'Migrants welcome here'

It is rare these days for Tony Blair and Britain's trade unions to agree, but today saw one such occasion. The topic? Migrant workers. Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, writes in today's Guardian that we should Stop blaming migrants. Barber called for solidarity, not scapegoating:

It has always been tempting to scapegoat "the other" when such economic difficulties come round. But undercutting, exploitation and unemployment are not caused by eastern Europeans, nor are these things a necessary part of a sustainable economic future. And the solution to the growing vulnerability of large sections of people at work that they represent is not to throw up the shutters and put out the "foreigners not wanted here" signs, even if we could.

The truth is that the government can do little in practice to restrict Bulgarians and Romanians. They will have a right both to travel here and to be self-employed after accession. EU member states can temporarily restrict employment but, as Germany shows, all that happens is that you replace employees with the self-employed. And their wage levels are likely to be even lower than the super-exploited Polish agency workers who are the stuff of rightwing tabloid scare stories. That is why the TUC conference in Brighton this week will hang up a "you are welcome here" sign.

...We live in an increasingly globalised world. Our best response is not to yield to little England, but recognise that the best way of avoiding a rush to the bottom is to fully embrace Europe; and that means accepting the free movement of labour as well as capital and goods.

Mr Blair, in his speech to the TUC Congress, echoed those remarks:

I applaud your TUC statement on this issue. It is so close to my own view that I thought of simply reading it out and letting it stand as my speech. That may be both the first and the last time I can say that of a motion to the TUC.

As you say: "If migrant workers are treated fairly and paid a decent wage, they represent no threat to the livelihoods of people who are already living and working in the UK, and... it is good for the people of Eastern Europe because it provides them with growth, better jobs and wages, and spreads and deepens European democratic values.

"Creating a common market means that workers must have rights as well as businesses, and there must be freedom of movement for workers as well as for capital, goods and services."

I couldn't agree more.

We have recently had historically high levels of economic growth at historically low levels of inflation. This is in no small part due to migrant labour.

The DWP has found no evidence of a link between immigration and unemployment. And it is not true that the earnings of most UK-born workers are lower than they would have been. Migrant workers have a positive impact on the economy: increasing growth rates over the last few years by between 0.5% and 1%, and making a net contribution to the exchequer.

You point out, again in your statement to congress, that migrant workers have filled many stubborn vacancies, in education, health, social services, transport in the public sector and in agriculture, construction and hospitality in the private sector. They have filled labour gaps in key regions like East Anglia.

But there are real challenges. This is particularly the case in those areas, where immigration has not been a feature of life in the past. This can create short-term funding problems and unexpected pressure on local authorities. There are problems of overcrowding in private housing, homelessness and some anti-social behaviour.

A small number of schools are struggling to cope with a sudden influx. There can be additional costs associated with language teaching. ...We need therefore a thorough overhaul of how we help local authorities and public services cope with such unprecedented demands.

There is a lot we can learn from other countries about how to support integration. ...And we do also, of course, need to be vigilant about the rights of the migrants themselves. Migrant workers will typically be less adept with the language and less aware of their rights.

Pay levels below the minimum wage, unlawful deductions, low wages, long hours, poor accommodation - often contrary to the law - are completely unacceptable and must be stopped.  ...These rules and their enforcement are not just important for migrant workers; they prevent organised gangs bringing more people in to Britain than we need or can cope with.

And this is at the heart of public concerns. People want migration controlled. Now, they may also argue about more or less migration, but there is no argument that we should, by right, be able to decide that ourselves, not have it decided by forces, often global in nature, outside our control.

Now if only we could get employer organisations like the CBI to agree.

UPDATE: The TUC General Council statement on migration is available online.

Comments

[RichB]

Why is it that highly-educated, economically literate individuals pretend that the labor market is not actually a market? And when I say highly-educated, economically literate individuals, I really mean the middle-class, socially liberal, Guardian-reading journalists, academics and economists who tend to shape the more "reasoned" discussion of immigration, and yet who also seem to have such a blind spot to the harm caused by high levels of immigration, both in the UK and the US, to lower income groups. If the supply of low-skilled labor suddenly increases, prices in the low skilled labor market are going to go down. Certainly economists can cite all sorts of facts and statistics as to how that's not actually happening, but if you believe in one of the most fundamental tenets of economics, wages for lower income individuals are either going to be lower or lower than they would have been without immigration. Is the price of intellectual honesty so cheap that we're willing to sell it for a double latte that costs 20p less, or a housekeeper that comes by once a week, or a gardener to mow the lawn? Or is it that massive immigration makes the GDP growth figures look better (even if per capita statistics are negatively impacted)? So Blair can say "And it is not true that the earnings of most UK-born workers are lower than they would have been", but if "most" means the just the middle and upper income groups, that's still a huge problem, especially if you're unskilled and poor (and probably not represented by the TUC). Frankly, why doesn't Blair just come out and say, "OK, we've decided to have a massive transfer of income and benefits from you poor people to us rich folks by increasing the competition for your job, and if you go and vote for the BNP or someone like Le Pen, then you're a racist pig and deserve to be poor anyways."

[Zilch]

but if "most" means the just the middle and upper income groups, that's still a huge problem, especially if you're unskilled and poor

true, but considering the amounts spent in the educational system, it shouldn't be possible to be unskilled and poor these days.
we still have unskilled poor people because the wellfare is still too good for some who'd rather be pregnant at 16, or drunk from 9-21.00 than work (i too thought this was a myth...) a lack of discipline in school, which leads to a lack of incentives for good teachers, and a lack of policing on the streets of britain.
let's not blame the poles for taking the jobs no brit would or is actually fit to do.

[Lars Smith]

RichB is making Voltaire's argument, "For the rich to be comfortable, the poor must be abundant."

You would also expect the price of low income housing to go up with an influx of migrants. Is there any evidence for this in UK?

[Arthur Eckart]

RichB, in a free labor market, the poor doesn't transfer income and benefits to the rich. Capitalists (or the rich) create opportunties for the poor by taking risks to create more capital, which is a virtuous cycle, i.e. capital-employment-income-consumption. Consequently, capitalists create income and benefits for the poor. Also, there's far more wealth and income being transfered to the poor than the rich. Of course in a restricted labor market, poor workers can be overpaid, which can slow the virtuous capital cycle. Also, income is an incomplete measure of living standards, since consumer surplus isn't taken into account, which can increase through competition and education. The problem rich countries have is when there are too many poor immigrants, since the poor tends to take more value from society than contribute.

[Lars Smith]

See also this paper,

Immigration and Housing Rents in American Cities
by Albert Saiz
(June 2006)

Abstract:
Is there a local economic impact of immigration? Immigration pushes up rents and housing values in US destination cities. The positive association of rent growth and immigrant inflows is pervasive in time series for all metropolitan areas. I use instrumental variables based on a “shift-share” of national levels of immigration into metropolitan areas. An immigration inflow equal to 1% of a city’s population is associated with increases in average rents and housing values of about 1%. The results suggest an economic impact that is an order of magnitude bigger than that found in labor markets.

It can be found here,
http://www.iza.org/index_html?lang=en&mainframe=http%3A//www.iza.org/en/webcontent/personnel/photos/index_html%3Fkey%3D2523&topSelect=personnel&subSelect=fellows

[A. PERLA]

Eckart “Also, there's far more wealth and income being transfered to the poor than the rich.”

Yeah, right.

Take a look at the graphic describing the sharing of wealth in the US for 2001, then explain to me how the fact that nearly 60% of the wealth is obtained by 5% of the population. (Source: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm)

Or, if you want another colour scheme, but the same info: Arthur B. Kennickell, "A Rolling Tide: Changes in the Distribution of Wealth in the U.S., 1989-2001," Table 10. (Levy Economics Institute: November, 2003); look here: http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Can't image to which planet your citation above can be attributed. But, I'm willing to learn ... ; ^ )

[Arthur Eckart]

A Perla, you posed a question I already answered above. If it weren't for the rich, the poor would be poorer. Perhaps, you can give me data how much wealth the U.S. poor transfered to the U.S. rich, and vice versa, or how many jobs the U.S. poor created for the U.S. rich. Of course, the poor has a higher marginal propensity to consume (perhaps near or greater than unity). So, they have little or negative wealth (which supports one of my points).

[AJI P KOSHY]

sir iam a indian man , now working in dubai,can you please arrange any job from your country,ican do any hard work

[travesti]

http://www.travestiservisi.com

http://www.travestiservisi.com

http://www.travestiservisi.com

http://www.travestiservisi.com