The room’s instinct was not simply to limit overseas recruitment, but to make domestic workers the first test every employer had to face. The result gave that principle a powerful mandate, even as the debate left open whether the proposed process could deliver it.
The floor’s most-respected Yes cases treated the old 28-day rule as a brake on bad habits: scrapping it had been “an open invitation for bad employers to bypass local workers”, while the strongest formulation called for “first refusal for people who already live here”. The argument was that a visible domestic search would push employers towards fairer pay, training and less reliance on tied visas.
No voters did not offer a single alternative so much as several objections to the chosen instrument. One of the better-rated No arguments said “just advertising will not solve the problem”, while another warned it would become “a box ticking exercise”; a recruitment voice added that employers often receive poor applications or none at all. The two sides were therefore talking past each other: Yes argued for a presumption, No for proof that the presumption would change hiring.
The immigration argument quickly widened into a dispute about skills policy, public-sector pay and the NHS. A No reply insisted that “without them the public sector wouldn't be able to function”, while Yes voices countered that importing trained staff can spare employers the cost of training and leave poorer countries short of doctors and nurses.
The vote endorsed domestic priority; it did not settle whether 28 days would enforce it or merely record it.
22 Opinions
Stop handing out Skilled Worker visas like free candy. Set an upper limit on issued visas that sponsors bid on; it won’t end the abuse, but at least it would be revenue generating. It would also result in the free market determining the real value of those jobs that need overseas recruitment.
Scrapping the resident labour market test was an open invitation for bad employers to bypass local workers and dodge investing in training. Requiring companies to advertise domestically for four weeks is basic common sense. It forces businesses to offer fair wages and train domestic talent rather than taking the easy way out with tied visas.
This is tied up with the immigration mess. We have millions unemployed yet back street take aways ‘sponsor’ new immigration ts with skills e.g. washing a kitchen floor. Make it 3 months as 29”8 days does noting as you also have to interview candidates. I would ban any immigrants for 5 years so we can train our own.
Unless there is someone more capable from overseas who would do the job, a British citizen should be prioritised to fill it. Considering the caliber of folk I've seen when I've walked through one of our hospitals, it shouldn't be very difficult.
No immigrant should expect a job that could possibly be done by a citizen.
Britain is too cheap to train people so just steals them from countries that needed those skills. I exclude the NHS where we do even worse - we train people at vast expense and then give the jobs to someone else. How stupid are we and the GMC.
Should employ British full stop. Don't need to go overseas to get someone who can change bedding or cook a curry !!
No, we should just add punitive fees on these visas, so its always massively more expensive to take a skilled worker visa then recruit locally. I mean a 3x market rate level penalty, so the only people using this genuinely cant recruit at any cost.
Yes, but with caveats that exemptions can be applied for. e.g, if there was a shortage of nurses and the necessity to train up new nurses meant the shortage would persist, an employer can widen the net immediately. This could be established within the framework of a proper points based immigration system.
No, just advertising will not solve the problem. Ideally we should to close supply of cheap, foreign labour. Immigration, foreign companies active in UK etc. should be eliminated. Make UK attractive to invest money here rather than delegate some tasks overseas.