pay more for your hotel, beer, coffee? as the law of unintended consequences always applies itself whenever HMG passes legislation, you may find everyone else wanting higher wages to pay for the increases in labour costs.But isn't this plethora of cheap labour from overseas a recent phenomenon (last five years)?

And has it reduced the prices of hotels, beer or coffee (or even stopped them rising)?

In which case, who is benefitting from them?

sasguru
29th October 2007, 10:12
The best incentives you can give these people (and it is not just the scots) is to give them the same incentives as the Poles, the Australians and the South Africans which is take their benefits away from them.

As for LG, that was not a point you made but a diatribe. You do not seem to understand that just as employers are free to hire people on low wages (as long as they are above the minimum) workers are free to hawk themselves to the higher payers.

And if what you are endorsing is that the minimum wage should rise then are you prepared to pay more for your hotel, beer, coffee? as the law of unintended consequences always applies itself whenever HMG passes legislation, you may find everyone else wanting higher wages to pay for the increases in labour costs.

Dodgy, while I agree with the basic thrust of your argument, it's not quite a level playing field when single Poles and Australians can live in shared accomodation while indigenous people have to support a family.

sasguru
29th October 2007, 10:12
But isn't this plethora of cheap labour from overseas a recent phenomenon (last five years)?

And has it reduced the prices of hotels, beer or coffee (or even stopped them rising)?

In which case, who is benefitting from them?

Good point.

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 10:21
If an immigrant can live on minimum why cannot someone who is benefits live on it? I don't get that point. Obviously if you are indebt up to your eyeballs and expect your employer to feel sympathy and give you an increase - you're in the wrong system.

I think you are also missing out that many jobs natives just don't want to do. Immigrants are perfectly happy to do them. Why complain that immigrants are taking our jobs - when these would be jobs that 'we' wouldn't do anyway?

This is odd in a country where the overall eduation level is not particularily very high.I agree that there are too many who won't work.
Migrants can often live a lot cheaper than residents and that i swhy they fill the lower paid jobs, the problem is that more and more jobs are becoming lower paid because of the availability of foreign workers. e.g. There is a harbour near where I live, it used to be a good source of income on a casual basis if you were short of cash. It was never a full time employer. You could turn up when ships were in and earn a good days wage (for a bloody hard days work). Many men turned up every day looking for casual work. Now it is a full time port it has permanent staff all on minimum wage, most of whom are foreign. The casuals who used to work there can no longer afford to work there as their costs have not gone down as wages have.
The port is making more money than ever. Wages will only go up when they run out of cheap labour or the locals have gone bankrupt, lost their houses (and probably family) and have had to start again.
It is a downward spiral that can not be good for the Country or the economy.

Bagpuss
29th October 2007, 10:53
Just wait until the Poles get into recruitment, working on margins of 5%:laugh

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 10:53
But isn't this plethora of cheap labour from overseas a recent phenomenon (last five years)?

And has it reduced the prices of hotels, beer or coffee (or even stopped them rising)?

In which case, who is benefitting from them?

I have always said that immigration is good when there are not enough people to do the jobs. These low wage workers are not competing for "our" jobs, over a matter of the odd £ an hour. They are here because we as a society choose to pay 4 million people to do nothing. How much does a benefit recipient need to make it worth his/her while to go back to work? An awful lot is the answer. And because we fail to educate our children properly, and because we keep so many people out of work for such a long time many of the 4 million unemployed are totally incapable of work anyway.

So these low earning immigrants may be undercutting the UK workforce, but even if wages were higher there still would not be anything like enough takers for these jobs.

LG, I am not quite sure why you have this problem with companies making profits.

If you stop and think about what you are saying for a moment you may like to consider where these profits go. Even if they do go into the pockets of fat cat businessmen then those profits are then spent on Aston Martins, yachts and hookers. So what? if you had your way and wished somehow to "regulate" profits then how do you think the factory workers at Aston Martin would feel?

Then of of course the worse thing that happens to profits is that a large chunk of them is stolen by the tax man to be squandered on paying people to sit at home all day. THAT's what I call immoral.

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 11:22
I do not have anything against profits, I am just disturbed by the level of profit particularly from companies who insist on paying minimum wage yet refuse to reduce prices to consumers. Shell and BP announced phenominal profits this year (ISTR) yet the price of petrol at the pump is as high as it has ever been and I wonder how much the forecourt attendant earns?

As for Astons, well I do believe that are enough rich people out there to keep them going. I am not proposing people shouldnt profit from their businesses and investments, I am just asking for a responsible attitude towards the distribution of those profits.

As for tax, just remind me how much tax Philip Green paid this year would you. The super rich are dodging the tax man at every turn. Isn't the tax take reducing even though we have reduced unemployment?

This country courtesy of the present Govt. is haemoraging money for fun at the same time as it is undermining the lower paids ability to work.

tim123
29th October 2007, 12:04
Dodgy, while I agree with the basic thrust of your argument, it's not quite a level playing field when single Poles and Australians can live in shared accomodation while indigenous people have to support a family.

No-one *has* to support a family, people choose this option.

If they haven't got the job to enable them to support this lifestyle, then they shouldn't chose it.

I accept that there are people who, later in life, find themselves in this situation and that the system should help them. But there are many many more who have been work-shy all they life who think that they are entitled to have the state supporting them whilst they breed like rabbits.

In the sixties, if an unmarried girl had a kid, that her family couldn't afford to keep, it was taken away from her. Now we reward her for her stupidity (that's the kind word) with a house paid for by me. Oh I wish that I had been that stupid and irresponsible.

On the TV a few weeks ago was one of these <idiots> (or insert more insulting word of your choice) trotting out the usual mantra "I'm entitled to have children". To which my response is: "Yes Love you are, but you're not entitled to exect it's upbringing to be paid for by me".

BTW, many of the Poles do have families to pay for. I am sitting across from one right now.

tim

tim123
29th October 2007, 12:09
I do not have anything against profits, I am just disturbed by the level of profit particularly from companies who insist on paying minimum wage yet refuse to reduce prices to consumers. Shell and BP announced phenominal profits this year (ISTR) yet the price of petrol at the pump is as high as it has ever been and I wonder how much the forecourt attendant earns?.

Oil companies are not a good example. Their profits are windfall profits due to the rise in the price of oil that they RISKED drilling for before they knew what price they could sell it at. They could equally well have made a big loss if the oil price had fallen. Their retailing profits (or losses) are an irrelevance in their overall accounts.

Try other examples.

tim

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 12:21
Oil companies are not a good example. Their profits are windfall profits due to the rise in the price of oil that they RISKED drilling for before they knew what price they could sell it at. They could equally well have made a big loss if the oil price had fallen. Their retailing profits (or losses) are an irrelevance in their overall accounts.

Try other examples.

timDoing the nice but dim bit again are we?
They still make ridiculous profits and have done year on year for a ridiculous amount of years.

As for your last point and I do agree that their retail profits are irrelelvant (they have all said so) then why are they charging so much for the damn stuff. Why not give it away?

tay
29th October 2007, 12:48
Part of the problem is that many UK citizens (actully include the US, NZ and Aus etc in that) have an over inflated sense of thier own importance. The stigma of asking for state payouts is gone.

The typical attitude is that the wages are to low... sorry thats bollox, if they are to low... get 2 jobs. But many seem to think these jobs are beneath them.... newsflash... if your collecting benefits and living at the mercy of the govt... you are already at the very lowest rung of society, you are dreg and a loser.. you are worthless to society and basically scum.... but the good news is that the govt will help you climb that ladder and make more of yourself, thats how capitalism works, its not supposed to be fair, its supposed to reward winners and those who start with an unfair advantage, but thats where the imporatant check and counter balance of state support comes in... you get dealt a rum hand? The govt will help you by educating you, and providing benefits whilst in emergency. Maybe.. just maybe one day you will rise up the ladder and have those snooty toffs working for you!

I like that. I know I had an advantage over others due to my upbringing, I dont think people on the benfits should stay there forever, they should be ashamed of where they are at, and be provided with a leg up, not a permanent excuse to be a lazy pain in the ass who cannot read.

tay
29th October 2007, 12:51
They still make ridiculous profits and have done year on year for a ridiculous amount of years.

Whats the problem with making a profit? I dont understand that attitude at all. Money is going to shareholders instead of workers... thats fair. And alot depends oin your definiton of worker.. if I quit my job and invest the momey and track markets all day.. why should I lose out on my wages? The workers know what wage they are accepting, they sure as hell would expect that wage if the BP has a loss one year.

tim123
29th October 2007, 13:01
Doing the nice but dim bit again are we?
They still make ridiculous profits and have done year on year for a ridiculous amount of years.

As for your last point and I do agree that their retail profits are irrelelvant (they have all said so) then why are they charging so much for the damn stuff. Why not give it away?

Because they are selling a commodity on the world market. Why should they give it away? (In any case, the pump price is 80% government tax)

They are a corporate. They took a risk in investing (someone else's) money in order to make a return. They (and the someone elses) happened to have got lucky. Why should they not be able to keep what they have 'won' from this risk? They don't make the world price, someone else does.

Communism has been shown not to work (by a chap named Blair - Eric), why do you despise capitalism so much?

tim

The Lone Gunman
29th October 2007, 13:24
I am not a communist nor am I anti capitalist, I am a contractor FFS.

This is far too complicated to explain it all here.

History shows that nations companies and individuals do well when we all do well. Industrial revolutions and Victorian models where the poor are kept poor whilst the rich get richer do not lead to development.

The difference between richest and poorest can be modelled in a diamond shape nations who have a short wide diamond do better than those with a tall narrow one. The difference between the richest and poorest should not be too great. We as a nation, and globally are heading for the later model.

The poor need aspirations. The promise of bettering themselves which is daily being taken away because every step higher they take on the ladder the deeper the ladder sinks.

You will never understand untill you are queueing for soup.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 14:01
I am not a communist nor am I anti capitalist, I am a contractor FFS.

This is far too complicated to explain it all here.

History shows that nations companies and individuals do well when we all do well. Industrial revolutions and Victorian models where the poor are kept poor whilst the rich get richer do not lead to development.

The difference between richest and poorest can be modelled in a diamond shape nations who have a short wide diamond do better than those with a tall narrow one. The difference between the richest and poorest should not be too great. We as a nation, and globally are heading for the later model.

The poor need aspirations. The promise of bettering themselves which is daily being taken away because every step higher they take on the ladder the deeper the ladder sinks.

You will never understand untill you are queueing for soup.

The last thing the poor need is to be given anything apart from a decent education. If you leave them to form their own aspirations they will be absolutely fine. They do not need do gooders deciding for them what to do whether that be a guilt ridden middle class socialist (who is only interested in himself) or the state.

SallyAnne
29th October 2007, 14:07
...actully...thier...to ...your ...imporatant ...rum


I dont think people on the benfits should stay there forever, they should be ashamed of where they are at, and be provided with a leg up, not a permanent excuse to be a lazy pain in the ass who cannot read.

As opposed to those who cannot write? :rolleyes:

You, my good sir, are a prize cock.

And have now been moved to a lovely room along with bagpuss and DA. Congrats.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 14:12
As opposed to those who cannot write? :rolleyes:

You, my good sir, are a prize noddy.

And have now been moved to a lovely room along with bagpuss and DA. Congrats.

Many Poles who came here could'nt even speak the language, so I am not sure what your point is?

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 14:19
As opposed to those who cannot write? :rolleyes:

You, my good sir, are a prize noddy.

And have now been moved to a lovely room along with bagpuss and DA. Congrats.

:rollin:

DA - where is this good education going to come from ? Will it be provided by your free market driven education system. The kids from the poor areas, already behind when they start school through no fault of their own then get pitched in the worst schools.

wendigo100
29th October 2007, 14:22
DA - where is this good education going to come from ? Will it be provided by your free market driven education system. The kids from the poor areas, already behind when they start school through no fault of their own then get pitched in the worst schools.You are describing the state system as it currently stands.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 14:23
:rollin:

DA - where is this good education going to come from ? Will it be provided by your free market driven education system. The kids from the poor areas, already behind when they start school through no fault of their own then get pitched in the worst schools.

A voucher system that empowers the consumer of education services, rather than the system we have now that empowers the providers of the services.

wendigo100
29th October 2007, 14:24
The current resolution to this appears to be to find more ways to lower the bar for these disadvantaged kids. That can't be right.

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 14:37
A voucher system that empowers the consumer of education services, rather than the system we have now that empowers the providers of the services.

You are having a laugh. Any system tending towards a free market will favour those already well educated and able to grab what is on offer. Providing underprivileged children from welfare dependent homes with a good education is a huge undertaking that would require a lot of state intervention over a long time period.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 14:40
You are having a laugh. Any system tending towards a free market will favour those already well educated and able to grab what is on offer. Providing underprivileged children from welfare dependent homes with a good education is a huge undertaking that would require a lot of state intervention over a long time period.

Why could you not send a child from a poor background to a top grade school?

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 14:49
Why could you not send a child from a poor background to a top grade school?

You could but you'd have to get them a place at the expense of a middle class kid whose parents are fighting hard for that place. There are only so many good schools to go around and the already well educated live near them and make sure their kids go there and also ensure the school stays top grade. If the poor kid comes from an otherwise good home then they will benefit but what we are talking about here is kids from 'not' good homes who are already behind when they enter the education system and wouldn't get the outside school support to do well anyway. In other words it's not something you'll solve with vouchers.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 15:03
You could but you'd have to get them a place at the expense of a middle class kid whose parents are fighting hard for that place. There are only so many good schools to go around and the already well educated live near them and make sure their kids go there and also ensure the school stays top grade. If the poor kid comes from an otherwise good home then they will benefit but what we are talking about here is kids from 'not' good homes who are already behind when they enter the education system and wouldn't get the outside school support to do well anyway. In other words it's not something you'll solve with vouchers.

Build more schools, and schools that are poor will fail to attract children so unless they become good schools they will go bust.

tay
29th October 2007, 15:19
As opposed to those who cannot write?

You, my good sir, are a prize noddy.

Just typos as I type quickly. I may be a poor typer, but least I am not a fat ginger.

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 15:28
Build more schools, and schools that are poor will fail to attract children so unless they become good schools they will go bust.

It'll cost too much money and won't benefit the kids from the no hoper homes ie. the ones who need it the most

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 15:32
You are describing the state system as it currently stands.

True but a 'free market' approach won't improve things. I think things have actually improved a bit with ofsted inspections and nationwide testing as the sink schools now can't be hidden away quietly.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 15:42
It'll cost too much money and won't benefit the kids from the no hoper homes ie. the ones who need it the most

Judging by your reaction the whole concept is beyond you. Why wouldnt it improve the education of the poorest?????

What do you mean it will cost too much money? if everyone had the education that you or I had then there would be no welfare payouts, a healthier society, no jobless, virtually no crime.

We buy food (more important than anything) by having choices. Even though we have 6/7 retailers to choose from it is an incredibly efficient and customer focussed form of provision.

rootsnall
29th October 2007, 15:58
Judging by your reaction the whole concept is beyond you. Why wouldnt it improve the education of the poorest?????

What do you mean it will cost too much money? if everyone had the education that you or I had then there would be no welfare payouts, a healthier society, no jobless, virtually no crime.

We buy food (more important than anything) by having choices. Even though we have 6/7 retailers to choose from it is an incredibly efficient and customer focussed form of provision.

In a free market economics text book written for free marketeers it all sounds good !

I'm not saying there isn't some worth in what you say but the free markets can't magically solve big social issues in the text book manner you describe.

DodgyAgent
29th October 2007, 16:01
In a free market economics text book written for free marketeers it all sounds good !

In the harsh world of basic human instinct and economics, if people's well being and livelihood depends upon them looking after customers who can take their business elsewhere it is good.

Bagpuss
29th October 2007, 16:08
if everyone had the education that you or I had then there would be no welfare payouts, a healthier society, no jobless, virtually no crime.


There is no truth in it, but it is scientific fact:laugh