When will politicians finally stop EU free movement of labour laws being used in such exploitative ways by big corporations? Quote A former Next worker has revealed that cheap Polish staff are being bussed in to the firm’s warehouse after getting jobs in an area where local unemployment is high. Paul Crowcroft spoke as a Mirror ­investigation found Eastern Europeans were being shipped over to fill the minimum wage posts weeks before they are even advertised here in Britain.'" www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ne ... sh-4709994

When will politicians finally stop EU free movement of labour laws being used in such exploitative ways by big corporations? Quote A former Next worker has revealed that cheap Polish staff are being bussed in to the firm’s warehouse after getting jobs in an area where local unemployment is high. Paul Crowcroft spoke as a Mirror ­investigation found Eastern Europeans were being shipped over to fill the minimum wage posts weeks before they are even advertised here in Britain.'" www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ne ... sh-4709994

Very simple, just go to the agency involved and register with them - if the British citizens numbered in the "high unemployment" area are so concerned then the posts will be available to them too, its actually more expensive for an agency to take a Polish citizen onto their books than a UK one so they should be delighted to accept them.

Truth is it will be very short term work with no guaranteed hours and coming off out of work benefits/unemployment register will be too much bother.

As said the jobs are short term, various hours etc. According to tonights news there are about 800 jobs, 500 filled locally and approx. 200 from Poland with about 100 left. All the jobs are apparently minimum wage and in some cases not enough hours for some to take for such a short period of time. Maybe if Next considered paying a decent wage rather than thinking of their profits and expecting the taxpayer to subsidise them as an employer the story would be different.

Sounds like NEXT are trying to get maximum graft for minimum pay and don't really give a monkey's how they do it.

Yep, though it's not just the wage that's the issue. It's the terms as well that are vital. As you rightly point out they're low hours for a short period. These type of jobs often are no or very low guaranteed hours yet require the employee to be available throughout the entire week, often including evenings and weekends. Not to mention childcare or transport issues for some people.

Then add in they're often boring, mind numbing jobs, tightly controlled by rubbish managers/supervisors who have no idea how to manage/supervise staff.

Then add in that there's little to no opportunity for further work.
Then add in that any money earned will be deducted from any JSA payments and you can see why, even taking the wage out of the equation, people would rather stay on JSA. It's just far easier for people.
And before anyone says it, the way to change it isn't to make JSA worse, it's to make employment better.

As a side issue, I'd actually rather we were importing labour for this kind of work than skilled labour just because both public and private sector can't be bothered to train and skill British labour properly.

You didn't actually read the article before posting that, did you?

Between HMRC and DWP, there should be enough information to determine just how much Working Tax Credit has been paid to employees. This amount should be repaid to the exchequer, by the relevant employers before any shareholder dividends or director bonuses are awarded.

Yep, I did, and as you'd expect the newspaper doesn't tell the whole story.

I happen to know the agency that provides ad-hoc labour to Next, I've actually been to that site, I know how the agencies work and I know how they recruit their employees.

This being a major problem with the acceptance of any casual work

And has been an issue for at least 35 years that I know of.

Surely you cannot expect the company to be adversely affected by the size/circumstances of an employees family and the size of the tax credits they receive? A job is worth an amount of money e.g. living wage as a minimum you surely don't expect a firm to pay a single person the living wage and a family man twice that amount for the same job?

The amount of corporation tax the company pays would be reduced through lower profits.

Should the employer also have to pay the employers NI on this additional figure too?

No, I expect employers to pay a wage that doesn't require any taxpayer-funded subsidy. Just remember, an employer who hands over a wage packet that is based on NMW is in reality saying: "I'd love to pay you less but the law won't allow me"

Similarly, I expect landlords to charge rents that don't require the taxpayer to subsidise them too

Are you saying the NMW isn't high enough to prevent taxpayer-funded subsidy?

Isn't it more going to be down to the hours worked.

It is possible for a person or family to qualify for working tax credits where one of them is in full time employment on NMW, if they have qualifying children then they'll definitely qualify - you need to put the numbers through the online calculator though as there is a minefield of "what if's".

They're a business. What do people expect?

Lovely bit of reporting here:



That may be true, but suggesting that Next has a local labour pool of more than 200,000 is a touch disingenuous. I doubt that the unemployed in villages like Langthwaite, N Yorks are going to be tempted by an 80 mile commute each way.

I understand where you are coming from but one person's need for a taxpayers subsidy is different from another's. How can an employer realistically budget on this basis - all that will happen is those who cost the government the most will just never get offered jobs.

On the rent same thing - no landlord is going to rent to DSS at a discount - they will simply not be able to find anywhere to live - sadly.

Or we could reintroduce rent controls, they seem to work perfectly well in Germany and other European countries.

Instead various governments allowed landlords (private and social) to charge pretty much what they liked, hoping that "the market" would naturally re-adjust. That re-adjustment was never going to happen all the time the taxpayer was funding the difference. The previous Labour government made a start with reducing the subsidies paid to private landlords but only when a tenant moved into a new property. This government went further by including social and council tenants and applying the rule to all existing tenants.

If you look at what's currently happening with the New Era Estate in Hoxton, you'll see that nothing has changed. The estate was recently bought by Westbrook Partners, a private equity company whose shareholders include US and Canadian pension funds. Tory MP Richard Benyon's company Benyon Estates finally bowed to public pressure and pulled out of the Westbrook scheme. They (Westbrook) have now given tenants notice that their rents will TRIPLE. Few if any can afford this rise and will be forced not only to leave the estate but some will have to leave London altogether. Those that find alternative housing will probably be paying more than they were at New Era and the difference will be picked up by the UK taxpayer. That, in any so-called civilised society cannot be considered right.

NEXT have a culture of high staff turnover and don't give a monkeys about it. A family member worked for them for a short while and whenever it's mentioned to anyone in retail you just get "ooh I've heard they're bad".

Not to mention the bullying, but that's getting into murky water when I've got one of RLfans less cryptic handles.

Some very valid points - the difference between the UK and other EU countries is land mass and population increases I suppose. We have a huge shortage of housing so the market simply reflects supply and demand. We don't have a culture where the older relations move in with the younger ones as say Italy that frees up property. It cannot be correct for a landlord to take all the risk in purchasing the property to then to be forcibly prevented from receiving the market rate for the property? If you artificially corrupt the market then you will undoubtedly disturb the property sector and we all know what happens when that occurs.

That's the kind of attitude in business that people have come to expect as default. Bosses treating the employees like crap while feathering their own nests. It's no major secret that if you treat your employees with a bit of respect, they'll be loyal and hardworking in return. The unbelievable thing is that the majority of UK business don't seem to understand this and just plough on with their heads down without a clue what's actually going on in front of their own noses. I've had a multitude of terrible bosses who range from the type who see work as a hindrance to their hobby time to those who'd struggle to tell you what day it was and in the most extreme those who you would question if they were actually human. I've never ever felt any loyalty whatsoever to any of them and have always seen them as a figure of negativity, hence my 'get experience and move on' approach to all of the jobs I held there. It's only now that I've got a good boss that I realise just how important a good boss is!