No Poles, or Spanish need apply

asdasd

British workers and Unions picket a power station which does not employ locals.

Tsk, at the racist workers thinking that they have a right to jobs in their area. Bad racist workers! They should be sent to a diversity training camp. Or something of that nature.

Dont be at yourself

Is the power station breaking any laws? Are they exploiting the foreign workers? Paying below minimum wage, or making them work in otherwise unfair conditions? If not, the union has no argument. A job in a power station is not someone's birthright.

Here's a thought - maybe if they weren't so heavily unionised, and obviously willing to protest at the ridiculous, they might be a little bit more employable.

asdasd

Here's a thought - maybe if they weren't so heavily unionised, and obviously willing to protest at the ridiculous, they might be a little bit more employable.

I have come to the conclusion, easily reached, that multiculturalism and anti-racism are the new Thatcherism . Middleclass **** in protected jobs pissing all over the shirty working class.

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

seamus

Them and everyone else in that country. Does that mean that every citizen has a right to job over an EU immigrant? What about British people who haven't been living in Britain all their life? Are they lower on the "gizza job" chain?

If someone is getting work ahead of you it means two things:

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

Market forces will always prevail, the nationality of the workers is irrelevant.

Mena

asdasd wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion, easily reached, that multiculturalism and anti-racism are the new Thatcherism . Middleclass **** in protected jobs pissing all over the shirty working class.

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

Probably being very pedantic here but Staythorpe is actually owned by RWE, a German company.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

pepsicokeacola

Mena wrote: »

Probably being very pedantic here but Staythorpe is actually owned by RWE, a German company.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

+1

clearly.

asdasd

Market forces will always prevail, the nationality of the workers is irrelevant.

Were the nationality Chinese it would. Nations can control the flow of immigration. All nations do this. The reason is often the protection of worker's wages - which would otherwise ( in the horrible dystopian world you imagine) fall to the world average.

Besides, we have free movement of labour in the EU so i don't see the issue here. Surely if these workers were more qualified than the Spanish/Polish workers they'd get the jobs?

No we don't have "free movement" in the EU. Poles cant work in most parts of the EU. This has nothing to do with the locals' qualification, everything to do with price. And the company clearly has a policy of not hiring locals.

I think Lenin once said that capitalists would sell the rope to hang themselves- In a metaphorical sense that means support ideologies which will end, or curtail , capitalism ( as well , of course, as actually selling the rope).

The only reason for workers to support capitalism is , historically, it made them richer every year. Until recently - with the rise of globalization and open-border fanaticism - that was the case. If people get poorer then they will support ideologies which stop them getting poorer, probably protectionism and nationalism. Or existing political parties will move in that direction.

An ideology, supported by internet nerds, which lectures the working class about how they should get poorer because foreign workers are pricing their labour lower is not viable in the long term. Sorry.

asdasd

+1

clearly.

-1

clearly not.

I have a groundhog day feeling with these threads. There is no freedom of movement from the accession states to most European States, a fact taht needs to be repeated every single thread.

Were this German company to build in Germany it could not employ Poles.

Nodin

seamus wrote: »

If someone is getting work ahead of you it means two things:

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

3. Legislation allows them to be sub-contracted at a lower wage than would be the norm, or viable for an employee considering a career native to the area to accept.

Mena

asdasd wrote: »

No we don't have "free movement" in the EU. Poles cant work in most parts of the EU. This has nothing to do with the locals' qualification, everything to do with price. And the company clearly has a policy of not hiring locals.

Your argument falls down since there are Spanish workers in the equation as well. Spain does qualify from free movement of labour.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

I have a groundhog day feeling with these threads. There is no freedom of movement from the accession states to most European States, a fact taht needs to be repeated every single thread.

Were this German company to build in Germany it could not employ Poles.

Just as a query, if they are employing 300 Poles as stated and you're correct, why can't (and wasn't) a case taken?

asdasd

Just as a query, if they are employing 300 Poles as stated and you're correct, why can't (and wasn't) a case taken?

I didnt say 300 in this thread so you must have read it in the linked article. So the answer is, I have no idea.

Nodin

asdasd wrote: »

I didnt say 300 in this thread so you must have read it in the linked article. So the answer is, I have no idea.

I was slightly out.....
[QUOTE-Article] Unions were told that Alstom itself will employ 250 Polish workers from the end of January on top of the 50 Spanish workers already working there for the sub-contractors." [/QUOTE]

It would appear that restrictions were/are optional. Evidently the British and ourselves decided not to impose any on Polish persons. Therefore the company is perfectly entitled to do what its doing, regardless of the 'moral' implications.

The UK was one of the three countries, along with Ireland and Sweden, to place no restrictions on workers from the 2004 entrants. However, workers have to register and only become eligible for benefits such as Jobseeker's Allowance and income support after working continuously in the UK for at least a year. After an unexpectedly large influx of workers from Central Europe - an estimated 600,000 in two years - the UK announced that it would impose restrictions on workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Up to 20,000 will be allowed to take low-skilled jobs in agriculture or food processing, high-skilled workers will be able to apply for work permits to perform a skilled job, and students will be able to work part-time. Self-employed people from Bulgaria and Romania are already allowed to work in the UK, and this will continue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm#uk

OhNoYouDidn't

All 850 jobs being filled by migrant workers?

Stinks of 'race to the bottom' exploitation to me and I think the union are dead right to highlight this. Sounds like an Irish Ferries scenario to me.

OhNoYouDidn't

asdasd wrote: »

An ideology, supported by internet nerds, which lectures the working class about how they should get poorer because foreign workers are pricing their labour lower is not viable in the long term. Sorry.

Post of the month.

I suspect that the bulk of the posters on this site are teenagers and early twenty somethings who are in short supply of real life experience.

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

P. Breathnach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

That seems a reasonable position, one that I could support.

Whether or not it is happening in the case under discussion here is unclear.

It becomes a more difficult question when an employer legally exploits workers from another country who are prepared to work for less than the going rate.

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am all for a liberal immigration policy, but not employers suppressing wages by illegally expoliting vunerable workets and creating resentment.

What evidence do you have that in this case, workers are being treated illegally?

Dont be at yourself

As for why they should get the jobs - maybe they paid taxes over their lifetime to build, or subsidise the build, of this station.

On a similar not, lets not forget that EU-funded infrastructure projects gave employment to a lot to indigenous workers both here and in the UK. You can't have your cake and eat it.

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that in this case, workers are being treated illegally?

None whatosever, hence I said it 'stinks of'.

Regardless of legality, unions have a right to object to supressed wages in unionised industries. If the employers are playing fast and loose with standardised wages (and in construction they are), you can be sure they are doing the same with health and safety rules.

Dont be at yourself

You're making baseless assumptions. There has been no indication that they're breaking any laws.

OhNoYouDidn't

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That seems a reasonable position, one that I could support.

Whether or not it is happening in the case under discussion here is unclear.

It becomes a more difficult question when an employer legally exploits workers from another country who are prepared to work for less than the going rate.

Accepted, but in construction there is a minimum hourly wage that has been agreed. The German company are avoiding that by contracting non-unionised workers and breaking agreements that have been in place since God was a nipper.

Maybe illegal is to strong a word, but its moody and they unions are right to make some noise.

OhNoYouDidn't

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

You're making baseless assumptions. There has been no indication that they're breaking any laws.

I don't think its a baseless assumption, but it is an assumption I will admit.

However, they are breaking with industry practice and union agreements.

Dont be at yourself

Luckily enough, unions don't dictate legislation on working conditions. God knows where we'd be if they did!

At the end of the day, contractors, especially in today's climate, will always look for the cheaper option, and they cant be blamed for that. Is there any real expectation for them to lay off the foreign workers and hire more-expensive, unionised workers just because they happen to live locally? It is not the contractor's responsibility to ensure the welfare of local tradesmen.

asdasd

Is there any real expectation for them to lay off the foreign workers and hire more-expensive, unionised workers just because they happen to live locally?

This kind of nonsense will end capitalism as we know it. If people get poorer they will move to the radical right. As for the bourgeois cant about "local tribesmens" of course people support factories because they bring local employment. If a factory moves in and hires Poles then what's the point. The locals are skilled, they can do the job, so the subsidies the companie, factories and contractors get for setting up there should be conditional on hiring local labour.

P. Breathnach

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Accepted, but in construction there is a minimum hourly wage that has been agreed. The German company are avoiding that by contracting non-unionised workers and breaking agreements that have been in place since God was a nipper.

Maybe illegal is to strong a word, but its moody and they unions are right to make some noise.

That's why I said it was a difficult question. I tend to support the idea that rates negotiated with a union should be protected -- a deal is a deal. But I could be moved from that position in cases where it can be shown that unions used unfair leverage to arrive at a rate. [In Ireland, I think that unions should now be open to the possibility of re-negotiating some rates downwards, especially in construction.]

It's even more difficult if we are looking at a "going rate" established by custom, and without union involvement.

doolox

I worked in a company which employed several Multinationals and as a result
wages were depressed for several years due to the presence of people in the economy willing to share 4 families to a house etc and as a result the price of services went very high.
Ireland is now divided into 2 economies:-
1 The public sector which is in permanent protected employment and have received large pay rises and where it is difficult to place foreign workers.
2 The private internationally trading sector, mostly multinationals who can hire from any place in the world and hence depress wages and put the native employees at a disadvantage to the compatriots in the public sector.
Wage differentials between public and private now run at 20%.

We are now at a cross roads where increasing indebtedness is forcing us to review all public expenses and the public sector will probably face job cuts and pay freezes as the government tries to balance the books.

I don't think the governments decision to allow new EU entrants free access to our developed job market was a good thing but the decision was made for the benefit of employers only, not the overall benefit of the country.

Our power station workers recently got a 3% pay rise in the midst of the greatest economic crisis in the States history. It was received with great anger and resentment by the press and general public alike so , at least in Ireland, power station workers know how to look after their own interests.
They have had good teachers in the Banking sector here on how to look after your own and screw the rest.......................

K-9

doolox wrote: »

I worked in a company which employed several Multinationals and as a result
wages were depressed for several years due to the presence of people in the economy willing to share 4 families to a house etc and as a result the price of services went very high.

What do you mean?

asdasd

What do you mean?

I think he means that increasing the labour supply reduces it's cost.

doolox

People came from Poland where the average wage was €8,000 pa.
They thought €20,000 pa. was a fortune and did not take into account all the expenses of living in Ireland. Some were prepared to put up with an expensive Ireland to get moneyto buy cheap housing etc back home in Poland. Same with the Indians some of who were openly phoning estate agents in Hyderabad while at work on company thime and phones buying apartments at 1/10 the cost of Irish ones with the intention of putting up with Ireland for a few years and leaving when the Irish economy was broken, which it is now.
In the meantime Irish workers could not bargain for payrises to keep up with rising prices brought on by rising wages in the protected public sector and many were squeezed out by not being able to afford to live in their homeland.
Naturally the native working class are resentful of this arrangement.
The protected public service workers and the upper class call this racism or parochial thinking.
I call it concern for my future survival.

gandalf

Doolix my god if I time travelled back in time to England in the 1950's I'm sure they were saying the same about the irish then. That statement smacks of hypocrisy especially given our recent history.

The situation is correcting itself. The jobs are drying up and the workers are now moving back home or to places were there is employment like London for the 2012 Olympics.

We still have problems here like an out of date Public Service that is choking the country economically. You can't blame that on migrant workers, that's the governments fault and by extension our fault for voting in the muppets and not demanding that they ensure we get value for money.

sink

In the long term (1-2 decades) the single market will result in wage equalisation, greater efficiency and lower prices resulting in an increase in the standard of living across the continent. For the higher wage countries it will be a painful adjustment but worth it in the long term. Cold comfort to someone who just lost their job at the dell plant in Limerick I know but that is the reality of the situation. Introducing barriers to labour and trade will only hurt our long term interest. My sister lost her job as an Architect and my aunt who is an estate agent is barely making a buck and I'm not certain I'll have a job in six months so I am not speaking from an insulated bubble.

FTA69

gandalf wrote: »

Doolix my god if I time travelled back in time to England in the 1950's I'm sure they were saying the same about the irish then. That statement smacks of hypocrisy especially given our recent history.

The situation is correcting itself. The jobs are drying up and the workers are now moving back home or to places were there is employment like London for the 2012 Olympics.

We still have problems here like an out of date Public Service that is choking the country economically. You can't blame that on migrant workers, that's the governments fault and by extension our fault for voting in the muppets and not demanding that they ensure we get value for money.

Spot on lad, I'm going working on the Olympics there when the college year here is done.

For us to turn around start giving out about people coming here to work is the height of hypocrisy, to moan about them living 4 to a house is even worse considering we did the exact same thing in countries across the world. The fact that people are being paid low wages has nothing to do with the workers, but the bosses who pay them those low wages.

The only way around these problems is for all workers, Irish, Polish etc, to unionise and ensure fair standards for all. It's about time people started kicking up instead of kicking down at other workers trying to make a life for themselves.

gandalf

FTA I agree with everything except the unionise part of your response.

Part of the problem here is the disproportionate power of the unions in the Public Sector and Semi State (especially the Private Semi State ESB). While those of us in the private PAYE sector have to weather the peaks and troughs of the markets the permanent staff and especially a bloated middle management are paid too much, have job security and a defined pension that us in the private sector can only dream about.

The main thing that has to be ensured is the migrant workers are not working below the legal minimum wage and where they are it be reported and dealt with vigorously. If you know its happening there is no point whinging about it and not reporting it to the authorities.

asdasd

This thread is about England. So the standard mantra of "We went everywhere, we ees hypocrites" doesnt apply. The cost of people going somewhere is amplified by the numbers who go.

There are 100 million East Europeans on wages less than Mexico. A small percentage of that population on the move is enough to distort labour markets in the UK, and particularly Ireland.

So if 1% of Poland's population moves to Ireland the Irish population increases by 10% ( working population by 20%), if 1% of Ireland's population moves to the UK the population increases by a mere 0.06% which clearly has no difference on labour costs.

Personally I dont think that people who, in a recession, cant get jobs because immigrants are given preference as just going to write it off as stuff that happens. In a recession we cant argue that jobs are not been taken by immigrants, since clearly they are; nor that these are jobs the locals wont do, because clearly they will.

New ideology required.

asdasd

The main thing that has to be ensured is the migrant workers are not working below the legal minimum wage and where they are it be reported and dealt with vigorously.

Any wage is legal if people contract as self employed. Mimimum wage is a legal fiction.

gandalf

asdasd given the largest migrant community here are from the UK then I reckon it is quite pertinent to this thread

As for your exclude migrants idea you can't unless you are proposing we or the UK leave the EU. If that happens then the least of your/our/their problems would be migrant workers.

I doubt we will be seeing Poles moving here or to the UK in the near future given their economy is on the up and ours and the UK's are in severe decline.

oscarBravo

asdasd wrote: »

Any wage is legal if people contract as self employed. Mimimum wage is a legal fiction.

The Revenue Commissioners make a clear distinction between employment and subcontracting, and it has very little to do with whether someone claims to be employed or not. If someone is paying less than minimum wage by pretending to subcontract the work, they're open to a world of grief from Revenue.

sink

asdasd wrote: »

This thread is about England. So the standard mantra of "We went everywhere, we ees hypocrites" doesnt apply. The cost of people going somewhere is amplified by the numbers who go.

There are 100 million East Europeans on wages less than Mexico. A small percentage of that population on the move is enough to distort labour markets in the UK, and particularly Ireland.

So if 1% of Poland's population moves to Ireland the Irish population increases by 10% ( working population by 20%), if 1% of Ireland's population moves to the UK the population increases by a mere 0.06% which clearly has no difference on labour costs.

Personally I dont think that people who, in a recession, cant get jobs because immigrants are given preference as just going to write it off as stuff that happens. In a recession we cant argue that jobs are not been taken by immigrants, since clearly they are; nor that these are jobs the locals wont do, because clearly they will.

New ideology required.

Take the instance of dell jobs lost in Limerick. There is no possible way we could retain those jobs without lowering wages. Their cost base was simply to high relative to the competition. Up until 2007 dell was the worlds leading PC manufacturer, they lost that position to HP and Lenovo and Acer are creeping up on them. To retain market position they have to lower their cost base and the only way to do that was to lower their wages. On the other had PC prices have fallen through the floor and parents are buying them for 12 year olds something they could not have afforded to do even 2 years ago.

If we start restricting lower wage workers and attempt to keep wages artificially high we are only going to precipitate the movement of manufacturing jobs out of this country.

O'Morris

gandalf wrote: »

As for your exclude migrants idea you can't unless you are proposing we or the UK leave the EU.

If you read this article in the Sunday Business Post from the time of the Nice Treaty referendum you'll see that the EU minister Dick Roche seems to think otherwise. He suggested that if the scaremongers were proved right and we did see a massive increase in immigration after EU enlargement that there were legal mechanisms under existing EU law that would allow to take "special measures"

The Commission will monitor it and see how it develops. We, as a member state, can go to the Commission and ask it to take special measures. Those special measures exist under existing law, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Nice Treaty....

With the European elections and Lisbon Treaty referendum coming up later in the year I can see immigration being a major issue. If the government is serious about getting the Lisbon Treaty passed then they need to think seriously about doing something to reduce immigration. I don't think we'd lack allies in Europe if we did get a deal worked out on this.

pepsicokeacola

O'Morris wrote: »

If you read this article in the Sunday Business Post from the time of the Nice Treaty referendum you'll see that the EU minister Dick Roche seems to think otherwise. He suggested that if the scaremongers were proved right and we did see a massive increase in immigration after EU enlargement that there were legal mechanisms under existing EU law that would allow to take "special measures"

With the European elections and Lisbon Treaty referendum coming up later in the year I can see immigration being a major issue. If the government is serious about getting the Lisbon Treaty passed then they need to think seriously about doing something to reduce immigration. I don't think we'd lack allies in Europe if we did get a deal worked out on this.

dont you worry, large scale immigration to ireland is over.

O'Morris

pepsicokeacola wrote: »

dont you worry, large scale immigration to ireland is over.

I hope you're right but I'm not sure if we should just sit back and wait to see how it turns out. According to this article, well over a hundred thousand PPS numbers were issued to non-nationals last year. And 2008 wasn't a great year for job creation in this country.

In the first ten months of the year, almost 140,000 new PPS numbers were issued to non-nationals, suggesting that there is still a surplus entering the country.

Geogregor

asdasd wrote: »

This thread is about England.

Hmm, I thought it is Irish forum?

The cost of people going somewhere is amplified by the numbers who go.

Costs or benefits, it depends from perspective.

There are 100 million East Europeans on wages less than Mexico. A small percentage of that population on the move is enough to distort labour markets in the UK, and particularly Ireland.

Can you quote your source? What do you mean by Eastern Europe? Russia? Ukraine? Or only new EU members? You should check wages and GDP per capita in Prague region for example. It's far from Mexico.

Personally I don't think that people who, in a recession, cant get jobs because immigrants are given preference as just going to write it off as stuff that happens.

What do you mean by preferences for immigrants? As far as I know, immigrants are first to loose jobs. It happened to some of my friends. For example two of them worked as architects. Recession, bum, here you go, sorry guys, go home. By coincidence those who lost jobs were immigrants. Is it what you call preference?
So stop talking nonsense.

In a recession we cant argue that jobs are not been taken by immigrants, since clearly they are; nor that these are jobs the locals wont do, because clearly they will.

In recession jobs are lost not taken by anyone. Immigrants loose jobs faster and more often than locals. But we are easy scapegoat.
Why don't you complain about greedy bankers who got us in this mess in first place?
Remind me about boss of RBS, was he Polish? Or maybe Lithuanian?
As far as I know he was British, actually Scottish to be precise.
By the way I would like to see broker, who lost job in City, picking up vegetables in rural Norfolk.

FreedomJoe

Good luck to any Irish person who thinks they can to the UK looking for work.

The London authorities tried to ensure that only local workers received jobs on the Olympic construction.

However employment agencies wised upto this and relocated thousands of poles into local rented housing and thus automatically qualified them for local jobs.

In the UK they expect the construction industry to lose 70,000 jobs this year!

20,000 migrant workers register for London Olympics jobs - despite pledge to provide work for local people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085444/20-000-migrant-workers-register-London-Olympics-jobs--despite-pledge-provide-work-local-people.html

About 2,700 workers are on the Olympics site, rising to 9,000 by 2010. Estimates of the number of migrant workers there - mostly from Poland and Baltic states within the European Union - range from 10 to 70 per cent.

gabigeist

asdasd wrote: »

There is no freedom of movement from the accession states to most European States, a fact taht needs to be repeated every single thread.

I'm not sure why

Only four EU states – Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Germany – still impose restrictions on citizens from some or all of the eight formerly communist states that joined the EU in 2004.

Fair enough, Bulgarian and Romanian (joined 2007) workers can only access about half EU coutries but we're discussing Poles (and Spanish)here.

asdasd

Only four EU states – Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Germany – still impose restrictions on citizens from some or all of the eight formerly communist states that joined the EU in 2004.

Most did until recently.We'll see what happens in 2011 for Germany, at al.

ostrich

seamus wrote: »

Them and everyone else in that country. Does that mean that every citizen has a right to job over an EU immigrant? What about British people who haven't been living in Britain all their life? Are they lower on the "gizza job" chain?

If someone is getting work ahead of you it means two things:

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

Market forces will always prevail, the nationality of the workers is irrelevant.

Thank you.

djpbarry

O'Morris wrote: »

According to this article, well over a hundred thousand PPS numbers were issued to non-nationals last year.

You did read the title of the article, didn't you? It has been pointed out to you in several other threads why the number PPSN's issued is not a very accurate means of measuring immigration, hasn't it? And yet you still persist; why is that I wonder?

FreedomJoe wrote: »

About 2,700 workers are on the Olympics site, rising to 9,000 by 2010. Estimates of the number of migrant workers there - mostly from Poland and Baltic states within the European Union - range from 10 to 70 per cent.

What the hell kind of estimate carries an error of +/- 30%? That's not an estimate, that's a wild stab in the dark. Ah, the good old Mail, statistically rigorous to a fault.

asdasd

What the hell kind of estimate carries an error of +/- 30%? That's not an estimate, that's a wild stab in the dark.

Gobal warming? Oh wait, the IPCC estimates that the temperature will rise from 1.6 C to up to 5.6 C this century. Seems like a huge variation to me.

Up to, is another weasal word.

EDIt:

Not that I dispute AGW. Just pointing out that your demands are more rigorous for your opponents.

asdasd

1. You're asking too much
2. You're crap at your job

We are all asking too much. If we had full open borders then the Irish wage would depress to the world miminum.

Things would be different for people who do get to conrol immigration, or in cartels, in their specific industrys i.e. Dentistry, Teaching, Consultancy, law etc.

Just the proles.

But thats ok. The upper middle class can always whine about "racism" of the workers from the sidelines, from their protected jobs.

djpbarry

asdasd wrote: »

Gobal warming? Oh wait, the IPCC estimates that the temperature will rise from 1.6 C to up to 5.6 C this century. Seems like a huge variation to me.

Apples and oranges. You're comparing a predicted result with a supposedly measured result.

asdasd wrote: »

The upper middle class can always whine about "racism" of the workers from the sidelines, from their protected jobs.

The Orwellian 'classism' argument is getting tiresome. I suppose the 'middle class' actively works to keep the 'lower classes' in their place, do they?

Serenity Now!

asdasd wrote: »

The upper middle class can always whine about "racism" of the workers from the sidelines, from their protected jobs.

Does having a job mean that that job is not only "protected" but that the person in question is "upper middle class"??? lol

There's a lot of jealousy going on here from the self-perceived class-warrior déludées, isn't there? Racism, xenophobia, bigotry...call it what you will, "The Worker" you refer to is unfortunately not the idealistic image you have in your head. As usual, every effer in this country wants everything for nothing.
:rolleyes: