The Times picks up on Migrant IT Workers

[ASB]

Nissan actually did this in reverse TO the UK for manufacture of a certain type of car, as limitations were put on them for employment rights.

It was nothing to do with employment rights. It was about quota pure and simple (granted the factory in Sunderland is very efficient). It's also worthy of note that since the master Franchise was in fact held by Octav Botnar they were not able to establish a corporate base here until after he had done a runner (complete with a large amount of tax revenue). It was this that prompted Nissans initial foray into the UK to maintain dealership.

[RichardCranium]

You'll find this board riddled with groupthink.

WHS

[gingerjedi]

WHS

WHS

[Incognito]

WHS

WHS

WHS

[Sysman]

WTF

WHS

[Incognito]

Agreed those were in manufacturing sector. I think they disappeared because it was cheaper (= more profitable) to do their work somewhere else.

Similarly I think companies here that keep buying services at a higher price that can be obtained somewhere else at a much cheaper price will become wise and buy it somewhere else or will die.

You don't get it though, they're not buying services elsewhere, they're replacing existing services with imported staff. This isn't the same as building a ship in China rather than Britain.

You can't have your cake and eat it, if you want cheap labour then locate to the market that can provide it, don't bring the market to you as you then actually manipulate the existing market. As someone said, these people get paid below market rates and don't pay a related level of tax or living expenses, etc. This is not a level playing field and is against the rules.

[Gary_Jones]

Ah! more balanced views, I should wait longer before getting all huffy

in response to are all FTSE 100 MD's stupid (or words to that effect) NO. And this is what most people miss , under our new global corporate law - like it or lump it - MD's cannot make decisions based on quality, or morality or anything - ONLY PROFIT.

The number 1 rule of the American / UK (since Thatcher) Business is this - the MD MUST maximise profits for the shareholders.

All I've ever been trying to say is that if you're going to complain about migrant workers it cant be on the grounds of "OI EEZ STEALING MY JOB" because the job is global and its up for the lowest bidder at the acceptable level of quality (thanks above poster)

I've just done a job in Australia with a working visa and got paid below an AUSTRALIAN citizen's market rules (employers HAVE to pay pension contributions by law) - it works both ways. Birmingham and the North in the 70's were full of outside workers as labour was cheap, but they were jobs no one wanted to do - now the developing world is developing so that individuals have the ability to compete with skilled westerners - is good for business , combined with increased globalisation of the corporate world.

Also saying but this is a service industry and thats manufacturing, I cant really get to grips with, what does it matter? business is business innit, unless its Public Service free at point of use?

end spam... but that's the angle I'm coming from.

[Incognito]

And yet more and more large companies keep using cheaper Indian service providers.

Why? Can't they see through this? Don't they have managers who think as clearly as most CUK forum users? Are ALL the FTSE 100 company managers incompetent, short sighted, cynical or corrupt?

I think it is because finally the projects are still delivered at a cheaper price at an acceptable quality. At the ground level you (and me too) see lot of problems with quality of implementation. But the final outcome is good enough and cheaper more often than not.

Oh please, like the FTSE 100 care about anything internal as long as the profit margins look good and their share price keeps rising. Who cares that it takes Joe down in the depot five times as long to upload an order, it cost a 1/3 of what it would have cost to code in house, who cares that support costs come from a different budget that's not the PM's responsibility.

[Sysman]

Nissan actually did this in reverse TO the UK for manufacture of a certain type of car, as limitations were put on them for employment rights. If it goes to Sunderland UK, then the government doesnt care about employment rights, just the fact that it will generate employment and raise GDP.

As far as I recall, the chief motivation for the Japanese setting up vehicle manufacture in the UK was to get access to the European markets. Any additional employment costs they may have incurred were seen as a price worth paying to achieve that.

[ratewhore]

WHS