Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_w | Hacker News Reader

Your privilege is showing.

> 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.

View on HN

> Your privilege is showing.

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?

> 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.

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.

I understand this process that you outline can conceivable happen. However this scenarios is still extremely unlikely. Firstly the cost of a replacement Birth certificate is low.

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.

> However this scenarios is still extremely unlikely.

I 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.

> I 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.

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.

> This is an issues with the employer not following the checklist, which I posted in my first response to you

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?

> 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.

> you don't seem to actually read anything I say

I've done nothing but quote and answer your responses, while you ignore my questions and (wilfully?) misinterpret everything I say and projecting your own behaviour onto me. Don't be surprised that I have a low opinion of your contributions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com