Oh Dear - he's gone and trumped them all!

[RogerS]

..... we don't pay enough for our stuff.

We certainly don't ! The price we pay dairy farmers for their milk is totally inadequate.

 

[MIGNAL]

I'm amazed how many Brexiters I've come across who hate the EU, want to see it smashed to pieces and it's complete destruction.
I find that scary. I suppose if Le Pen and the dutch guy get in then it will be all over. They will have achieved what they wanted. Just hold on to your hats.

https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history ... .sb1cpjy63

 

[RossJarvis]

In the local construction industry (I've renovated one and built two houses), there is absolutely no question that the British trades have been out competed by eastern European workers. The Eastern Europeans work for substantially lower day rates (undercutting the Brit's) and frankly the general reports are that their work ethic/rate is harder, longer, more prepared to do lates and weekends....generally more accommodating to the builder when on a tight schedule.

So I have witnessed with my own eyes the direct impact in construction and it appears to be carpentry that's most directly affected. I don't see many European Plumbers or sparks round here.

That's the only direct impact I've noticed personally. One could therefore argue that the living standards of local natives in those jobs have been directly impacted.

The other major problem here is the lack of "skilled" chippies in the "native" population. This of course varies due to supply and demand issues, but often the immigrant workers are supplying what doesn't exist here, so in a way they are not having an impact on local living standards. There is an impact where skilled workers are chosen in preference to the less skilled natives, particularly if they work at the same or lower rates to the natives.

The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. This is noted by the government who are trying to create some kind of expanded "apprenticeship" culture. Unfortunately you can't just magic this out of thin air. The infra-structure declined over many years and just doesn't exist any more. From my experience, working in a construction college the introduction/expansion of apprenticeships has been thoroughly chaotic, letting down both employers and more importantly the apprentices in an alarming way.

As with everything, there will be "teething problems", but the conversion of educational establishments to highly competitive businesses doesn't help this process, it just seems to exacerbate the problems. In a way we're faced with a perfect storm here.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

[.... I'm not arguing for or against the status quo in respect of polish workers, I was just responding to your assertion that the EU has only affected us positively. I think its reasonable to say that a fair few British joiners have been affected by this disjoint in wage expectation....

But then the clients of these hard working efficient cheap joiners should see the EU in a positive light!
And we all benefit from the migrant agricultural workers - apparently a lot of stuff would be more expensive and even left to rot in the fields, if it wasn't for them. In other words - we don't pay enough for our stuff.

My guess is the clients of these workers would have been remainers in the main, though I admit that assumption is impossible to back up. But they clearly are the beneficiaries of free movement of labour. Talk to any local developer round here and they all extol the virtues of Polish joiners ie inexpensive and good quality.

 

[Jacob]

....
The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. ....

You can't blame higher education if the govt is not spending enough on training and vocational causes. The blame game just goes around in circles. The culprit is the government.
One of the courses I did was a TOPS course which was a condensed C&G course designed to get people back to work and had been going strong since inception following WW1. Huge range of other skills being trained up. Widely regarded as brilliant and effective - not surprising after 70 years of steady development and improvement.
They were shut down by Thatcher, for no obvious reason other than saving money.

 

[RossJarvis]

....
The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. ....

You can't blame higher education if the govt is not spending enough on training and vocational causes. The blame game just goes around in circles. The culprit is the government.
One of the courses I did was a TOPS course which was a condensed C&G course designed to get people back to work and had been going strong since inception following WW1. Huge range of other skills being trained up. Widely regarded as brilliant and effective - not surprising after 70 years of steady development and improvement.
They were shut down by Thatcher, for no obvious reason other than saving money.

I'd have to say it's a bit hard to pin the blame solely on the government (even though they are rubbish, particularly since the tragedy of 1979). There is a wider societal issue that the trades are very undervalued particularly by the elitist educational establishment and have been for years. Other countries have a much higher opinion of trades and "vocational" skills and accordingly support these paths to a much greater extent. Look at Germany for instance.

The government are just reflecting the wider view of the people. It's only recently that they have woken up to the massive skills shortage, which admittedly hasn't been helped by the governments of recent times. Unfortunately the political industry is overwhelmingly staffed by those who have done well out of the elitist academic education industry and it's only now that they can't find a plumber or carpenter that they've realised what is actually happening. Shame it's a bit too late to do much about it.

 

[RogerS]

....
The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. ....

You can't blame higher education if the govt is not spending enough on training and vocational causes. The blame game just goes around in circles. The culprit is the government.
One of the courses I did was a TOPS course which was a condensed C&G course designed to get people back to work and had been going strong since inception following WW1. Huge range of other skills being trained up. Widely regarded as brilliant and effective - not surprising after 70 years of steady development and improvement.
They were shut down by Thatcher, for no obvious reason other than saving money.

Oh dear, Jacob. And you were doing so well. You are completely wrong and misguided about the TOPS course and why it was discontinued in favour of a more relevant scheme. TOPS was started in 1972.

The Training Opportunities Scheme was introduced in 1972 and was expanded in 1974 by the Training Services Agency. By 1977 there were 500 different courses in Further Education Colleges or the TSA's own Skillcentres. Trainees had to be unemployed, over 19 and away from full time education for more than 3 years. They received a weekly allowance of £22.55 [aged 20 or over], travelling expenses and meal and other allowances.

Taken from this union history website

Alex Bowen, in his excellent contribution to the book 'Labour's Economic Policies 1974-1979', writes that 'A review of TOPS finished in 1978 concluded that the scheme should be geared more closely to the needs of the labour market; some of the skills taught had turned out to be very much in excess supply'.

So you can't blame Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Jacob]

TOPS may well have had "an introduction" in 1972 but it was picking up from various older set-ups going back a lot further, run by various agencies under various titles. The Manpower Services Commission ran it until 1987. It was going strong in 1982 (when I did it) but Skillcentres were closed along with a lot of other vocational training, under Thatcher in the interests of "efficiency" - meaning cost saving.
The course I did was essentially C&G but full time. C&G date back to 1878 (I've just googled) but got a big boost after WW1 as there was a huge skill shortage.

 

[Inoffthered]

There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.

 

[RossJarvis]

There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.

I'm leaning toward the idea that industry needs to take the responsibility back for training, some places are very good at it, but training budgets are often the first to go in hard times. Smaller employers are obviously going to be in a bind for this. Creating pointless "agencies" like CITB which are probably full of useless chair polishers attending endless meetings or "networking" or expecting "the government" to do it is unfortunately a recipe for disaster.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.

I'm leaning toward the idea that industry needs to take the responsibility back for training, some places are very good at it, but training budgets are often the first to go in hard times. Smaller employers are obviously going to be in a bind for this. Creating pointless "agencies" like CITB which are probably full of useless chair polishers attending endless meetings or "networking" or expecting "the government" to do it is unfortunately a recipe for disaster.

Funny you should ay that......a long time friend of mine started a business circa 14 years ago training project management skills (really aimed at the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen). He's since managed to grow that business to over £2M revenues largely by getting his training course into the CITB catalogue. So his sales pitch is...."'ere, dya want some free training?....your company has already got the credits through he CITB". The PM skills he's training or close to nothing to do with construction

So I'm inclined to agree that the CITB has deviated somewhat from it's original course!!!

 

[Jacob]

Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.

 

[RossJarvis]

Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.

Totally agree.

Unfortunately most youngsters appear to want to become a chair polisher and earn wads of cash, the majority who end up learning proper jobs, where you might get your hands dirty, are those who've been let down by the whole system and aren't always best prepared for it. Careers advisors, schools and the youngsters themselves generally seem to think that going into the trades or other vocational areas is the route for "failures".

 

[RobinBHM]

Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.

I had a client that ran his own business earning lots of money, he has a big house here a palatial one in Portugal. His business: business consultancy, mostly to public sector and a great deal in within the NHS.

Does the NHS gain so much in efficiency that it recovers the extortionate costs that these management consultants charge?

 

[Jacob]

Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.

I had a client that ran his own business earning lots of money, he has a big house here a palatial one in Portugal. His business: business consultancy, mostly to public sector and a great deal in within the NHS.

Does the NHS gain so much in efficiency that it recovers the extortionate costs that these management consultants charge?

Very unlikely. It's these same people who are pushing for privatisation all the time - loadsamoney to be made!

 

[RogerS]

I used to be one of them - we're not all bad, y'know. Mind you, the partners #-o

When I was working for KPMG I remember doing one piece of work for an investment bank. There were two parts to the study and a report at the end of each. However, the circulation of the two reports was different and so there was the same introductory section at the front of each. I completed the first part and duly submitted the report to the partner for his approval (and of course his fees). His sole contribution? Putting a semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

'Fair enough', I thought, 'if that's the house style then so be it'. A couple of months later and the second part was completed. Again, I submitted the report for sign-off to the partner so he could claim his fees. His sole contribution ? Removing the semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

It was then that I decided I wanted out.

 

[RossJarvis]

I used to be one of them - we're not all bad, y'know. Mind you, the partners #-o

When I was working for KPMG I remember doing one piece of work for an investment bank. There were two parts to the study and a report at the end of each. However, the circulation of the two reports was different and so there was the same introductory section at the front of each. I completed the first part and duly submitted the report to the partner for his approval (and of course his fees). His sole contribution? Putting a semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

'Fair enough', I thought, 'if that's the house style then so be it'. A couple of months later and the second part was completed. Again, I submitted the report for sign-off to the partner so he could claim his fees. His sole contribution ? Removing the semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

It was then that I decided I wanted out.

And how much did he charge......?

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

Guys....not all management consultancies are just robbing people blind...public or private....I mean come on, lets not let this thread deteriorate into a meaningless rant about the big 4!! A great deal of the streamlining work they do to make business processes more efficient is first class and it doesn't necessarily mean people lose their jobs in the process of achieving that efficiency. Bringing product to market faster is a common goal for their efficiency activity or automating previously sluggish processes. You just cant describe them all as rubbish and have the word intelligent in the same sentence. Lets be reasonable at least or this just becomes a pointless rant.

 

[RossJarvis]

Dear Me ROB, your irony seems to have slammed the lid on this one (or did I misread the twitch in your eyebrow when you wrote that?

Shame really as I was just getting into it.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

I've no idea what you're talking about.