BBC:Have your say on 'blue card'

[archigabe]

Does the EU need a 'blue card'?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/7058984.stm

What do you think of the Blue Card plan? Is it necessary? Will it benefit EU countries and skilled workers from outside Europe? Are you a skilled worker who has moved to another country?

Your chance to voice your opinions on the BBC website on the 'blue card' scheme.

[Dawie]

The EU has unveiled its version of the US Green Card - a Blue Card targeting skilled immigrants.

Why on Earth do they feel the need to compare it to the US Green Card? A green card in the US is simply the equivalent of indefinite leave to remain in the UK or permanent residency as it is otherwise known.

This Blue Card scheme has got nothing to do with permanent residency and comparing it to the US Green Card is absolutely misleading.

[gani999]

There was another link on that BBC website which led to a BBC moderated forum with hundreds of comments on the Blue Card. I read it two days ago and shall summarize the general feelings.

1. Almost EVERYONE is against the Blue Card.

2. All the talk of skills shortage is wrong as there seem to be many trained EU nationals who aren't getting employed as companies are unwilling to hire them.

3. A sizable number of people were of the opinion that this was just another ploy by big companies to bring in cheap labour.

I wish the chaps at Brussels had read the comments on that forum.

[runie80]

here is the link to the HYS

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread. ... #paginator

[Marco 72]

There was another link on that BBC website which led to a BBC moderated forum with hundreds of comments on the Blue Card. I read it two days ago and shall summarize the general feelings.

1. Almost EVERYONE is against the Blue Card.

2. All the talk of skills shortage is wrong as there seem to be many trained EU nationals who aren't getting employed as companies are unwilling to hire them.

This is spot on. Companies are unwilling to hire because of all the unnecessary restrictions the state imposes on them. The only exception is London, which provides the closest approximation to a free market economy in Europe. It's not surprising that skilled workers from all over the EU keep moving here. This however also makes a scheme like the "blue card" unnecessary. It also explains why skilled workers from all over the world continue to see the US as their ideal workplace, rather than the EU.

I wish the chaps at Brussels had read the comments on that forum.

They don't have to care. They are not elected.

[Dawie]

Actually in the case of the UK (and I suspect some of the other major European countries) companies are far keener to hire foreign workers because they are generally better educated and harder working than local British workers, NOT because they are cheaper.

The "cheap worker" theory is a fallacy and is only relevant for low skilled workers. Foreign highly skilled workers command just as high if not higher salaries than their local counterparts because of the fact that they are harder working and highly educated.

Look at any job website: do you see a separate salary for British workers and foreign workers?

Above all companies value productive workers over cheap workers.

[sakura]

Actually in the case of the UK (and I suspect some of the other major European countries) companies are far keener to hire foreign workers because they are generally better educated and harder working than local British workers, NOT because they are cheaper.

The "cheap worker" theory is a fallacy and is only relevant for low skilled workers. Foreign highly skilled workers command just as high if not higher salaries than their local counterparts because of the fact that they are harder working and highly educated.

Look at any job website: do you see a separate salary for British workers and foreign workers?

Above all companies value productive workers over cheap workers.

So true. This is one thing many people don't want to talk about. Ask the HSMPers on this forum, I'd bet the average salary (for those here at least two years) would be £30-40k, if not more. Of course it depends on the sector.

But for foreign workers being more hardworking - could there be another reason behind it? e.g. they do not know their rights and feel that they cannot say 'no' to their bosses for fear of losing their WP/HSMP/job? Many Brits know they don't have to do unpaid overtime or always listen to the boss. Might it be that? I feel it would be unfair to state that, by looking at a typical office, for example, the foreigners work harder, on average, than natives, without a greater assessment of things.

As for smiliar salaries - they may show the same rate initially, but haven't some people already written on this board about their experiences, where they were expecting more, only for their contracts to show less than what was initially promised? Again, what's the pulling power of the foreign worker vis-a-vis HR?!

[Dawie]

I think in the old days before the HSMP visa was around and the only option was a work permit, there was definitely more scope for exploitation because people always had the possibility of their employer revoking their work permit and thus having to leave the country.

However these days the HSMP visa gives people the flexibility to work for who they want completely independently without any threat of revokation from their employer.

[johnsienk]

<original post deleted>

[Administrator]

.

Anyway, the UK has already said it will opt out of the scheme. Thus a "Blue Card" will be useless there.

Right now the scheme is merely proposed.

The UK, Ireland and Denmark have the rights (so far) to opt out, but that decision has not yet been made. Although, it does appear likely.

The Brit response is that they will use the points-based system (due out "soon"), something that's been in development for a few years now. However, it is possible that an EU Blue Card can still be used in conjunction with the British system .. they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Blue Card is not necessarily an HSMP/Tier 1 replacement.

Ireland has made similar statements regarding their Green Card but, again, it's far too early for anyone to say for certain what will happen.

the Admin

[avjones]

Do you not reckon a veto is quite likely from one country or another?

Austria, for example, doesn't seem enthusiastic.

[Administrator]

.

All 27 nations have to ratify the proposal for it to come into effect. The likelihood of one nation vetoing is high. Agreed. Austria is a great example; the Netherlands & France would be two more.

However, 20 million skilled workers in 20 years is a damned harsh reality. And, that number is a bit conservative.

Negotiations are just beginning, so the proposal will get amendments & changes ... in other words, normal negotiations.

The bottom line fact is, the EU as a bloc of nations really needs something like this in place. I think the odds are high that some sort of EU Blue Card will be approved .. but the devil will be in the details and how it is implemented.

The real problem isn't immigrants so much as a standardization of education credentials. Each country has more issues with which universities are "better." Real little pissing match there.

Some sort of language requirements for each country intended to live in will probably become part of the proposal.

the Admin

[avjones]

I agree, language and education are two likely issues on which there will be negotiation.

I do see, however, a strong and regrettable anti-immigration mood in general. I think more people need to make the case for immigration, politically. What do you think?

[Administrator]

.

It's really going to come down to a propaganda issue. Anyone who studies the European economy and demographics from a scientific, unbiased analysis will understand quite rapidly that immigration is required. Just study what is happening in Germany today, and Japan and South Korea, to see a crisis coming on like a trainwreck.

Europe has more time as a whole, but the same demographics of expanding economy and aging work force apply.

Also, the birth rates of Europe are falling, despite some local regions seeing small population booms. These are likely to be short-lived ... even in Romania they are already feeling the effects of westernized economics. To maintain a certain lifestyle, couples are finding they don't have time and money for large families.

Which hysterical political interests grab the biggest headlines will determine in the short run how fast this process advances. However, I think that in five to eight years, at the most, the realities will begin to sink in.

I hope it happens much sooner. Delays will just make the situation worse.

Two pieces that need to be resolved that will have an impact: the EU needs to decide about membership for Turkey and the Ukraine. If the populations of those countries are included, there will be more time. If they are kept out of the EU, there will be less time. The other countries don't have large enough populations to have a large impact.

Other factors are Poland and Romania and how fast those countries modernize their education systems. If they advance quickly, that will also reduce the need for immigrants.

In all cases, to avert economic crisis, the 20 million in 20 years is a pretty solid estimate. It's just a question of where they will come from.

Europe can reduce this need with aggressive education initiatives. European universities could produce very significant numbers of new graduate beginning in ten years' time or so. But, experienced workers are needed almost immediately.

Do the countries of Europe have the initiative, discipline and willpower to design and implement such plans ...?

If not, immigration or stagnation and decline.

Look to Japan. About 127 million people today will become about 100 million over the next 40 years, with a huge loss of work force to retirement in addition to the outright population loss.

Who will be working to support the aged population..?

Checkmate.

Every European country should be studying Japan today, and paying attention to the cultural isolation that caused this effect. It should be on the evening news and taught in the schools in every country so that everyday working people "get it" and don't listen to radical wacko-wingnut groups like the BNP.

the Admin

[avjones]

I agree with pretty much all of that!

[sakura]

^^ Same here. (btw it seems we have two threads running on this blue card, it's hard to keep up!)

[archigabe]

Is there any research on the declining populations in the developed countries and the easy availability of abortion? I remember reading in the paper here that Britain has aborted enough babies equal to the population of the whole of Ireland. I know it's a controversial issue, but I think all points of view have to be discussed.

[Administrator]

.

If that was a major factor, it would be apparent from the rates in China & India.

Look more at natural mortality rates and how they shift as an economy becomes westernized enough to provide medical capacity to alter it.

Then consider birth control rates, which would have a FAR larger impact than abortion rates.

Also factor in education rates. As all people become more educated and take on more professional work, they tend to have fewer children, primarily by birth control.

If you look up research in this area, try to find a number on the percentage of a womans life she spends in pregnancy. That will be a much more telling factor, and it will be pegged directly with increased human rights of women to make decisions about their own lives and bodies.

the Admin

[archigabe]

The big difference between with India/Islamic/Catholic nations and Europe is the issue of birth control and women in the workplace. In a more industrial society many factors can influence population growth, including availability of birth control,availability of abortion,% of women in workplace.

An interesting case study in contrast to the rest of Europe is Ireland which is currently experiencing a population boom. Ireland has many things in common with the rest of Europe including women in workforce, availability of contraception,good health care.The big difference with the rest of Europe is that abortion is banned here as is Poland which is also experiencing a population boom.

[JAJ]

.
Look to Japan. About 127 million people today will become about 100 million over the next 40 years, with a huge loss of work force to retirement in addition to the outright population loss.

Who will be working to support the aged population..?

If peak oil becomes a reality, then maybe the Japanese won't need any more people than that.

As for dealing with an aged population, unless you believe that population should constantly increase, that is something that will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Immigration only puts off the day of reckoning for a generation or so.

[Marco 72]

Who will be working to support the aged population..?

Presumably the aged population will have worked and saved enough to support themselves? The whole idea that money should be taken from young workers and given to retired people has resulted in an unsustainable pyramid scheme wherever it's been tried. The "welfare state" itself has contributed to low population growth by making having children costly and unnecessary for many people. This in turn makes the welfare state unsustainable. Immigration - whether good or bad in itself - is not a solution to this problem (just look at the US). The only solution is to abolish the welfare state as it currently exists.

[archigabe]

I think you have a distorted idea of the 'welfare' state that it makes having babies/children expensive. There are many schemes to make lives easier for couples with children including monthly cash grants for each child, free education,free medical schemes for people below a certain income level.

[Dawie]

The big difference between with India/Islamic/Catholic nations and Europe is the issue of birth control and women in the workplace. In a more industrial society many factors can influence population growth, including availability of birth control,availability of abortion,% of women in workplace.

An interesting case study in contrast to the rest of Europe is Ireland which is currently experiencing a population boom. Ireland has many things in common with the rest of Europe including women in workforce, availability of contraception,good health care.The big difference with the rest of Europe is that abortion is banned here as is Poland which is also experiencing a population boom.

Anybody who wants an abortion in Ireland and Poland can, and do, go to other countries that are more than happy to help them like the United Kingdom.

[archigabe]

My point was that abortion in these countries is not something undertaken casually when they have second thoughts about having a baby. If they take the trouble to travel to a different country to abort a baby, it is usually because of some compelling reason.
Anyways, it seems like Ireland might change the laws on abortion pretty soon and go the way of the rest of Europe.

[avjones]

I think you have a distorted idea of the 'welfare' state that it makes having babies/children expensive. There are many schemes to make lives easier for couples with children including monthly cash grants for each child, free education,free medical schemes for people below a certain income level.

That is certainly true - but the free medical schemes in the UK aren't dependant on income. For example, not only wsa the medical care I got during pregnancy free, I also got free prescriptions both while I was pregnant and for a year afterwards.

We also get child benefit which is nearly £20 per week (less for the 2nd and subsequent children, though).