EU Voting Purely About Migrants?

[MobileB 10]

It's £536 to apply for a licence to sponsor people, and it lasts for four years - it's hardly expensive, and it's something we already have as a business. As for the costs involved from the potential employee's POV, that's not our problem, it's the costs he has to pay himself to work in the UK. Not sure why you see it as a big issue?

 

When it comes to proving if he is the only person suitable for the job, all you need to do is prove that a) it's been advertised for 28 days and b) that of those candidates that applied, he was the most suitable candidate. That's it. Seeing as all our candidates come via agencies, they do all that for us.

 

Plus, that wage is the bottom rate for a junior position, which is what they all apply for.

 

 

 

If I was flipping burgers I'd still be your superior, sunshine

 

So you are small business with a registered monitor on your books. You advertise for at least 28 days and show that person you are sponsoring is of a higher calibre than an EU citizen who has applied for the role. The onus being on the monitor to show they are complying with rules of visa (eg no other job and the job they are doing is exactly what the sponsorship and advertisement is for). They are in your books not the agency so you cannot blame them if it you cannot show this. That is a lot of work for a "junior" position.

Edited June 18, 2016 by MobileB

[the_bloke 17]

So you are small business with a registered monitor on your books. You advertise for at least 28 days and show that person you are sponsoring is of a higher calibre than an EU citizen who has applied for the role. The onus being on the monitor to show they are complying with rules of visa (eg no other job and the job they are doing is exactly what the sponsorship and advertisement is for). They are in your books not the agency so you cannot blame them if it you cannot show this. That is a lot of work for a "junior" position.

 

No, we're not especially a small business but our UK office is financially separate from our US office, and our earnings are just under that £5m threshold for paying the differing amounts for a sponsorship licence. We have an HR department and juniors have job specifications and regular reviews with senior members of the team to make sure they are doing their job, so no, it's really not a lot of work for a junior position.

 

We have taken on employees from outside of the EU as they were the best candidates for the job, but we try and avoid it as they are over-qualified and also use the junior role given as a reason to get the visa then obtain employment elsewhere as soon as possible once the urgency has passed. *Not* because they are harder to employ than from someone within the EU.

 

I see you desperately trying to pick holes in this as I assume it doesn't match your own experience of recruitment in the IT sector, or doesn't match your political viewpoint - but perhaps next time you venture into a decent size IT organisation, take note of the people performing the low paying technical roles such as in house desktop support or first line external technical support please?

[MobileB 10]

No, we're not especially a small business but our UK office is financially separate from our US office, and our earnings are just under that £5m threshold for paying the differing amounts for a sponsorship licence. We have an HR department and juniors have job specifications and regular reviews with senior members of the team to make sure they are doing their job, so no, it's really not a lot of work for a junior position.

 

We have taken on employees from outside of the EU as they were the best candidates for the job, but we try and avoid it as they are over-qualified and also use the junior role given as a reason to get the visa then obtain employment elsewhere as soon as possible once the urgency has passed. *Not* because they are harder to employ than from someone within the EU.

 

I see you desperately trying to pick holes in this as I assume it doesn't match your own experience of recruitment in the IT sector, or doesn't match your political viewpoint - but perhaps next time you venture into a decent size IT organisation, take note of the people performing the low paying technical roles such as in house desktop support or first line external technical support please?

 

Not trying to pick holes. I am saying that employing from outside the EU is not the simple process implied. IF the role is as junior as stated why would you want to spend over a month to recruit, pay the sponsorship fee, ensure the employee meets the sponsorship requirement (and from next April not be able to reclaim the apprentice levy) etc etc when there is a plentiful supply from within the EU.

 

Think its worth saying as well that if they did use you as a stepping stone then they would have to go through the whole process again to obtain the other job. They would not be allowed to start the new job without an updated visa and it is currently taking between 6 and 9 months to process. They can apply for an interim visa but on Tier 2 general they are not granted often. Unlike Tier 2 sporting......

[Michaeldyn 10]

It's £536 to apply for a licence to sponsor people, and it lasts for four years - it's hardly expensive, and it's something we already have as a business. As for the costs involved from the potential employee's POV, that's not our problem, it's the costs he has to pay himself to work in the UK. Not sure why you see it as a big issue?

 

When it comes to proving if he is the only person suitable for the job, all you need to do is prove that a) it's been advertised for 28 days and b) that of those candidates that applied, he was the most suitable candidate. That's it. Seeing as all our candidates come via agencies, they do all that for us.

 

Plus, that wage is the bottom rate for a junior position, which is what they all apply for.

 

If I was flipping burgers I'd still be your superior, sunshine

 

Make your mind up, do you pay peanut wages or do you the minimum 20800? Do you know how many pages you have to fill in?? advert in local paper to show you cant get a local person to do the job? etc etc stop talking rubblish and make it up as you go along, it doesnt make you look clever

[the_bloke 17]

Not trying to pick holes. I am saying that employing from outside the EU is not the simple process implied. IF the role is as junior as stated why would you want to spend over a month to recruit, pay the sponsorship fee, ensure the employee meets the sponsorship requirement (and from next April not be able to reclaim the apprentice levy) etc etc when there is a plentiful supply from within the EU.

 

Recruiting always takes time, a month isn't a big deal. Recruitment isn't a knee jerk reaction, we know what work we are needing staff for at least a quarter in advance, it's called project management and having a roadmap. We can only employ people that have applied for the role; like I said, something like 75% of the applications we'll have are from non EU workers registered with agencies. Plus, as I've said before, we'd rather employ someone who can grow into the role and advance within the company, not use it as a stepping stone. Junior roles take a lot of training and work from leads and management for the first six months, so getting the right candidate who provides a return on that investment is vital.

 

All our recruitment is done through an agency that then passes on to us the relevant evidence of their candidate's eligibility to work in the country. It's what we pay them for, it's not in the interests of the agency to put forward candidates that can't work in the UK. We'll ask for copies of everything before the candidate starts work, but we already know what documentation to expect as the agency has already checked it over.

 

It is a simple process, and it's performed in lots of companies across the country. Just because you haven't had experience of it or you think it sounds expensive due to the sponsorship licence involved, doesn't mean this happens.

 

Make your mind up, do you pay peanut wages or do you the minimum 20800? Do you know how many pages you have to fill in?? advert in local paper to show you cant get a local person to do the job? etc etc stop talking rubblish and make it up as you go along, it doesnt make you look clever

 

Haha, you are scraping the barrel here. £20,800 is peanuts for a junior IT role (compare against the average graduate salary in Yorkshire), and very few IT roles are ever advertised in the local newspaper anymore unless it's for something tiny like 'Daves PC spares' working out of a lockup in Attercliffe. I think you're in above your head here chum.

Edited June 18, 2016 by the_bloke

[*_ash_* 88]

 

@Ash - I have not been clear enough in my post. So I will quote myself and elaborate on it. My issue is with this sentence from the post I quoted,

 

That is an assumption that simply doesn't work. The lowest wages in the UK have been going up, which is what I tried to point out here:

 

 

 

What I, rather clumsily, tried to say was that minimum and low wages have gone up despite the economic crash. Tax-pressure has come down (tax-free base) and across the board wages in the UK have gone up.

 

OK, I wrote:

and it drives wages down for the country with high wages/employment (us for example!)

 

Let me be clearer too: It drives wages closer to/equal to the NMW level.

 

I don't blame the EU for this as it happens, not initially anyway. I blame Blair. The NMW originally drove wages down towards the new NMW at the time. I saw this with my own eyes, I don't need a link.

 

I've posted the example on here enough times. There was a small percentage of people whose wages increased, cleaners etc., but unskilled jobs that paid more than the original NMW initially went DOWN to match the NMW and this spread quickly, hence why people were and always are wanting it to be put UP. I then blame Blair for trying to patch this up with more complicating tax-credits. Then pulled semi-skilled and many skilled jobs into this NMW mix thing, in 2004.

 

It is a very often heard, and completely untrue statement that migration to the UK has suppressed wages. It hasn't, wages have been climbing above the rate of inflation. One could in fact argue the complete opposite - due to the immigration of highly skilled and knowledgeable workers the UK economy is becoming stronger compared to its competitors and therefore is able to pay more wages.

 

So I asked this question, again, placed out of context, but now hopefully in context:

 

bold: Wages have increased or NMW has increased?

 

Of course as NMW increases then people who are supervisors/managers also have to go up. It's hardly a stable way of doing things. It's all artificial.

 

I don't know how long it is since you looked for work, but for me it's 6 months, and in this time, most work that I've done in the past, and am able to apply for is ALL NMW. The competition for this work is also much greater than in the 90s when I was last looking for work. I used to jump from contract to contract and even on agencies, earned decent wages.

 

You look up semi-skilled and many skilled trades in there. All NMW.

 

Do you consider the semi-skilled workers who are self-employed? I pick these people up every day, and hear the same things. More hours to make up the money.

 

 

Your point about unbalanced wages across the Union is irrelevant - the reason is simple. The nations where average wages are lower, are also considerably cheaper to live in. Living in the UK is a lot more expensive.

 

No it isn't. We know that many people share houses to keep their costs down, and so they can send money to their families. People here don't want to live like that, as you can see from all the examples in here about people not being able to afford to rent or buy property.

 

 

I said that because, frankly, you don't have a foundation for your claim. I did not say you were racist, I hinted at the fact that your viewpoint came across as xenophobic.

 

The foundations for my claims are my experience of 26 years in the workforce, and a keen eye for details.

 

 

To then claim the old 'racist' card is rather typical of the anti-migration folk, wouldn't you agree?

 

You said 'Sounds to me like you are basing your position on a dislike of Eastern Europeans, with no foundation.'

 

Xenophobic/racist, either way, I don't believe you have the foundation to accuse me of such, just for addressing the immigration issues.

 

In my last job, I helped many taxi drivers who were new to the country how to do the job well (though mainly non-EU migrants).

 

-

 

also since the title is 'purely about migrants', I will point out, this is not my 'pure reason' for anything let alone this referendum. I don't think the remain campaign has been honest any more than the Brexit one.

 

My reasons for out probably boil down to about 4 different issues in total (all written in the other threads).

Edited June 19, 2016 by *_ash_*

[MobileB 10]

Recruiting always takes time, a month isn't a big deal. Recruitment isn't a knee jerk reaction, we know what work we are needing staff for at least a quarter in advance, it's called project management and having a roadmap. We can only employ people that have applied for the role; like I said, something like 75% of the applications we'll have are from non EU workers registered with agencies. Plus, as I've said before, we'd rather employ someone who can grow into the role and advance within the company, not use it as a stepping stone. Junior roles take a lot of training and work from leads and management for the first six months, so getting the right candidate who provides a return on that investment is vital.

 

All our recruitment is done through an agency that then passes on to us the relevant evidence of their candidate's eligibility to work in the country. It's what we pay them for, it's not in the interests of the agency to put forward candidates that can't work in the UK. We'll ask for copies of everything before the candidate starts work, but we already know what documentation to expect as the agency has already checked it over.

 

It is a simple process, and it's performed in lots of companies across the country. Just because you haven't had experience of it or you think it sounds expensive due to the sponsorship licence involved, doesn't mean this happens.

 

 

 

Haha, you are scraping the barrel here. £20,800 is peanuts for a junior IT role (compare against the average graduate salary in Yorkshire), and very few IT roles are ever advertised in the local newspaper anymore unless it's for something tiny like 'Daves PC spares' working out of a lockup in Attercliffe. I think you're in above your head here chum.

 

I wanted to be on access to keyboard before I replied to this fully as there are number of points.

 

As said, I am not picking holes - it is your company policy after all but I do wonder, to be honest, if the reasons you are stating you are rejecting the non-EU citizens are correct.

 

You state that the jobs are the "lowest of the low" - I appreciate that in the scale of an IT graduate that might be the case - the average entry wage for IT graduates is circa £23,000 which is above the minimum salary set by the UK Government for applications for a Tier 2 General visa.

 

It is the process behind this that I am struggling with.

 

You state you are a small company - the threshold is turnover of £6.5 million (not £5 million as you stated) or less than 50 employees. I would suggest that if the minimum wage you are paying is £20,800 then you will not have many more than 50 employees if your turnover is less than £6.5 million (unless you are working to some stupid incredibly tight margins which I know IT companies do not work to!!).

 

So the process is - you become a sponsor (presumably Grade A sponsor), pays your monies and then you advertise a post for a minimum of 28 days (which you state is what the Agency does on your behalf). Remember you have to advertise the specific position (so I presume you have systems in place to check this because if you haven't, it is you that will be fined/your MD put potentially given a prison sentence and struck off). You will then go through an interview process at which you make a job offer. At this stage, the applicant, who is not an EU citizen, will apply for a Tier 2 General Visa, which will take a minimum of 3 weeks to get (but can take up to 3 months). They will need to ensure they have the criteria at their end (which you said you don't care about but includes minimum savings, can speak English etc). They also have to pay a fee which is two scales depending on if they are applying for up to 3 years or more than 3 years and also a Healthcare surcharge for each year that they wish the visa to run for.

 

Some other points - if they don't have the savings to support (and if they bring their family they must also have savings) then you would have to advance them a minimum of £645 for the employee and for each family member.

 

If they are working for another company then they will need to apply for a visa adjustment which can take longer - as well as serve their notice period.

 

So, we are talking an absolute minimum of 8 weeks but realistically will take about 12 weeks. As a small company, you are telling me you can wait three months to employ "the lowest of the low" when there is a plentiful pool of EU citizens available? The person would have to be something special for you to wait and even if they were and you did, I would question whether that would be the correct position for them if it is the lowest of the low..

 

I am not doubting for one minute that when you advertise the role you receives loads of applications from both EU and none-EU citizens. I just doubt that the reason for rejection is because you want to give EU citizens a chance above none-EU. For a small business it is a real ball-ache to employ non-EU citizens (it is not easy for big business).

 

Also, how many instances of this have occurred in the last couple of years? You have less than 50 employees, you would have to have some attrition rate for this to be a regular process........

 

None EU citizens formed the majority of immigrants last year despite this ball-ache. But without doubt the majority are high paid jobs into big business and public services for which it is worth going through the pain.

 

The new immigration act that comes into force next month has made a number of changes that will make this even harder (including raising the wages threshold).

 

As said, your policy but I cannot see how your reasons for rejecting is correct.

Edited June 20, 2016 by MobileB

[L00b 441]

For a small business it is a real ball-ache to employ non-EU citizens (it is not easy for big business).

Not least in view of the criminal liability that accompanies filling the paperwork incorrectly

 

As posted in t'other thread, I have a few local SME clients who have employed non-EU immigrants in recent times (students post-graduation), in each case it has been a Chinese or a South American national as part of an export drive in these countries, the thinking being that they want an in-house (i.e. locally-controllable) resource 'on tap' to attack the market at the coalface, rather than through an agent or distributor appointed locally.

 

Not sure why they don't prefer use this last option (time-honoured and -served as an export strategy), but I'm confident they've done their cost-benefit and SWOT analyses, as they're absolutely not wet-behind-the-ears start-ups.

[the_bloke 17]

It is the process behind this that I am struggling with.

 

You state you are a small company - the threshold is turnover of £6.5 million (not £5 million as you stated) or less than 50 employees. I would suggest that if the minimum wage you are paying is £20,800 then you will not have many more than 50 employees if your turnover is less than £6.5 million (unless you are working to some stupid incredibly tight margins which I know IT companies do not work to!!).

 

We're not just an IT company; without getting into too much detail, we also provide translation services, and have a team of translators, of which are quite fluid and aren't paid on the same level as software developers.

 

HR and finance are well versed in employing non UK nationals from within and outside of the UK, as well as working with contracted staff in other countries. We've around 50 staff in our Sheffield office, with an equal if not larger amount in an office in the states. Our UK income is quite low as most of the work is charged in the US.

 

So the process is - you become a sponsor (presumably Grade A sponsor), pays your monies and then you advertise a post for a minimum of 28 days (which you state is what the Agency does on your behalf). Remember you have to advertise the specific position (so I presume you have systems in place to check this because if you haven't, it is you that will be fined/your MD put potentially given a prison sentence and struck off). You will then go through an interview process at which you make a job offer.

 

As I stated before, the licence is already in place, the money isn't a big deal (we spend more buying an iPad for senior staff if they want one), the post is advertised via agencies and we have a two interview process anyway, sometimes three if we do telephone interviews beforehand. We know exactly what job we want someone to do, we have job specs and know well in advance what project they'd be working on, and with who. Small business doesn't equal cottage industry mentality.

 

At this stage, the applicant, who is not an EU citizen, will apply for a Tier 2 General Visa, which will take a minimum of 3 weeks to get (but can take up to 3 months). They will need to ensure they have the criteria at their end (which you said you don't care about but includes minimum savings, can speak English etc). They also have to pay a fee which is two scales depending on if they are applying for up to 3 years or more than 3 years and also a Healthcare surcharge for each year that they wish the visa to run for.

 

Some other points - if they don't have the savings to support (and if they bring their family they must also have savings) then you would have to advance them a minimum of £645 for the employee and for each family member.

 

If they are working for another company then they will need to apply for a visa adjustment which can take longer - as well as serve their notice period.

 

So, we are talking an absolute minimum of 8 weeks but realistically will take about 12 weeks. As a small company, you are telling me you can wait three months to employ "the lowest of the low" when there is a plentiful pool of EU citizens available? The person would have to be something special for you to wait and even if they were and you did, I would question whether that would be the correct position for them if it is the lowest of the low..

 

It's never taken that long before; the applicant doesn't have to hand in a notice as they aren't working anywhere, and as far as I know we've never had to wait more than a month for their visa to be changed from their student one to one that allows them to work. It's the sort of lead time you can live with, as when taking most people on you have to wait for them to work their notice with their current employer.

 

I am not doubting for one minute that when you advertise the role you receives loads of applications from both EU and none-EU citizens. I just doubt that the reason for rejection is because you want to give EU citizens a chance above none-EU. For a small business it is a real ball-ache to employ non-EU citizens (it is not easy for big business).

 

Loads of applications? I do believe I stated that something like 75% of applications are from non EU citizens. It's incredibly hard to get interest in low paying junior roles from 'traditional' UK workers. In my experience - and I'm a team lead, not the recruiter for the entire company - people from the UK seem to think little or no skills equal £27k salary rather than the £20k to £22k on offer for the junior role, and as a result they price themselves out of the market.

 

Also, how many instances of this have occurred in the last couple of years? You have less than 50 employees, you would have to have some attrition rate for this to be a regular process........

 

We've taken on three in the last five years from outside the EU compared to about 9 UK workers. Of those three, they have all left. Two of them left because their wife/husband (we've had both cases) had a chance to move elsewhere in the country for work, and one was fired.

 

As said, your policy but I cannot see how your reasons for rejecting is correct.

 

The original point was 'employing non EU staff is really hard' and I've gone at great length to point out that it isn't, especially when the framework is already in place in the business to do so. I'll concede that the paperwork side may be a pain, but that's not my problem - if the best candidate I interview for a job happens to be from outside the EU and is more suitable for the job than the other applicants, then I've never had it refused by HR or even been told that it's too hard to employ them. Maybe I've just got some great people who know what they are doing in HR?

[MobileB 10]

 

The original point was 'employing non EU staff is really hard' and I've gone at great length to point out that it isn't, especially when the framework is already in place in the business to do so. I'll concede that the paperwork side may be a pain, but that's not my problem - if the best candidate I interview for a job happens to be from outside the EU and is more suitable for the job than the other applicants, then I've never had it refused by HR or even been told that it's too hard to employ them. Maybe I've just got some great people who know what they are doing in HR?

 

I think the decision to employ is a commercial decision not a HR decision but HR will make sure you are safe! As said, not picking points and you may have a good process in place. I would say you are an exception and most companies that I have worked with (big and small) take a look at the process and run. Quickly.

 

PS You first point may sound a like a tax issue but we won't go down that line

 

---------- Post added 20-06-2016 at 13:31 ----------

 

**Just as a sub-note for anyone who has been following this riveting discussion, from this October, the £20,800 pay rate will only apply to anyone under 26. New or existing employees 26 or over on a Tier 2 General Visa will have to be paid a minimum of £25,000 and then from next April £30,000. There are also some roles classed as "skills shortage" that are on a pre-defined list that have a different minimum wage but IT is not one of them. Also from next April, companies will be allowed to transfer individuals inter-company after 12 months without the need to reapply for a new visa but the minimum salary will be £41,500 to allow this to happen. They can still apply for a transfer if they have less than 12 months service but the minimum salary will be £30,000 (increasing to £41,500 after 12 months - in other words employers cannot transfer them after 364 days in the hope to get away with paying less!).

 

Also from next April, employers will have to pay £1,000 per employee per year (£364 per employee for small businesses) for each employee that are on such a visa.

Edited June 20, 2016 by MobileB

[tzijlstra 11]

OK, I wrote:

Let me be clearer too: It drives wages closer to/equal to the NMW level.

 

I don't blame the EU for this as it happens, not initially anyway. I blame Blair. The NMW originally drove wages down towards the new NMW at the time. I saw this with my own eyes, I don't need a link.

 

I've posted the example on here enough times. There was a small percentage of people whose wages increased, cleaners etc., but unskilled jobs that paid more than the original NMW initially went DOWN to match the NMW and this spread quickly, hence why people were and always are wanting it to be put UP. I then blame Blair for trying to patch this up with more complicating tax-credits. Then pulled semi-skilled and many skilled jobs into this NMW mix thing, in 2004.

 

Nothing to disagree with there, that is indeed the effect of the NMW.

 

bold: Wages have increased or NMW has increased?

 

Of course as NMW increases then people who are supervisors/managers also have to go up. It's hardly a stable way of doing things. It's all artificial.

 

Weekly wages are up since 2000. So I am not sure why you think wages are being driven down.

 

I don't know how long it is since you looked for work, but for me it's 6 months, and in this time, most work that I've done in the past, and am able to apply for is ALL NMW. The competition for this work is also much greater than in the 90s when I was last looking for work. I used to jump from contract to contract and even on agencies, earned decent wages.

 

You look up semi-skilled and many skilled trades in there. All NMW.

 

I am looking for work now, my initial wage range is between 25K and 30K. When I finally get a permanent job (due to my trade, it is hard to get a permanent post in Universities as an early career researcher) that will climb to around 40K. So there is a qualification gap there. Have a look at this analysis, the wage distribution in the UK according to the ONS, based on tax figures I assume. Compare the 200 figures for the 50th percentile with those for 2013/2014 - your argument doesn't hold up in light of these figures.

 

Do you consider the semi-skilled workers who are self-employed? I pick these people up every day, and hear the same things. More hours to make up the money.

 

I know numerous, most have a very nice income. A recent tradesman who came here to fix something drives an Audi Q5 and has a brand new work-van. Doesn't seem like hardship to me.

 

No it isn't. We know that many people share houses to keep their costs down, and so they can send money to their families. People here don't want to live like that, as you can see from all the examples in here about people not being able to afford to rent or buy property.

 

Yet I have many friends in London who do live like that. At the same time I know many EU migrants in this area who own a house here, or rent a house. They can do so because they are being paid at British levels. I have a feeling that your point here is rather anecdotal. As demonstrated here:

 

The foundations for my claims are my experience of 26 years in the workforce, and a keen eye for details.

 

You said 'Sounds to me like you are basing your position on a dislike of Eastern Europeans, with no foundation.'

 

Xenophobic/racist, either way, I don't believe you have the foundation to accuse me of such, just for addressing the immigration issues.

 

In my last job, I helped many taxi drivers who were new to the country how to do the job well (though mainly non-EU migrants).

 

Fair enough, you are not xenophobe, but there are plenty of people who are. I don't need a keen eye for details to hear British people in my environment talk about immigrants like they are a scourge that needs cleaning. I encounter it on an almost weekly basis.

 

also since the title is 'purely about migrants', I will point out, this is not my 'pure reason' for anything let alone this referendum. I don't think the remain campaign has been honest any more than the Brexit one.

 

My reasons for out probably boil down to about 4 different issues in total (all written in the other threads).

 

I agree the remain campaign has been lying. They should have come out, openly, defending migration as the means with which the country's economy has been growing. There is a very simple rule to economic growth: either you produce more or you extract more. As the oil-industry in the UK is flat on its backside, it must be that the UK produces more. To produce more, in most cases, you need a bigger workforce. It is as simple as that.

[Tomjames 10]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-fake-revolt-eu-working-class-culture-hijacked-help-elite

 

Can't add anything more to this...it's unraveling daily that the entire leave campaign is a scam.