Working at Amazon

Sonic67

Ah ok, so those 48 people aren’t unemployed, they’re just going to other jobs.  That’s assuming alternative companies aren’t implementing the same automation meaning they have no requirement for line workers.

Why don’t these low skilled British workers just go to other jobs now instead of accepting lower wages due to immigration?

weaviemx5

No problem with that. If an employee is there every time you want them to be presumably any employer rewards that regardless of the job.

Employers want a reliable workforce. Employees want work and pay. If you aren't there often then those who are will get more.

Maybe those who aren't there often don't need it so much as they aren't the main breadwinner and just need some pin money.

weaviemx5

Yup sounded like the usual union dramatisations...

The employee can go elsewhere if the hours don't suit them...Simples...Some personal responsibility is required, otherwise perhaps a tractor factory is the best option...same work and clothing and food for everyone...Except I know personally many people who lived through that, and never again they say....They love being in control of their own destiny....

weaviemx5

Statically also more likely to put strain on anything related to law and order.

They tend to be young adult males. Work all week, drink at weekends etc. More likely for there to be drink related crime.

Sonic67

Reality Check: Can you be 'employed' for one hour's work?

But why does the ONS use one hour as the definition?
Choosing whether to define someone as being in employment or not can be a bit of a conundrum, says Tony Wilson, director at the Institute for Employment Studies.

"Why pick one hour? Well, because if you put the bar higher, you might end up classifying people as unemployed even though they're working."

"You have to draw the line somewhere," he says.

The ONS definition is also an international one - drawn up by the International Labour Organization (ILO). By choosing to use the ILO's definition , the UK's employment data is consistent with other countries, making it easier to draw international comparisons.

Sonic67

Young males in general are more likely to commit crime, obviously with the largest majority being UK born residents through volume.  However, this report from The independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), referenced via Full Fact, doesn't support the idea that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes;

EU immigrant workers in the UK: five things we learned

The “no evidence” list

No evidence that migration has reduced the training of UK-born workersNo evidence that migration has reduced the quality of healthcareNo evidence that migration has reduced parental choice in schools or the educational attainment of UK-born childrenNo evidence that migration has any effect on crime rates in England and WalesNo evidence that migration has reduced the average level of subjective well-being in the UKNo evidence that people are less satisfied with their neighbourhoods than in the pastNo evidence of higher or lower prosperity being associated with a higher or lower populationNo evidence that migrants are more likely to be working under a zero hours contract than the UK born, nor is there evidence that they more likely to switch industries between two given quartersNo evidence of migrants having preferential access to social housing
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741926/Final_EEA_report.PDF#page=109

"Conclusion

6.16. In line with earlier research, the new evidence suggests that EEA migration does not affect crime in England and Wales."

Sonic67

I agree the arbitrary 1 hour figure is a recognised standard, it just seems a ridiculous figure to use.  Wouldn't it be more realistic if it was based more on actual income through employment?  As in a minimum living wage rather than a time-based figure?  If someone actually worked for 1 hour per week, unless they were exceptionally well paid for that hour, could they actually earn enough to live off?

weaviemx5

"On unemployment, for instance, there’s no overall evidence that EEA immigration has reduced work opportunities for UK-born people. At the same time, it’s possible that some groups like younger people from the UK with fewer qualifications lose out, but the evidence on that is uncertain.

On wages, there’s a similar picture: on average, there’s no evidence that immigration reduces wages. Beyond the average, there’s some uncertain evidence it reduces earnings growth for the lower-paid and raised it for the higher-paid."

EU immigrant workers in the UK: five things we learned

Pacifico

I was going off this.

EU migration: How has it changed the UK?

Citizens of new member states were more likely to receive a caution or conviction, than UK-born people, but there are also disproportionately more younger men among migrant workers - and young men of any background are the most likely to break the law.

weaviemx5

It's a recognised standard. I'm sure they have their reasons. I'm just a poster on an AV website so I don't think I have the full picture as to why they went with it.

If it's international it's not going to be easy to get everyone to change. There won't be a standard wage for a start.