James Boxall reported in the 1st October 2010 Kindle edition of the Financial times that the CBI has said that the new rules restricting foreign workers from outside the EU must be reviewed. Why?

Put simply it is because the CBI’s members do not want to invest in English workers. In other words these CBI members are lazy and lacking either in vision or a desire to improve matters in England.

To do so would mean more support for English higher education, post-graduate and graduate students.

It would mean more support for local colleges and a greater investment in apprenticeships and in-house training for the English people.

It would mean funding more initiatives with our more challenged English schools.

And most importantly it would mean an open and collaborative approach to their strategic manpower planning exercises, with all their English stakeholders.

And finally these imported workers will expect the full use of the English welfare state, without them or their family having paid a penny for it.

So, yes, I do agree that the rules need to be changed to protect English workers from the lazy and greedy employers. My prescription is as follows:

  1. Before making an application  to employ a foreign worker the organisation must show that it has tried really hard to develop home-grown English talent by carrying out all of the above activities for a minimum of five years. Surprisingly there will be some companies that already pass this test.
  2. They must give an undertaking that they intend to continue at least this level of educational activity for the next 10 years.
  3. They must show that the job requirement has a level of education (at least post-graduate from a university certified to have the same standards as an English Russell Group university), or significant experience (success at an international standard of achievement for at least five years in the same field as the job) is unobtainable from within England
  4. They must deposit a sum of money with the government that will be sufficient to cover all the education and welfare costs of the worker, and their family, for his or her period of residence in the UK.
  5. The worker must be paid a salary in the top 10% of national salary range for the job and must get exactly the same bonuses and benefits at other employees in a similar position.
  6. Permits will be issued for a maximum of four years, renewable only once, and at the end of that period the worker and their family must leave and return to the country of origin of the foreign worker. There will be no possibility of acquiring British citizenship or of staying beyond that time.

Some might argue that this is not necessary because businesses and their employees pay taxes to the government to carry out all these duties. These are of course the same businesses that complain about the high level of taxation and about “big” government. On the other hand a 3% tax on their revenue might just possibly give enough tax revenue to solve the problem of lack of skill in the local workforce without these companies and their managers having to get out of their seats at all!

This demand from the CBI is just a big whinge, the epitome of the “moaning Pom”. It smells of greed and laziness and the people of England deserve a lot better than this shoddy mob.

With an approach like the one above the people of England would at least have the knowledge that the businessmen of England not only had their interests at heart but were working hard to improve them.

Now wouldn’t that be a change?

GHTime Code(s): nc