18 thoughts on “Why do we want to increase the labour that must be performed?”
john77
How many people work offshore per windfarm? Not a lot as the pictures do not show anything where a man can stand up
Baron Jackfield
He just neglects to mention that most of the jobs will be created in China…
Andrew C
@John77
Missing the socialist point. You do not have to ‘work’ in a state owned industry in order to be ’employed’ by it.
squawkbox
Pedalling strongly? The Victorians anticipated him with treadmills in their prisons.
Diogenes
If it construction activity then it is hard to imagine where these 70,000 people will come from. I imagine that offshore construction and maintenance is a sector with negative spare capacity, ie fewer people than jobs on a global basis, before trying to expand the requirement. It takes a special kind of mind to think that people will queue up to take these jobs when there are so many who cannot even be arsed to pick fruit
Stonyground
I know from an inside source that the engineers that maintain wind turbines are very highly qualified and have to do continuous training courses to keep their certifications up to date. Much of this is essential safety training including stuff about working at heights of course. I don’t think that the kind of people who sit watching daytime TV will be considered for any of these jobs.
Dave Ward
All those “jobs” which Steptoe intends to “Create” are entirely dependent on the subsidies which keep the “Renewable Energy” bandwagon rolling on…
Jim
Let me guess, of those 70k jobs, were they to be created by State fiat, all the dangerous work on construction, ships, diving etc would be done by men, without any mention of gender bias, but a strict 50/50 male female ratio would apply to the safer land based office jobs………..
Ducky McDuckface
70,000 jobs in offshore wind farms?
That’s an awful lot of pedalling.
Andrew C
@Jim
The safer jobs would also be declared to be equivalent to the dangerous jobs so equal pay rules would apply.
Jim
@Andrew C: I nearly wrote that too! And obviously true.
Gamecock
I spent 37 years in industry trying to ELIMINATE jobs.
Jobs are a COST, not a benefit.
Rob
69,900 of these will be in a new Head Office dedicated to ensuring the other 100 are under strict political control.
Newmania
If we ran the country on rubber band power we could create millions of twisting up jobs
dearieme
May I just say that this morning I saw a joke in the Guardian. An actual joke, as in it made me laugh. Even when we took the Guardian years ago, I don’t think I ever saw a joke.
Bah! I’ve just clicked through: it wasn’t a joke, it was a mistake which they have now corrected.
I should have guessed that light-hearted humour at the G could only be accidental.
BniC
‘a strict 50/50 male female ratio would apply to the safer land based office jobs’
More like a strict 50/50 ratio would apply to all the jobs regardless so the women would get most of not all the safer land based office jobs to compensate for the men working the offshore jobs
Bloke in North Dorset
Ah, but what about men who identify as women, but only during working hours?
How many people work offshore per windfarm? Not a lot as the pictures do not show anything where a man can stand up
He just neglects to mention that most of the jobs will be created in China…
@John77
Missing the socialist point. You do not have to ‘work’ in a state owned industry in order to be ’employed’ by it.
Pedalling strongly? The Victorians anticipated him with treadmills in their prisons.
If it construction activity then it is hard to imagine where these 70,000 people will come from. I imagine that offshore construction and maintenance is a sector with negative spare capacity, ie fewer people than jobs on a global basis, before trying to expand the requirement. It takes a special kind of mind to think that people will queue up to take these jobs when there are so many who cannot even be arsed to pick fruit
I know from an inside source that the engineers that maintain wind turbines are very highly qualified and have to do continuous training courses to keep their certifications up to date. Much of this is essential safety training including stuff about working at heights of course. I don’t think that the kind of people who sit watching daytime TV will be considered for any of these jobs.
All those “jobs” which Steptoe intends to “Create” are entirely dependent on the subsidies which keep the “Renewable Energy” bandwagon rolling on…
Let me guess, of those 70k jobs, were they to be created by State fiat, all the dangerous work on construction, ships, diving etc would be done by men, without any mention of gender bias, but a strict 50/50 male female ratio would apply to the safer land based office jobs………..
70,000 jobs in offshore wind farms?
That’s an awful lot of pedalling.
@Jim
The safer jobs would also be declared to be equivalent to the dangerous jobs so equal pay rules would apply.
@Andrew C: I nearly wrote that too! And obviously true.
I spent 37 years in industry trying to ELIMINATE jobs.
Jobs are a COST, not a benefit.
69,900 of these will be in a new Head Office dedicated to ensuring the other 100 are under strict political control.
If we ran the country on rubber band power we could create millions of twisting up jobs
May I just say that this morning I saw a joke in the Guardian. An actual joke, as in it made me laugh. Even when we took the Guardian years ago, I don’t think I ever saw a joke.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/who-scored-blog/2019/oct/09/premier-league-10-standout-statistics-season-so-far
Bah! I’ve just clicked through: it wasn’t a joke, it was a mistake which they have now corrected.
I should have guessed that light-hearted humour at the G could only be accidental.
‘a strict 50/50 male female ratio would apply to the safer land based office jobs’
More like a strict 50/50 ratio would apply to all the jobs regardless so the women would get most of not all the safer land based office jobs to compensate for the men working the offshore jobs
Ah, but what about men who identify as women, but only during working hours?