Sports direct being sports direct again

Here's an interesting one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35604776

The headline really is sports direct acting like Victorian mill owners and shoe horning workers into really cramped and illegal housing. Needlessly tight when there are plenty of 3 bed houses up for grabs for less than 80 grand a pop - I checked. Go on rightmove like I did - the link won't work.

However, underneath the headlines is the fact that sports direct has to ship workers from Eastern Europe. I've been to shirebrook. There is no need to go t to Eastern Europe for workers - even bolsover district council agrees (can't speak for the accuracy or date of their figures) http://www.bolsover.gov.uk/LocalPlan/chapter04.htm

What's going on?

Another reason to leave the EU.

Another reason to leave the EU.

It's a crap reason to leave the EU. It's a good reason to boycott sports direct.

It's a crap reason to leave the EU. It's a good reason to boycott sports direct.

They are just doing what is best for them and their customers and the EU is the reason they can get away with such business practices.

They are just doing what is best for them and their customers and the EU is the reason they can get away with such business practices.

What a load of old rubbish. The sort of sharp practice being shown here is squarely at the feet of the local council.

What a load of old rubbish. The sort of sharp practice being shown here is squarely at the feet of the local council.

The local council have no control who sports direct choose to employ, sports direct can only get away with this because they have access to millions of desperate people in need of work.

The local council have no control who sports direct choose to employ, sports direct can only get away with this because they have access to millions of desperate people in need of work.

Does the eu regulate housing? Make sure rented accommodation is safe?

Does the eu regulate housing? Make sure rented accommodation is safe?

Probably not but it does allow sports direct to bring cheap labour in from all over Europe instead of employing unemployed people already living in the area.

The people from Shiregreen who are unemployed don't want to work for Sportsdirect, they get more in benefits by staying at home. Easiest solution to that problem, as well as the benefits for migrants debacle is by cutting benefits for the unemployed and raising the minimum income for those in work.

The people from Shiregreen who are unemployed don't want to work for Sportsdirect, they get more in benefits by staying at home. Easiest solution to that problem, as well as the benefits for migrants debacle is by cutting benefits for the unemployed and raising the minimum income for those in work.

It's a good solution but it isn't required whilst we have the free movement of people, and upping the minimum income for those in work will just encourage more people into the UK.

The people from Shiregreen who are unemployed don't want to work for Sportsdirect, they get more in benefits by staying at home. Easiest solution to that problem, as well as the benefits for migrants debacle is by cutting benefits for the unemployed and raising the minimum income for those in work.

Shirebrook Tim, keep up;);)

Is it as simple as that though? Just cut benifits? I'll wager sports direct got a tax or government kickback somewhere by opening there - creating jobs will be one of the criteria. Should the criteria be jobs for local people?

It's a good solution but it isn't required whilst we have the free movement of people, and upping the minimum income for those in work will just encourage more people into the UK.

Have you ever wondered why people from Poland are prepared to move 3000 kilometres to get a lowly job and people from Shirebrook (or wherever) don't want to move 20 miles to get a lowly job? That is what the key problem is. If the people in Shirebrook had no option but to move so they could work and contribute rather than sit at home and claim benefits, there is no need for Poles in low paid jobs. Free movement of people isn't the issue here, people in work contribute, period.

Shirebrook Tim, keep up;);)

 

Is it as simple as that though? Just cut benifits? I'll wager sports direct got a tax or government kickback somewhere by opening there - creating jobs will be one of the criteria. Should the criteria be jobs for local people?

There is a deeper issue here, these companies open up in areas where there are people who could do the work, it is usually part of the list of criteria for selecting a site, but if those who could do the work then don't bother because they get more by staying at home than that is an issue. You can't then undo the massive investment and try somewhere else.

I am not defending Sportsdirect by the way, I don't know enough about this situation, but this general problem exists. Have a look at a place like Goldthorpe, a friend of mine has lived there for years and works in Sheffield, in his street there are some 20 houses, we got to talk about it because he is thinking of moving here, despite being a Dearne Valley bloke. But 14 of those houses have people with no qualifications and no desire to work in them ("If only't mine were still open!") in the meantime there are plenty of vacancies at less then half an hours commute.