[Traduk]

I think that the situation regarding these jobs is simply being used as argument point to display an apparent workshy attitude amongst UK workers but without regard to facts. Fairly typical for this forum.

The article carrying the story was in the Daily Mail and stipulated that the jobs in question where 238 in number and all in London locations. It implied that they were managerial in nature but due to lazy reporting did not stipulate salaries beyond the broad spectrum of salaries paid to managers.

I think that for a newbie manager the lowest level can be safely assumed and that was stated at £26K p.a. London is just about the most expensive part of the UK to live, work or get to and £26K is an uneconomic salary to work in London.

I live 30 miles from London (within the commuter belt) and an annual season ticket (rail) is £4K p.a. which given a 1.5 hour (each way) commute plus the need for £4K net I would have wanted well in excess of £10K p.a. to even contemplate the stress of the extra pressure. It takes some incentive to get up at 06.00 and return home at 20.00 and national average wage isn't going to do it for me or I guess many others.

Living costs within easier striking distance of London are prohibitively expensive as Ignitionnet can attest but even if he over pays a more realistic but bottom end cost is that incurred by my niece who in her 7th year of a Phd course has regularly had to find (from the bank of parents) £12K p.a. to student share multiple occupied accommodation.

The reason why those jobs are unfilled is that they are not offered with regard to the economic costs for the area involved and that defies free market logic. Market logic dictates that for demand to meet supply price must attract supply and it this case it does not.

The question that arises from this situation is if locals find what is on offer uneconomic how is it that Slovakians will find it economic. The fact that they can live on paper round money in their home country has nothing to do with it as they can hardly commute so where does the extra cash come from that makes it viable for them but not for locals.

If there are loopholes that assist incoming migrant workers with cash payments it is a reasonable argument that companies are using such public money in an exploitative manner to the detriment of incumbents and getting around market forces.

If the maths do not work for locals they will not work for anybody providing there are no other factors in the equation. The story was printed to show a work shy Britain and without doubt appalled the chattering classes. It is the "why spoil a good story with facts" element where the truth lies and it may not be palatable.

When I owned businesses and directorships I had to pay market rates or above to secure the staff I wanted. If I advertised below the going rate, for the area I might just as well have put the advertising cost in a charity box. Market forces dictated where the bar was and I had to pitch above or end up with permanently unfilled positions.

It is imperative that regional differences in costs are factored into any thought process regarding pay. Inner and Outer London pay supplements are not given away out of largesse by companies and barely cover costs.