Readit NewsI watched a video just yesterday from someone (middle class) who explained that, by not having a passport, it took him weeks to get the necessary documentation together to prove his right to work in the UK. As a UK citizen.
> None of this says anything about whether I am privileged or not.
Oh boy, let's see:
> It merely means that they may cost a relatively small amount of money.
> What you are showing is simply a "bigotry of low expectations".
> What you are describing now I would imagine is discriminatory and thus illegal.
Out of this comment alone.
> I read it fine the first time thank you.
Except you completely misunderstood what I said, so you didn't "read it fine."
> However IANAL.
I can tell.
> the problem is with the potential employer in this circumstance.
Which primarily hurts the person who needs to work. What do you propose they do?
> TBH. It really feels as if you are inventing reasons why right to work checks should be considered "excessive" to shoehorn in your own personal politics.
I'm just pointing out how a mandatory Digital ID system, designed to prove right to work as a way of tackling illegal immigration (and thus illegal employment), could also benefit groups who aren't well-served by the current system.
This is an issues with the employer not following the checklist, which I posted in my first response to you.. That is not the fault of the legislation. The checklist is easy to understand and straight forward.
I do not have a passport (for quite a long time) and have no once had a problem proving my right to work with an employer.
> I'm just pointing out how a mandatory Digital ID system, designed to prove right to work as a way of tackling illegal immigration (and thus illegal employment), could also benefit groups who aren't well-served by the current system.
No that isn't true. You original claim was that it was "excessive". I took umbrage with that as it is a complete misrepresentation. It just isn't true and your scenarios that you presented are either unrealistic or not to do with the legislation itself.
Combine that with you being preoccupied about my supposed "privilege" as tactic to deflect from the point being made and making snarky backhanded comments, I no longer wish to talk to you. I am going to leave it there.
No! This is another one of those things that ends up being a serious problem for a few people, because the current proof of address standard is "utility bill".
> you are changing topic
This seems to be particularly bad in the "digital ID" discussion, almost every speaker including official sources seems to mean something slightly different by this phrase.
If you do not have a permanent address (I didn't for many years). You just need someone with a permanent address where these things can go e.g. friend or family member or you can pay a small amount for a letter box with a key (which is what I did).
Ok, let me break the argument down for you:
1. Person needs job
2. Person doesn't have job
3. Person therefore is low on money
4. Person needs to prove right to work to get job
5. Person needs money to buy proof of right to work (+ time to receive it)
6. Person needs money
7. See 2 and 3
Your privilege is what blinds you to a simple process.
> If you are looking for work you really should make sure you have these documents as you should know that you are going to need them.
This is what I mean by "your privilege is showing."
> That to avoid fines an employer would break the law and not do right to work checks? Or that they are doing a right to work check and do additional checks?
Read it again: they're skipping the checks and just using the one they know (passport) because they don't know if other legal forms of documentation are good enough. I know this is going to blow your mind but plenty of employers have no idea what the laws are. You might say "well that's on the employer," but it's the person who needs the job who suffers.
Failing that, there are other support mechanism in place provided by charities, family, friends and even the state itself, in the unlikely event they are that are completely destitute.
None of this says anything about whether I am privileged or not. You know nothing about my personal circumstances or family background. The only reason anyone uses this line of argument is an attempt to shut people up or as a shaming tactic. Neither of which will work with me.
It also doesn't make any of the checks "excessive". It merely means that they may cost a relatively small amount of money.
As for the ability to produce basic documents, there is nothing privileged about being able to produce basic documents. What you are showing is simply a "bigotry of low expectations".
> Read it again: they're skipping the checks and just using the one they know (passport) because they don't know if other legal forms of documentation are good enough. I know this is going to blow your mind but plenty of employers have no idea what the laws are. You might say "well that's on the employer," but it's the person who needs the job who suffers.
I read it fine the first time thank you.
What you are describing now I would imagine is discriminatory and thus illegal. However IANAL. In this scenario the problem is with the potential employer in this circumstance. That isn't a problem with the right to work checks, and is a problem with the employer.
TBH. It really feels as if you are inventing reasons why right to work checks should be considered "excessive" to shoehorn in your own personal politics.
The accuracy of this made me chuckle out loud!
Also what is wrong with being middle-class?
> You need a passport for a right to work check. I've been through this process about 3 times in the last 5 years. It isn't difficult or onerous.
A new passport costs over £100 for a paper application. That can be prohibitive for people.
> You can literally order replacements for these easily. A replacement birth cert can be got for £12.50 and takes 4 days to receive.
These are additional costs, it's also an extra £3.50 to find it (taking 15 days), and possibly another £38 to get it quickly.
So yes, these are all costs that add up to exclude people from partaking in society.
And all of this assumes your employer knows what the hell they're doing. Given the fines are painful, it's entirely possible your employer refuses valid documents "just in case" and sticks to the ones they've relied on in the past.
This is not an argument, and is merely a way to shut someone up because you don't like them disagreeing with you. It is quite a loathsome tactic.
> A new passport costs over £100 for a paper application. That can be prohibitive for people.
I agree that it is expensive. However you don't require a passport though and you can use a Birth Certificate and something that shows your NI number.
> These are additional costs, it's also an extra £3.50 to find it (taking 15 days), and possibly another £38 to get it quickly.
Ok. So £15. This is not "excessive" cost. Like with many things if you want something done more quickly you are required to pay extra.
If you are looking for work you really should make sure you have these documents as you should know that you are going to need them.
> So yes, these are all costs that add up to exclude people from partaking in society.
It may surprise you that a good number of things require monetary payment in some form or another to partake in society.
It is perfectly reasonable for the government to require basic checks to be carried out before you employed.
> And all of this assumes your employer knows what the hell they're doing. Given the fines are painful, it's entirely possible your employer refuses valid documents "just in case" and sticks to the ones they've relied on in the past.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.
That to avoid fines an employer would break the law and not do right to work checks? Or that they are doing a right to work check and do additional checks?
For shits and giggles, I just looked up the checker on the UK Gov website and… if you don’t have a passport or easy access to your birth certificate, you don’t have enough evidence of right to work.
Is this possible for most people? Yes. Does it leave groups excluded? Absolutely!
I never said that you required a driving license. I said that at driving license was photo-card ID.
You need a passport or birth cert and NI number as a British Citizen for a right to work check. Most employers also want proof of address, so bring a utility bill.
I've been through this process about 3 times in the last 5 years. It isn't difficult or onerous.
> For shits and giggles, I just looked up the checker on the UK Gov website and… if you don’t have a passport or easy access to your birth certificate, you don’t have enough evidence of right to work.
I actually posted the checklist. I am quite aware what is required.
You can literally order replacements for a birth certificate easily. A replacement birth cert can be got for £12.50 and takes 4 days to receive.
https://www.gov.uk/order-copy-birth-death-marriage-certifica...
Nothing about this is "excessive".
> Is this possible for most people? Yes. Does it leave groups excluded? Absolutely!
People that can't produce basic documents it excludes.
You were claiming that the right to work checks were "excessive". Producing one or two documents that you should have is not "excessive".
Also you don't have to insert your personal brand of politics into every discussion. There is nothing outrageous about the list of professions of counter signers. All they are wanting is someone that can be identified easily in a community.
If you don’t have a passport, for instance, it’s much harder for a UK citizen to prove their right to work in the UK, for which your employer is liable if they get it wrong.
So please, tell me again how having a clear proof of identity tied to your right to work, and other things, will “not change anything.”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b6b7e7536d6...
> If you don’t have a passport, for instance, it’s much harder for a UK citizen to prove their right to work in the UK, for which your employer is liable if they get it wrong.
No it isn't. You need a Birth Certificate and a previous paycheck and something that has your NI number on it, and usually something to prove your address e.g. Utility Bill.
And yet you don't seem to have an answer to "what happens when they don't follow it?"
> You original claim was that it was "excessive"
Take the full context:
> are explicitly because there’s no single proof of your right to work in the UK.
> scenarios that you presented are either unrealistic
Except they happen.
> or not to do with the legislation itself.
What is your solution then?
> I am going to leave it there.
Because you've had 4 opportunities to answer my basic question and can't?
No. It is because you've been rude several times to me without cause, you don't seem to actually read anything I say and therefore I no longer wish to talk to you.