LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
I get the idea that you are trying to dodge the pretty clear point that Bally is making. Have another go at addressing itrjsterry said:
As just posted, it's been fluffy liberal government policy developed between DHSC and DFID for some time 😉. I mean it must be a good idea if it's Tory policy, right?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like it's recruiting nurses the nice fluffy Liberal way and not the way the nasty Tories do it. Same end effect though.ballysmate said:
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Nope. Addressed above.Stevo_666 said:
I get the idea that you are trying to dodge the pretty clear point that Bally is making. Have another go at addressing itrjsterry said:
As just posted, it's been fluffy liberal government policy developed between DHSC and DFID for some time 😉. I mean it must be a good idea if it's Tory policy, right?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like it's recruiting nurses the nice fluffy Liberal way and not the way the nasty Tories do it. Same end effect though.ballysmate said:
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Last word on this, I promise.rjsterry said:
I can see that if this policy restricted freedom of movement that would be incongruous, but it doesn't. The only thing that is restricted is active recruitment drives targeting these countries.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries
Actually SC said that it was a disgrace that the UK HAD been recruiting, which as BB pointed out appears not to be the case if they are not recruiting from countries on that list. As the list includes Yugoslavia, I assume the list has been in existence and adhered to for 30 years.
Can you still not see the incongruence of considering it xenophobic not to allow cross border labour recruitment and then bar a particular group from being recruited? If you allow cross border recruitment and movement (as you don't want to be a xenophobe), you would be able to recruit an unlimited amount of, say, potato pickers. The inference being that you would be able to recruit nurses as potato pickers but not to work as nurses. That would be crazy.
The 'debate' (for the want of a better word) over the last few pages was set against the background of cross border movement of labour. How is it fair to single out one group of workers for stricter control if you are an advocate of freedom of movement of labour?
So if we agree that if there is a restriction from actively recruiting a particular group, that group will suffer some restriction of opportunity. ie discrimination.
If you place any discrimination on freedom of movement, you no longer have freedom of movement do you? That's pretty much what restriction means.
0 -
Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
For me, being dense. please explain how placing restrictions of any sort on the recruitment of a targeted group doesn't detract from the concept of freedom of movement.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
Please use little words.0 -
Tell us what you think about it Bally, rather than just picking holes in other people's argument.0
-
I get SC's sentiment, as I have previously said. I get the motive.rick_chasey said:Tell us what you think about it Bally, rather than just picking holes in other people's argument.
My point was, and is, you cannot feel it xenophobic to treat cross border movement of labour differently to local movement and then want to impose restrictive rules for the recruitment of a particular group of foreign workers, without considering it to be discrimination, whatever your motives.0 -
No, I get your point, but you're just nit picking other arguments without sharing your own.ballysmate said:
I get SC's sentiment, as I have previously said. I get the motive.rick_chasey said:Tell us what you think about it Bally, rather than just picking holes in other people's argument.
My point was, and is, you cannot feel it xenophobic to treat cross border movement of labour differently to local movement and then want to impose restrictive rules for the recruitment of a particular group of foreign workers, without considering it to be discrimination, whatever your motives.
Everyone's a critic. Share your own, hyper consistent beliefs.
You only tend to pipe up to point out hypocrisy. You're like our own mini guido fawkes.
Everyone's a hypocrite.0 -
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?0 -
My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.ballysmate said:
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
0 -
I actually laughed out loud to that.rick_chasey said:
No, I get your point, but you're just nit picking other arguments without sharing your own.ballysmate said:
I get SC's sentiment, as I have previously said. I get the motive.rick_chasey said:Tell us what you think about it Bally, rather than just picking holes in other people's argument.
My point was, and is, you cannot feel it xenophobic to treat cross border movement of labour differently to local movement and then want to impose restrictive rules for the recruitment of a particular group of foreign workers, without considering it to be discrimination, whatever your motives.
Everyone's a critic. Share your own, hyper consistent beliefs.
You only tend to pipe up to point out hypocrisy. You're like our own mini guido fawkes.
Everyone's a hypocrite.
From the man who scours the forum, and I dare suppose other interactions, for signs of anybody not being on message so he can denounce any perceived ism.
My thoughts on recruiting nurses?
We don't have freedom of movement cross border and nor should we. Nobody does. The EU has internal freedom but it has external borders over which it exercises control.
Regarding nurses. Like yourself, I am only concerned with their suitability and like you, I feel that their ability to speak the language of the country in which they work should be a given. And as I have previously stated, we should employ the best applicant.
Yes, nurses from third world countries look to move abroad in search of a better life and who are we to stop them? I certainly wouldn't prevent any other person seeking to do the same if they saw an opportunity so why prevent nurses or any other skill set?
I am aware that it may leave a skills vacuum in some countries and that would need addressing, but not by penalising people and preventing them leaving because they are too qualified. It is a fact of life that people seek to move from poorer areas to somewhere they think will offer a better life.0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
You can't criticise me for not sharing my own views!
0 -
So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.0 -
You never watched Auf Wiedersehen Pet then?john80 said:
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals...
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etcjohn80 said:
My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.ballysmate said:
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.0 -
The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.elbowloh said:
You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etcjohn80 said:
My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.ballysmate said:
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.0 -
Surely that goes for almost any country. Has the majority of Poland moved to the UK?john80 said:
The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.elbowloh said:
You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etcjohn80 said:
My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.ballysmate said:
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Must have missed itrjsterry said:
Nope. Addressed above.Stevo_666 said:
I get the idea that you are trying to dodge the pretty clear point that Bally is making. Have another go at addressing itrjsterry said:
As just posted, it's been fluffy liberal government policy developed between DHSC and DFID for some time 😉. I mean it must be a good idea if it's Tory policy, right?Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like it's recruiting nurses the nice fluffy Liberal way and not the way the nasty Tories do it. Same end effect though.ballysmate said:
So a conscience salving exercise then is it? We'll carry on accepting applications from and employing thousands of Filipino nurses but feel better about it because we didn't actively solicit them. Is that it?kingstongraham said:
I thought there was an objection to the policy of going and actively looking for nurses in the Philippines, which is qualitatively different to wanting to ban nurses from the Philippines from working here.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
If the same number of Filipino end up working here, what is the material difference? Want to quote the exact bit? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the absence of a targeted recruitment campaign is a restriction on free movement of labour. People from those listed countries can and do continue to be employed by the NHS.ballysmate said:
Last word on this, I promise.rjsterry said:
I can see that if this policy restricted freedom of movement that would be incongruous, but it doesn't. The only thing that is restricted is active recruitment drives targeting these countries.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries
Actually SC said that it was a disgrace that the UK HAD been recruiting, which as BB pointed out appears not to be the case if they are not recruiting from countries on that list. As the list includes Yugoslavia, I assume the list has been in existence and adhered to for 30 years.
Can you still not see the incongruence of considering it xenophobic not to allow cross border labour recruitment and then bar a particular group from being recruited? If you allow cross border recruitment and movement (as you don't want to be a xenophobe), you would be able to recruit an unlimited amount of, say, potato pickers. The inference being that you would be able to recruit nurses as potato pickers but not to work as nurses. That would be crazy.
The 'debate' (for the want of a better word) over the last few pages was set against the background of cross border movement of labour. How is it fair to single out one group of workers for stricter control if you are an advocate of freedom of movement of labour?
So if we agree that if there is a restriction from actively recruiting a particular group, that group will suffer some restriction of opportunity. ie discrimination.
If you place any discrimination on freedom of movement, you no longer have freedom of movement do you? That's pretty much what restriction means.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The majority of EU citizens also didn't enjoy these benefits unless i missed 100s of millions of people entering the country?john80 said:
The point still stands that the majority of Brits don't share these benefits. Finding examples of the minority does not invalidate the argument that the majority of Brits don't need freedom at movement and it benefits are pretty much negligible to them. This is your electorate not Bob who has lived in Spain for the last 20 years. A politician looking for election knows this.elbowloh said:
You kidding right? Take the Costa del sol for example, full of British estate agents, carpenters, brickies, carpenters, gardeners, cafe owners etcjohn80 said:
My question was what Brits benefited from freedom of movement. In my mind it was mainly young people willing to work foreign jobs for low pay and some lifestyle experience and those that were well educated in relatively senior jobs. In each case learning the language of your host country was pretty much obligatory.ballysmate said:
I was actually being ironic and in some part self deprecating but hey ho.pangolin said:Are you being intentionally dense?
Bally complaining about the quality of debate belongs firmly in the irony thread.
An analogy closer to the hearts of many on her.
Until recently, we were a member of the EU and as such, enjoyed freedom of movement. The UK workforce was targeted by employers across the EU, just like the workers of the other 27 countries. This made it easy for Brits to work across the EU as people on the other thread kept pointing out.
Since leaving, we are no longer part of the targeted pool of manpower. Sure, we can still apply, but are at a disadvantage. Again as pointed out in the other thread.
By being removed from the targeted pool of manpower, we no longer enjoy the same opportunities and freedom of movement as experienced by the remaining 27.
Same applies to the nurses above. If they are not part of the targeted group they can't experience the same advantages as those that are.
I presume nobody is going to argue that our opportunities have not been altered by bus now being treated differently by the EU?
How many normal jobs such as brickies, admin roles, manufacturing jobs etc where being taken up by UK nationals. The thing is those young people will still be getting jobs as windsurfing instructors and chalet girls and my mates that are engineers are still working in the EU as before as the companies want those particular skills. Freedom of movement was mainly a one way benefit and whether people like it or not the majority of the UK population were not willing to put up with the downsides for the smaller upside hence Brexit as it still to this day does not adversely affect the majority of the UK population to anything more than filling out a form to get into Spain for a two week holiday.
The chap who delivered my wardrobe last week until recently ran his own drinks wholesalers in Spain, supplying local restaurants and cafes.0 -
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
0 -
See my EU analogy.rjsterry said:
I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that the absence of a targeted recruitment campaign is a restriction on free movement of labour. People from those listed countries can and do continue to be employed by the NHS.ballysmate said:
Last word on this, I promise.rjsterry said:
I can see that if this policy restricted freedom of movement that would be incongruous, but it doesn't. The only thing that is restricted is active recruitment drives targeting these countries.ballysmate said:rjsterry said:
I'll try one more time.ballysmate said:
How would you describe barring someone from coming here to work based solely on their profession and country of origin?rjsterry said:
No, it really wasn't.ballysmate said:
Did people not say that there is no logical distinction between free internal labour movement and cross border movement? And to make such a distinction was xenophobic? It was then suggested that nurses in some countries should be denied this right to movement.rjsterry said:
Nobody is advocating that.ballysmate said:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524182/
Those that advocate freedom of movement for all except nurses, do you think that the EU should ban the movement of medical staff from Poland, for example, where they are suffering a critical shortage?
I suppose it goes without saying that you think we in the UK shouldn't take on any Polish nurses.
SC wasn't advocating that. He was saying that an employer (the NHS in this case) shouldn't look to actively recruit preferentially from one country over another, especially where that country has a shortage of skilled labour in that field. This is in line with current NHS recruitment guidelines. That is not barring anyone from applying.
More info here.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/your-workforce/recruit/employer-led-recruitment/international-recruitment/uk-code-of-practice-for-international-recruitment/list-of-developing-countries
Actually SC said that it was a disgrace that the UK HAD been recruiting, which as BB pointed out appears not to be the case if they are not recruiting from countries on that list. As the list includes Yugoslavia, I assume the list has been in existence and adhered to for 30 years.
Can you still not see the incongruence of considering it xenophobic not to allow cross border labour recruitment and then bar a particular group from being recruited? If you allow cross border recruitment and movement (as you don't want to be a xenophobe), you would be able to recruit an unlimited amount of, say, potato pickers. The inference being that you would be able to recruit nurses as potato pickers but not to work as nurses. That would be crazy.
The 'debate' (for the want of a better word) over the last few pages was set against the background of cross border movement of labour. How is it fair to single out one group of workers for stricter control if you are an advocate of freedom of movement of labour?
So if we agree that if there is a restriction from actively recruiting a particular group, that group will suffer some restriction of opportunity. ie discrimination.
If you place any discrimination on freedom of movement, you no longer have freedom of movement do you? That's pretty much what restriction means.
We are no longer part of the targeted workforce within the EU. Are you suggesting that we still enjoy freedom of movement because some UK nationals still find employment in Europe?0 -
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.0 -
If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?rick_chasey said:
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
You'll have Pango calling you dense. 1 -
You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.ballysmate said:
If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?rick_chasey said:
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
You'll have Pango calling you dense.0 -
This all sounds fine, but to reiterate nobody is being penalised or prevented from leaving because they are too qualified.ballysmate said:
I actually laughed out loud to that.rick_chasey said:
No, I get your point, but you're just nit picking other arguments without sharing your own.ballysmate said:
I get SC's sentiment, as I have previously said. I get the motive.rick_chasey said:Tell us what you think about it Bally, rather than just picking holes in other people's argument.
My point was, and is, you cannot feel it xenophobic to treat cross border movement of labour differently to local movement and then want to impose restrictive rules for the recruitment of a particular group of foreign workers, without considering it to be discrimination, whatever your motives.
Everyone's a critic. Share your own, hyper consistent beliefs.
You only tend to pipe up to point out hypocrisy. You're like our own mini guido fawkes.
Everyone's a hypocrite.
From the man who scours the forum, and I dare suppose other interactions, for signs of anybody not being on message so he can denounce any perceived ism.
My thoughts on recruiting nurses?
We don't have freedom of movement cross border and nor should we. Nobody does. The EU has internal freedom but it has external borders over which it exercises control.
Regarding nurses. Like yourself, I am only concerned with their suitability and like you, I feel that their ability to speak the language of the country in which they work should be a given. And as I have previously stated, we should employ the best applicant.
Yes, nurses from third world countries look to move abroad in search of a better life and who are we to stop them? I certainly wouldn't prevent any other person seeking to do the same if they saw an opportunity so why prevent nurses or any other skill set?
I am aware that it may leave a skills vacuum in some countries and that would need addressing, but not by penalising people and preventing them leaving because they are too qualified. It is a fact of life that people seek to move from poorer areas to somewhere they think will offer a better life.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I asked if you were being intentionally dense, it's an important distinctionballysmate said:
If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?rick_chasey said:
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
You'll have Pango calling you dense.
I'm still not sure- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I am amazed at how long he can get you to play alongpangolin said:
I asked if you were being intentionally dense, it's an important distinctionballysmate said:
If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?rick_chasey said:
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
You'll have Pango calling you dense.
I'm still not sure0 -
I'll try again.rick_chasey said:
You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.ballysmate said:
If you can't enter the country, how can you be a candidate?rick_chasey said:
What if the criteria precludes getting the best candidate?ballysmate said:
As I said, we should appoint the best applicant.rick_chasey said:So to summarise, you want the best person to fill any job but at the same time want immigration restrictions - does that sound about right? Or is it only specific to people who might be looking after you in your moments of need?
If it is the case I'll pipe up with the obvious contradiction there.
To be an applicant you have to meet the UK immigration criteria. If you meet those and you are the best candidate, then the job is yours.
If you don't meet the criteria, you can't apply can you? We don't have freedom of movement.
You'll have Pango calling you dense.
The criteria for a whatever job in the UK.
The required qualifications
Experience in the relevant field.
The right to reside and work in the UK.
Any others you can think of.
If you don't satisfy all of those criteria, how can you be the best candidate?
0
