Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
As long as they are youngish, have no children here and leave well before they can claim a state pension it's ok as they will be contributors.
My uncle immigrated to the UK in the early 1960s. Stayed for about 10 years before he then moved to live permanently in Canada.
In 2005 he came for a visit to the UK. My dad took him to department of pensions so he could claim his state pension entitlement for having worked 10 years in the UK.
In Canadians dollars it worked out at 300 hundred dollars a month for the rest of his life. A nice little windfall for him, he didnt know he could claim it.
I seem to recall that remain to leave isn't quite the lifelong right to live here that one might expect. There does seem to be some kind of 'feck off when you get old' aspect to it.
Not having had to suffer the UK immigration system, I don't know how true that is. It's just something a South African friend mentioned to me.
Pre-settled expires after 6month(I know a few people that during the pandemic went away to work remotely and had to return because of that)
settled /ILR after 5 years out of the country.
trouble is if you have any brush with the law, they say that you might be handed an one way ticket to leave
I worked at a fairly high level for a fortune 500 company when the brexit vote was returned, when planning for brexit was discussed their only concern was that they would lose their cheap labour. Shipping & standards weren't really mentioned. No plan to mitigate.
So, executives who have fiduciary responsibilities were rightly concerned about imminent cost crisis at the company and you think it was wrong?
Was if they came up with a plan to mitigate them by cutting everybody else's salaries by 20%, would you get on board with that?
Or perhaps they should have just increased prices, lose market share and sack 20% of workforce because of that?
Perhaps you should think about it next time you in office, cleaning the floors.
So, executives who have fiduciary responsibilities were rightly concerned about imminent cost crisis at the company and you think it was wrong?
Was if they came up with a plan to mitigate them by cutting everybody else's salaries by 20%, would you get on board with that?
Or perhaps they should have just increased prices, lose market share and sack 20% of workforce because of that?
Perhaps you should think about it next time you in office, cleaning the floors.
If they thought they could cut wages by 20% or more they would, that is the underlying issue they cut wages by using cheap labour now their crimes are catching up with them.
They want more cheap staff whose existence you will subsidise via your taxes, now if you are ok with that then you are a useful idiot.
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.
Comment