Recession and Racism
Recessions aren't just questions of economics, of poor growth figures and rising unemployment stats. There is a human element to the global economic recession, and such periods can bring out the best in people. They can also bring out the very worst in people as well.
Take the protests that spread across the UK on Friday. You know the ones I mean. The racist protests. Because make no mistake about it; these were racist protests. If you are calling for British jobs for British people, you are being racist. It is a pretty depressing state of affairs; that just months into a recession and people are already turning to racism. The BNP must be loving it. The very fact that Gordon pissing Brown has used such a slogan in the past, and that the placards in these racist protests were praising his wise words, is further proof of Brown's complete unsuitability for high office, rather than offering any legitimacy to this crass campaign.
Companies must be able to choose whoever they want as employees. Regardless of race. The slogan of British jobs for British people is fundamentally racist, and is typical of a knee-jerk reaction to difficult economic times. This rhetoric has more in common with the politics of the far Right in Germany back in the 1930s. It is depressing to see it alive and well in the Britain of 2009.
The only acceptable slogan is "the best people for jobs in Britain" - anything else is pandering to ignorance and unthinking fear. Anything else is playing right into the hands of the BNP.
Labels: Brown, Brown-bashing, Nazis, Racism
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 8:31 pm
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Actually, if you look at it dispassionately, you are not correct. It is an easy sell for racists, but just because a racist says it doesn't mean it's wrong (logic 101). Fundamentally it is better for a country to have more of its own citizens employed than not.
Suggesting that such a thing is racist is like suggesting that keeping our balance of payments tipped towards our side is racist.
Bear in mind that if a job is given to a foreigner in place of a British citizen creates a space in the dole queue that must be funded. If the foreign worker is shipping any money to another country, then that money is gone from our local economy.
It's not racism, it's economics.
No, I disagree with you. There is an economic cost of putting potentially ill suited people into roles which they are not suited to and not capable of doing. There is also a danger of putting international companies off doing business and working in the UK because the laws of that land require them to employ that nation's citizens based on what is, in effect, casual racism.
In order for the economy to work as best as possible, companies must be allowed to take on the best people in their roles, regardless of questions of nationality and race.
The Unions have been busy unionising foreign workers and thus claim to represent them also. "British Workers" seems to mean anyone who happens to be here at the time.
What the strikers are objecting to is an Italian company saying that they will ony employ Italians at the site.
When a British company manages a project in the Gulf, the managers are British but the workers are local ( or Pakistani).
Likewise Fujitsu dig holes for British Telecom but it is local workers who drive the vans and weild the spades.
@nameless:
What you say in your response is true, but still not the whole story.
You are correct that putting ill suited people in jobs is not a good way of making an economy efficient (see "the parable of the broken window"). However, you make the assumption that the British worker is stupid and useless and the foreign worker is not. Why?
I think you have moved the goal posts slightly. The point is that all other things being equal, it is better for a country to employ its own nationals.
Now, we can get more complicated than that if we were able to quantify things (which I'm not, but an example will do). Let's say that a British worker is only 80% as efficient as a foreign worker. If the economy is 50% better off from having a British worker, then it is still better to employ the British worker.
However, back to my central point: the idea that there is any difference at all between British workers and foreign workers is racist in itself. So your defence is unfortunately relying on the very premise you are attacking, only with the labels swapped over.
it's either banned or compuslory:
What the strikers are objecting to is an Italian company saying that they will ony employ Italians at the site.
Their placards were very explicit - British workers for British jobs. Not local workers for local jobs.
When a British company manages a project in the Gulf, the managers are British but the workers are local ( or Pakistani).
Some British companies do this, others most certainly do not.
Anonymous:
However, you make the assumption that the British worker is stupid and useless and the foreign worker is not. Why?
No, I don't make that assumption at all - you're putting words into my mouth there. I make the assumption that the company concerned believes that the foriegn worker is of more value to them than the British worker - which is why they employ them. This is based on personal observation of the recruitment processes of numerous companies - the people most likely to make the companies concerned money are those who get the jobs.
If it is simply a case that race is the sole factor, then that company is dumb. And racist.
The point is that all other things being equal, it is better for a country to employ its own nationals.
All other points are never equal; that just does not happen in the real world. There are sufficient differences for any company to make choices about workers on issues other than nationality.
However, back to my central point: the idea that there is any difference at all between British workers and foreign workers is racist in itself. So your defence is unfortunately relying on the very premise you are attacking, only with the labels swapped over.
Nope. My argument (not defence) is based on the idea that companies have a right to choose who works with them based on who is best for that company to achieve their aim of making money. Implementation of the idea of British jobs for British workers would damage the economy. And that slogan - coined by Brown and on the placards and the lips of those protesting last week - is fundamentally racist. There is nothing in your arguments that makes me think differently.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home