British businesses 'forced to hire migrants due to lack of skilled British workers'
The laziness of the English is proverbial in Australia so I have no doubt this story is true
Businesses are being ‘held back’ due to a chronic lack of ‘skilled workers’ in Britain and have to hire workers from overseas, a report reveals today.
The British Chambers of Commerce said nearly 60 per cent of businesses with more than 50 employees hire ‘some migrant workers’ because they ‘are unable to find the skilled workers they need in the UK’.
The damning verdict comes as the latest Office for National Statistics figures showed unemployment has hit a 17-year high of 2.62million.
John Longworth, director general of the BCC, said: ‘Many firms lack confidence in the ability of the education system to deliver the right people for the job. 'For some, hiring workers from overseas allows them to access the skills they need.’
These were not necessarily technical skills but some of the most basic abilities, from turning up punctually to an interview to being able to write basic English or to do the elementary maths, the BCC said.
According to ONS figures, the number of British-born workers with a job has crashed by 311,000 over the past year. But among foreign-born workers, the numbers jumped by 181,000 over the past year.
The majority of the migrant workforce of about half of businesses is from the outside the EU, the BCC said.
Mr Longworth said: ‘Business needs a migration policy for growth that allows UK firms to hire workers with the skills they need. 'This does not have to be at odds with promises to reduce net migration.’
The Department for Business said: ‘The Government is working with business to put practical skills at the heart of our education system.’
SOURCE
Australian immigration detention centre censors media reports
Soviet Russia in Australia?
IMMIGRATION Department officials will have the right to censor information gathered by journalists during a tour of the Inverbrackie detention centre today.
Strict rules have been imposed on media outlets that agreed to attend, including reporters being banned from interviewing or "engaging in any substantive communication with any detainee clients", or even moving away from their departmental tour guide.
The Advertiser will not be part of the tour because it refused to sign the department's 19-page "deed of agreement".
Every second of broadcast news segments about today's visit will be checked by Immigration Department censors, using "media content review forms" to order reporters to "pixelate, mute or delete" any material that identifies people or is not in the interests of the department.
The agreements have been controversial when used interstate and have been boycotted by some print media outlets.
But the Immigration and Citizenship Department has defended its use of the agreements as a protection of privacy for detainees and because the practical application of the deed was not heavy-handed.
It argued detainees could bolster their refugee status if media coverage of the tours in their home country identified them and put them at risk. "DIAC is willing to grant ... access to immigration detention facilities in a manner that respects the privacy of the detainee clients residing in such facilities," the deed states.
But the document also seeks to protect "the Australian Government's interests", "national interests" and the department's "responsibilities".
Newspaper Publishers' Association chief executive Mark Hollands said the deed was "appalling" because it censored final editorial content. "While access documents ... will often seek a certain behaviour or provide level of access, none that I have ever seen will demand the censoring of journalism at the end of access," Mr Mr Hollands said. "It brings shame and suspicion on the Australian Government.
"The association understands concerns that the department might have with regard to the identification of detainees and any repercussions that might have on their family and friends in their country of origin," he said. "However, the association believes media will be sympathetic to these issues."
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment