from the Guardian’s comments section under their latest misleading (and inaccurate) article:
Misreporting continuing to give misimpressions.
Half the jobs are NOT “going to British employees” as stated in the article.
Rather the proposal is that half the jobs will now offered on the open British labour market.
Anybody qualified can apply for them, whatever their EU passport. The unions have no problem with this whatsoever.
The employers’ justification before for shielding behind posted workers directives was that they needed to have exclusive use of their own already contracted in-house experienced workforce.
It now seems that this wasn’t true and they were already planning to recruit more staff to fufill this contract, but only from outside the UK. Quite outrageous, but this appears to be allowed under ECJ rulings!
There are a stack of other comments like this, including several openly attacking the reporting on the issue, which is a nice reminder of (a) how little the media is trusted and (b) that people actually do pay attention. It is important to start to try to understand how online technology is being used by workers to see what extra resources we can bring to bear in current struggles and what gaps exist…
dot to dot:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Trackback URL
Misreporting continuing to give misimpressions.
Half the jobs are NOT “going to British employees” as stated in the article.
Rather the proposal is that half the jobs will now offered on the open British labour market.
Anybody qualified can apply for them, whatever their EU passport. The unions have no problem with this whatsoever.
The employers’ justification before for shielding behind posted workers directives was that they needed to have exclusive use of their own already contracted in-house experienced workforce.
It now seems that this wasn’t true and they were already planning to recruit more staff to fufill this contract, but only from outside the UK. Quite outrageous, but this appears to be allowed under ECJ rulings!