Vape shops should not be on the accredited employers list, how was this allowed to happen?
20
Replies
·
0
Boosts
@weekendspy
> Vape shops should not be on the accredited employers list
Accredited for what?
@strypey skilled migrant workers. These jobs can easily be done by our own citizens and residents. Absolutely no reason they need to get retail staff from overseas for a vape shop.
@weekendspy Oh right. If vape shop clerks are "skilled workers", so are supermarket checkout workers. I agree, that's an absurd classification.
Who decides which industries get to be accredited employers for sponsoring immigrant visas?
@strypey it's likely MBIE. There's genuine reason to keep retail in the list but I think exclusions should be clear, so that migrant workers who get employed by vape shops aren't given a path to residency, it's not a skill shortage and those roles should be filled by kiwis as much as possible. I get that in the regions it can be hard to find staff in general, but it just doesn't seem right that visas are granted for those kinds of businesses.
@weekendspy
> There's genuine reason to keep retail in the list
What are they? Because I can't think of a retail job that I wouldn't say is ...
> not a skill shortage and those roles should be filled by kiwis as much as possible
What do you see as exceptions and why?
> I get that in the regions it can be hard to find staff in general, but it just doesn't seem right that visas are granted
I'm open to the idea that visas could come with a wider range of jobs in the regions than in the cities.
@strypey I suppose it would be very specialist high level management for some industries or genuine rare technical skills, that just couldn't be filled by a recent graduate. The one thing I hate more than the idea of commonly-skilled jobs going to foreigners instead of kiwis, is giving high paid specialist or management roles to absolute incompetent charlatans through nepotism. So that is where potentially visas need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, but going back to my point specifically about businesses selling vape products, I don't believe a role exists in that organisational pyramid that can't be filled by a local. You could perhaps argue perhaps for importing a very talented manager to sort out problems in the logistics side, but it's quite a weak argument when we could instead invest in free courses that allows current residents to upskill and meet those needs before even starting operations for such a business. It just doesn't seem good practice to even start a vape shop without knowing you can staff it adequately using local labour.
I hear your concern about ...
@weekendspy
> commonly-skilled jobs going to foreigners instead of kiwis
... but it does presume that kiwis want to live in the places those jobs need to be done. The majority of the population now live in the 5 biggest cities, and although people do move out to the regions, it's usually to retire or run hobby businesses, not to take up existing local jobs there.
So as I say, I'm open to the idea of visas for a wider range of jobs in the regions than the city.
@strypey I'm on the fence about "hobby businesses". If it doesn't add real value to a community, it probably shouldn't exist.
We should be diversifying away from jobs that are not future-proof. There are so many more enterprises that are needed: childcare centres, medical clinics, multi-use hubs such as libraries, do we really need yet another op-shop?
We've given tax-breaks to tobacco companies and accredited status to vape shops, but we haven't raised wages for nurses or hired more people at our hospitals when we know that we have a fast-aging population.
You want the regions to thrive? Bring in more IT skills that allow for remote work so that we have income sources that aren't just from agriculture.
As it stands, our priorities are messed up.
(1/?)
@weekendspy
> I'm on the fence about "hobby businesses". If it doesn't add real value to a community, it probably shouldn't exist
Who gets to determine what does "add real value" and what doesn't? But that's a whole separate rabbithole. My point is that if these people couldn't run hobby businesses in the regions, they wouldn't move there. So although internal migration to the regions does happen, it doesn't necessarily help with filling jobs, even relatively unskiled jobs.
@strypey let me put it in another way. The current setup perpetuates the creation of lots of low-wage unskilled jobs that aim to funnel as much money into the pockets of the owners of production, while leaving the rest of the population struggling to meet basic costs.
We should instead invest in the creation of meaningful, well-paid jobs, that build long-term career progression in innovative industries that diversify our economy's reliance away from the main ones, namely: agriculture, tourism and real estate.
So I do have a problem with the tactless and directionless creation of lots and lots of dead-end jobs in our regions in the first place, because it keeps everyone stuck in this cycle of slave-wage renters propping up the lifestyles and retirements of landlords and those privileged enough to own a semi-profitable business, even if that business isn't actually truly sustainable, like constantly plagued by not being able to balance the books, often avoiding tax obligations, firing staff and throwing them into financial uncertainty because they have a slow season, and repeat offenders being bailed out constantly or simply rebranding to escape accountability.
So when you transfer foreign migrants to regional towns to do dead-end jobs, you inevitably get the expected outcome — a dead end economy.
(1/2)
I agree with all of this, except;
@weekendspy
> when you transfer foreign migrants to regional towns to do dead-end jobs, you inevitably get the expected outcome — a dead end economy
You're trying to shoehorn anti-migrant sentiment into an analysis that provides a perfectly good explanation without them. Why? It comes across like you're starting with the anti-migrant sentiment, and looking for an economic justification for it. But there isn't one.
(2/2)
If we fixed all the problems you describe, would immigration policy need to be adapted to the new circumstances? Sure. But mucking around with immigration policy is *not* a solution to *any* of those problems. It's a distraction from them, and a rather unsavoury one.
@strypey that's a lot of words to justify sticking with the status quo.
@weekendspy
> that's a lot of words to justify sticking with the status quo
This is a copout, and it's beneath you. How about you reread the whole thread, and *think* about what we've both been saying (maybe sleep on it), and try to engage with something I actually said. Or we can just agree to disagree and leave it there for now.
Either way, remember the ideas you put forward are not part of your *self* , so defending them is not self-defence. We're just thinking collaboratively here.
