• 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!

Reply to: Sensible Labour

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Sensible Labour"

Collapse

  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    What are visa regulations like for dull sockies?
    Why? Are you planning on joining him?

    Leave a comment:


  • RasputinDude
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Trade unions exploit bad management which some British bosses make very easy.
    I most certainly agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by RasputinDude View Post
    From my experience of working in this sector, many other countries do infact already implement this sort of protectionism.

    Don't get me wrong, I tend to think that the whole thing is a bad idea in general - largely because I don't trust trades unions not to try to exploit it, but I was specifically contesting your statement because there is actually a get out clause for national security in WTO rules.
    indeed

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by RasputinDude View Post
    From my experience of working in this sector, many other countries do infact already implement this sort of protectionism.

    Don't get me wrong, I tend to think that the whole thing is a bad idea in general - largely because I don't trust trades unions not to try to exploit it, but I was specifically contesting your statement because there is actually a get out clause for national security in WTO rules.
    Trade unions exploit bad management which some British bosses make very easy.
    Last edited by SueEllen; 25 August 2020, 08:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by RasputinDude View Post
    From my experience of working in this sector, many other countries do infact already implement this sort of protectionism.
    Britain has a thriving industry and is particularly dependent on exports so it doesn't really make sense.

    I can't see the US accepting it given the reciprocal nature of the business.

    Leave a comment:


  • RasputinDude
    replied
    From my experience of working in this sector, many other countries do infact already implement this sort of protectionism.

    Don't get me wrong, I tend to think that the whole thing is a bad idea in general - largely because I don't trust trades unions not to try to exploit it, but I was specifically contesting your statement because there is actually a get out clause for national security in WTO rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    Originally posted by RasputinDude View Post
    Which as you can see here - WTO | legal texts - Revised Agreement on Government Procurement

    Has the following exemption...

    Article III — Security and General Exceptions

    Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from taking any action or not disclosing any information that it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes.
    Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Parties where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from imposing or enforcing measures:
    necessary to protect public morals, order or safety;
    necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
    necessary to protect intellectual property; or
    relating to goods or services of persons with disabilities, philanthropic institutions or prison labour.
    So do you not think other countries might not reciprocate ?

    Would that be good for British Engineering companies that provide defence equipment all over the world, all of which are Government procurement contracts ?

    UK defence and security export statistics for 2018 - GOV.UK

    On a rolling 10 year basis, the UK remains the second largest global defence exporter after the USA.

    In 2018, the UK won defence orders worth £14 billion, up on the previous year (£14 billion) and illustrative of the volatile nature of the global export market for defence.
    I wonder how many jobs are safeguarded by contracts worth £14 billion.

    Safeguard 200 jobs at an ailing ship builder and lose 2000 jobs in a top class defence exporter.
    Last edited by BlasterBates; 25 August 2020, 07:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • RasputinDude
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    The UK is signed up to the Government Procurement Agreeement which is part of WTO rules, i.e. the UK opens up its procurement to other countries and so has access to overseas contracts. If Britain goes "North Korea" it might be able to safeguard a few hundred jobs in a British shipyard but will lose thousands of jobs dependent on overseas contracts.

    Not a good idea.
    Which as you can see here - WTO | legal texts - Revised Agreement on Government Procurement

    Has the following exemption...

    Article III — Security and General Exceptions

    Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from taking any action or not disclosing any information that it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to the procurement of arms, ammunition or war materials, or to procurement indispensable for national security or for national defence purposes.
    Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between Parties where the same conditions prevail or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent any Party from imposing or enforcing measures:
    necessary to protect public morals, order or safety;
    necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health;
    necessary to protect intellectual property; or
    relating to goods or services of persons with disabilities, philanthropic institutions or prison labour.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotAllThere
    replied
    Originally posted by SimonMac View Post
    So labour wants to overpay for a fleet of ships so it can prop up it's union paymasters by keeping their subs rolling in?
    These are ships, not subs.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    The UK is signed up to the Government Procurement Agreeement which is part of WTO rules, i.e. the UK opens up its procurement to other countries and so has access to overseas contracts. If Britain goes "North Korea" it might be able to safeguard a few hundred jobs in a British shipyard but will lose thousands of jobs dependent on overseas contracts.

    Not a good idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    FOG

    Leave a comment:


  • Old Greg
    replied
    Originally posted by elsergiovolador View Post
    If I had a capacity to earn £5000 a week, I would start looking for a country that doesn't play Robin Hood.
    What are visa regulations like for dull sockies?

    Leave a comment:


  • elsergiovolador
    replied
    Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
    Would you rather earn £200 per week and pay no tax, or £5,000 per week and pay 55% tax? Hypothetically of course.
    If I had a capacity to earn £5000 a week, I would start looking for a country that doesn't play Robin Hood.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by minestrone View Post
    The steel work could easily be knocked up in Korea or Japan for a fraction of the price then towed over.
    Because those industries are subsidised.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
    Obviously there have to be limits, governments should not prop up low-performing companies at the taxpayers' expense unless there is real prospect of improvement. However, it makes no sense to save a few million on a contract and risk losing a reasonably effective, tax paying, Brit-employing company that is worth a lot more to our economy.
    Stop being sensible...

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X