Since I seem to have caught a musical bug at the moment, one of the best songs about our current economic situation that just happened to be written thirty years ago as we hit an economic crisis (when I appreciated it as much as now):
Used to like to go to work but they shut it all down
I got a right to go to work, no work here to be found
Yeah and they say we're gonna have to pay what's owed
We're gonna have to reap from the seed that's sowed
And yes - I do think people have a right to go to work. And that the government that fails to deliver on that promise has failed. Full stop.
You might also wonder why this happens a year or so after Tories come to power. Or maybe not. But I do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard: If only poetry and music was the complete answer to our problems.
VERSE AND THE FINANCE INDUSTRY
Do as we say not as we do
Tax Havens are for us not for you
Tell those wretches who dare to complain
Back to you squalor there to remain
We think we are clever with our fancy schemes
Not caring that we ruin the majority’s dreams
Setting up funds in lawless places
Then hiding our wealth in offshore bases
The underprivileged, the frail and the old
To poverty and misery we have happily sold
Without compassion or care we selfishly reap
Abandoning the casualties to the garbage heap
Oh no! say the victims of fraud and greed
Now it’s our turn to steal what we need
We have had enough of your grasping excesses
Swindling bankers and MP’s expenses
Now heed this verse before it’s too late
Already your actions have caused misery and hate
So create an example that others may follow
Instead of greed and deceit try being err ….. honest
Salocin Sregor
Magnificent PSG, magnificent. Should be the default screensaver for everyone involved in what has been accurately described by Richard and others as our feral financal sytem.
Marshall Riley’s Army by Lindisfarne – just the first and last verses here. The last verse nearly makes me cry every time I hear it.
And it’s more than 40 years now!
“In October thirty-six they took a trip,
The men who made the ships,
Searching for some kind of salvation.
With heads held high, and dignified,
The towns folk and passers by,
Held them in some kind of admiration.
“And the yes men, and the press men,
In London Town all came down,
Brought with them the curious, and derranged.
And forty years has since gone past,
But you’re still down there,
If you’re working class.
Can anybody tell me what has changed?”
Toledo, Ohio to Pontiac, Michigan.
We don’t want our cities to go the way of Detroit. Or maybe they already have.
But you still wont face up to the issue of cheap imported labour, the main neoliberal strategy to profit from workers demise, and the neoliberal govt mechanisms that facilitate it:
– EU free movement of workers
– EU free movement of services ( allows firms to bring in own workforce lookat engineering construction)
– Unlimited categories in the Points Based System for workers brought in temporarily by transnational corps
– Mode 4 trade commitments – secretive, permanent commitments to allow transnationals to bring in and supply workers into other firms workers across sectors and all skills levels
Young people have sussed this out. How come you havent?
Or does it just not look ‘nice’?
This is a real issue
But so is racism
And quite candidly I think your comments are racist
Which is as unacceptable for the left as right
You should have noticed
Thats a bit unfair ! There is nothing racist about pointing out that our current system doesn’t work. We may have low unemployment levels but there are something like 4m people on IB. In reality most of them could work in different circumstances. Instead we bring in keen, eager, better-educated people from abroad & leave British people (of all races) on the scrap-heap.
I don’t believe it is possible to improve the UK without, among many other things, limiting immigration when we have so many people out of work.
And you, Richard, should be ashamed to accuse a poster of believing that human beings can be divied into races & that one race is innately superiority to another (which is what racism means) merely because she wondered if it made sense to keep importing labour when we have the best part of 5m out of work !
(Honestly, I’d cancel my subsrciption, except its free !)
I have encountered the posters comments over a long period
I’ve come to the conclusion my comment is justified
And as the offspring of a family of economic migrants I find the comments racist
Sure we have problems with unemployment in this country – and stopping the free flow of capital is essential
But people? Then you invite oppression – not least here because of course the move would be reciprocated so there would be no way out
And that is very dangerous indeed
I made the comment because I think it describes the desire to block the movement of those not now ‘one of us’ irrespective of the colour of those of us now hee or wishing to come
And I have real concern about that
Fully agree with you Richard.
All PSG members have wide experience of “living over seas” in various countries where on occasions we may be perceived as “not-one-of-us”.
If people are to be judged (who are we to judge?) it should be solely on ability — in this case the ability to be worthy of filling available (and fully legal) job opportunities.
As you comment Richard anything less leads to oppression and racism that can be reciprocated by other countries leading to even further division in our already fractured society.
The penultimate para should have read;
And you, Richard, should be ashamed to accuse a poster of believing that human beings can be divided into races & that one race is innately superior to another (which is what racism means) merely because she wondered if it made sense to keep importing labour when we have the best part of 5m out of work !
Prejudice & bigotry are bad things, but they aren’t racism.
Racism was/is a pseudo-scientific concept. It was remarkably popular in the 19th Century, particularly among those opposing abolition of slavery.
It lead, as logically it had to lead, to Auschwitz, Dachau, Belsen
I have researched these issues for years including 4 years as a postgraduate at LSE. The information I am putting into the public sphere has been kept from UK workers, who will be most affected by apparent ‘EU’ trade deals. This has been kept from the public by Tories, Labour, Greens and UKIP plus key BBC journalists and the BIS House of Commons Select Committee.
But as a result of my long term efforts to bring this to the public sphere, the EU/India trade deal is now slowing down as awareness grows of this huge element which involves UK workers sacrificing their jobs (and those of our kids and grandkids – trade agreements are effectively permanent) for investment opportunities in India for transnational financial corporations. It is actually the fulcrum of this big trade agreement.
I have done this work for years in the face of privileged elites like you who like to see themselves as ‘the Left’, who, in throwing around the word ‘racism’, prevent the real discussion that needs to happen.
Thus you have made it much more difficult and you are working for big capital in doing this, whether you know it or not. And it means you have had a significant role in the unrest and reaction among young people that is caused by the hopelessness of their employment prospects.
That is most certainly not ‘Left’, whereas what I am doing, in exposing a major neoliberal strategy of undermining workers and working conditions by means of ‘a reserve army of labour’ (Marx) is most certainly real left work – despite the obstacles you put in the way.
And it is for and not against workers around the world because as labour conditions are lost in one of the few places that some gains inthe balance of power of labour and capital have been made, the model is lost, and the chances of people in other places where no such conditions exist (related to oversupply of labour) ever attaining better working conditions recedes into nothingness.
What you really object to is that I reveal that the Greens have been part of this cover up – and that your so-called ‘Green New Deal’ is a huge betrayal and con in regard to young unemployed people. You promise ‘a zillion new green jobs’ but with no recognition of who, on the basis of past practice and the current regulatory framework, would be doing them.
And on a personal note – dont dare call me racist ever again. This is a public forum and it is libelous action.
I have allowed your reply
I think it right to do so
But I will not tolerate the abusiveness of the far left any more than that of the far right
So if you want to post here again please do not be abusive
And I will continue to argue that discrimination on the grounds of origin is unacceptable – because I think it is, and profoundly so. Which is is why it’s illegal in the UK – a point you seem to ignore
By all means argue for legal reform – but within the framework of human rights please and whilst accepting those with legal right to work here now must be respected as having that right. And whilst you continue to abuse me for upholding that right – and the right of economic migrants – who I think have benefitted the world at large and the Uk enormously – then I will take offence at your comments
I can’t see anything racist in what Linda has said. It may be a protectionist and nationalist view, but not racist. You may as well say that your views on tax havens are racist against the residents of the tax havens.
All countries control who can and can’t come to live and work. Is that racist and oppressive?
Completely open borders would bring the country down very quickly. Completely closing migration would be as bad. So we have something in between and that can be changed over time to in the best interests of the country.
Business likes open economic migration. It has a lot of benefits including access to “better value for money” workers (i.e. higher skills for lower cost).
Things have clearly gone far to far in one direction. Frank Field and Iain Duncan Smith have both pointed out in the last few months that 80-90% of new jobs in the UK and being filled by migrant workers. That is unsustainable.
Those migrant workers have a legal right to be here
You’re defining the fact that their origin is not here as grounds for disqualification from work which they are legally entitled to take
Discrimination of that sort is discrimination on the grounds or origin and that is illegal in the UK and across Europe for good reason – to stop Austrian neo-fascists who wanted to discriminate on this basis
But if it helps lets drop the word ‘racist’ and call it ‘discriminatory comment on the grounds of a person’s origin’
Does that help?
I agree that free movement of capital without free movement of labour has resulted in real issues – and oppose the free movement of capital as a result
But people I treat as much more important
Unless I misunderstood, I don’t think anyone is suggesting expelling people who have already legally come to live and work in the UK. Aren’t we are talking about who is let in in future and especially if that route is controlled by business?
In particular, Linda was mentioning trade agreements that have created and will increase routes for people to come and work in the UK, but were their employer controls their right to be here.
Expansion of the EU also creates potential problems. I think it was the very respected Professor John Salt who estimated that A8 expansion would lead to less than 20 thousand coming to the UK.
I guess you are thinking of the UK leaving the EU and introducing border controls and visas for EU citizens coming to the UK?
And what would happen to EU citizens already living and working here, and UK citizens living and working in other EU countries?
I must admit it isn’t something I have considered or would expect to happen. It would certainly be a minefield of problems.
Again – you cannot have it both ways.
You cannot continue to argue for open labour migration, which the combination of measures Ive referred to earlier, mostly under the control of big business, constitute, and then feel sorry for kids here (of whatever ‘race’, if that’s your framework) because they have no job prospects.
At some point, those who do care have to get real about these measures, critique them and call for change, because big capital is well aware of this self-silencing and for sure is encouraging it.
Debate needs to be actively encouraged by those who genuinely care, and not just grudgingly ‘allowed’.
But I have asked you for evidence and you have never ever shown any re Mode 4
Provide it in clear English with links in 1,000 words
I challenge you
‘Non’discrimination’ is exactly the language that Vince Cable used when I raised the issue of Mode 4 with him.
‘Non-discrimination’ is used in the international trade agenda to silence any rejection of broadscale liberalisation – which actually discriminates against people and democracy while increasing the rights of transnational corps.
In the context of ‘labour liberalisation’, it hands transnational corporations the right to bring in cheap labour and displace workers here on a broad scale, and is used, exactly as you are using it, to discredit any argument against it.
But please show the evidence – you never have when I have asked you
Then we can discuss it
I’ve done all that before when you have asked. I’m not doing it again
The information I have is from years of investigative work.
There is a reason why there are no simple ‘links’
(There are if you want to trawl through the EU GATS offer)
It has been kept secret from the public.
It is wrapped in technical trade language
All deliberate – so no one realises what it entails and its all ‘too hard’ for the media.
Here’s a link to the Times of India today – but you still need the nouse to read between the lines. It is not written out of empathy with UK workers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/European-Union-not-keen-to-relax-FTA-visa-curbs/articleshow/9607680.cms
I think this debate is over
You never have provided any evidence to me, at all
And if you can’t explain your point then I really don;t think it’s real
After all, we had to do it on tax and succeeded because there was a real issue we bothered to address
As yet you have failed to prove that
As I am losing track of what the discussion is about, what is is trying to be proved?
That mode 4 (the movement of natural persons e.g. to perform services) exists?
That certain businesses (and certain parts of government) want to increase it?
That those moving and performing services under mode 4 can and are doing work that could be done by people in the resident workforce?
That they are cheaper than the equivalently educated/skilled person in the resident workforce?
That displacement does occur?
That wage inflation is suppressed by it?
That by filling positions using people from outside the resident workforce, it discourages training, human capital development, career progression and opportunities for new graduates and other leaving the education system and seeking work?
That would be a good start
But I’ve never been given the evidence despite asking for it
I’m just told it’s all in GATT deals
I’ll see what I can put together from various sources.
However proving causality is of course extremely difficult. It is easy to show regular below average wage inflation (from ASHE data), falling incidence of training (from the skills sector council e-skills) and the highest graduate unemployment after graduating (from HESA) in the skill/occupation area (i.e. IT) that corresponds with the skill/occupation area (IT) currently most affected by the most popular mode 4 route (intra company transfer), but tying both together relies on the “anecdotal” evidence of the people who have seen it happening over the last several years.
Firstly, mode 4 is generally temporary migration. In this case temporary can mean from 3 months to 5 years. Although it is sometimes claimed that the provision of services by natural persons does not impact the labour market (as the migrant is tied to the employer and can’t change employer), contracts of service (employment) and contracts for service are fairly interchangeable, so it is commonly associated with staff augmentation and outsourcing. One of the most popular mode 4 routes is the intra company transfer. It is predominately used by IT service companies. So this provides the best example cover.
Let’s start with some links that cover the first 2 points (i.e. does mode 4 exist and is it wanted by business):
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/sem_oct04_e/hamid_mamdouh_e.ppt
(a summary of mode 4)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/58/58.pdf
(search for mode 4 in this Lords session)
http://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/EU%20BTIA/EU%20BTIA/Report%20on%20IT-ITES-%20India-EU%20BTIA.pdf
(which covers the importance of mode 4 to the Indian IT business and what they hope to get from bilateral agreements including tax and social security exemptions/relief)
I won’t include any news stories since November were the government has repeatedly said that intra company transfer visas would not be capped as demanded by ‘business’. However only 4200 companies are registered to use intra company transfer visas and the top 10 users account for almost 50% of usage.
This research partially covers point 3 (i.e. could the work be done by people in the resident workforce):
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/sociology/leverhulme/conference/conferencepapers/millar.pdf
There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence (and from my own personal experience too) that it is common for UK workers to train up their replacements, which tends to suggest that the skills already exist.
It is even covered a bit in the government guidance on outsourcing public sector IT:
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/government-ict-offshoring.pdf
As for point 4 (i.e. salary/cost to employer), this FOI gives some useful information e.g. the average salary for an Indian ICT programmer in London is about £28, but the average salary for a programmer in London average is £33k:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/average_salary_and_allowances_fr#outgoing-103938
In March 2011, the UKBA (in error?) increased the appropriate rate salaries for IT workers requiring a visa to median salaries (instead of lower quartile salaries). Intellect UK (which represent the biggest users of ICT visas) raised the issue with the UKBA and the increase was reversed:
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/inside-outsourcing/2011/03/low-cost-offshore-labour-closing-down-sale-is-on-and-rush-from-indian-it-suppliers-expected.html
Point 4, there isn’t much evidence on this other than anecdotal (including my own experiences).
In most cases, displacement is done indirectly e.g. work is outsourced to the cheapest providers (that typically use migrants workers) in competitive tenders, or new work is preferentially given to migrant workers and resident workers are made redundant or disappear through natural wastage and not.
Point 5 (wage inflation), ASHE data is available and shows that software/IT professional, managers and strategists have experienced regular below average wage inflation:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2010/tab14-7a.xls
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/tab14_7a.xls
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab14_7a.xls
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2007/tab14_7a.xls
Computer Science graduates have the highest unemployment 6 months after graduation:
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1775&Itemid=161
http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2150&Itemid=161
The same has been true for the last 5 years.
E-skills (the skills sector council for IT) regularly reports on the incidence of training of UK IT workers. This has fallen by a third in the last decade and is now below the average for all occupations:
http://www.e-skills.com/tools/login/?ReturnUrl=%2fDocuments%2fResearch%2fRegional-datasheets%2fUKRegionaldatasheet.pdf
Gary
Really appreciated
Now, how does that become a campaign?
(and I admit I have not followed this all through yet)
Especially – who are the top ten Mode 4 users and what for?
That seems like a really important question
Richard
The top 25 are listed here from an FOI:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/60461/response/153597/attach/5/2011%2002%2009%20FOI%2017156%201341%20Q2%20T2%20ICT%20CoS%20Used%20by%20Client%20Contract%20ICT%20Sub%20Tiers%20and%20Top%2025%20Sponsors%20010110%20161210.xls
The top 10 are listed here from the Public Acconts Committee report on the UKBA from May 2011:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmpubacc/913/913.pdf
(page 11/13)
Tata Consultancy Services
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Infosys Technologies
Wipro Technologies
IBM UK Ltd
Tech Mahindra
Accenture (UK) Ltd
HCL Great Britain Ltd
Capgemini PLC
Steria Ltd
The PAC report also criticises the use of allowances counting towards the appropriate (already low) rate salaries. Allowances are typically accommodation and daily living/subsistence allowances paid to the transferred worker. As long as the stay in the UK is for less than 2 years (i.e. to attend temporary workplace) then they are mostly tax free (ITEPA 2003 section 38/39?). Usually the companies have agreed scale rates with HMRC.
Foreign seconded workers are also exempt from national insurance contributions for the first 52 weeks under the Social Security (Contributions) Regualtions 2001 section 145(2), which of course also saves the employer NIC payment.
Intra company transfer visas are not abused by everyone and there are legitimate reasons to allow companies to transfer staff. However some companies use the visa the provide the majority of their staff and rotate them every 18-24 months.
Intra company transfers (ICTs) are one type of “mode 4”. Under GATS ICT rules, no economic needs/labour market test can be used (e.g. no need to advertise vacancies to the resident workforce or seek to employ resident workers), and there is no limit on numbers (but countries such as Ireland have effectively introduced limits due to abuse).
Just to add, the abuse and potential for abuse is not limited to IT, but for various reasons IT has been most affected.
What it does show is that if there is a profit to be made out of moving people from one country to another, then businesses will exploit that. Exploiting pay differences/expectations is the easiest way, but tax relief for seconded workers also helps. The more subtle advantages include building/acquiring skills in one country and deploying the staff to other countries as required, rather then developing skills in each country.
More mode 4 liberalisation through international trade agreements is probably going to be good for business/investors, but not necessarily good for local workforces. It is also very difficult to reverse changes from international trade agreements, but the government and EU generally only involve “big” business and business lobbying groups in the direction the negotiations take.
The EU/India FTA will drops tariffs on goods which will help manufacturers (e.g. German car producers), but India is much more of a service economy and wants greater access to move people into the EU to provide services. On the other hand, “big” business in the EU (and especially the UK) wants better access to invest and grow in areas such as India’s financial sector and multibrand retail. Investors will benefit, but it will not create many jobs in the UK.
Evidence of what?
What part of UK-govt-facilitation-of- UK-resident-worker-displacement-for-cheaper-labour do you not understand?
British government cannot lawfully stop EU citizens going to work in other parts of the EU. Of course, all sorts of restrictions are put on those from countries outside the EU.
British citizens can work in the EU if they wish. There are British expats in Saudi Arabia, Holland, Germany, Australia and indeed, all over the globe.
Or is this somehow different? I often find nobody seems to object to the thousands of Australians and Canadians that come over here to work every year. The only time objections seemed to be raised is when the faces happen to be brown or black.
And the only reason immigrants work for less money is because employers break the law of the land. Why don’t you address this issue rather than atacking immigrants who simply want to better themselves?
Steveo,
firstly, I’m certainly not criticising the morality of people trying to better themselves by moving from the 3rd world to the 1st. The idea that there is a fair, open, process is, frankly, absurd. When did you see anyone white or, indeed, black, working in a Chinese or Indian restaurant ? Do you think the people that work there get paid NMW ? Really ? If so, I’d like to sell you some prime estate I own in Helmand province.
It is regrettably the case that a lot of work in this country is provided “below the radar” by people that don’t get NMW, don’t suffer deduction NI or PAYE, & probably aren’t meant to be here at all.
They aren’t to blame, they are being exploited by unscrupulous people, but to say there is no problem is just ludicrous.
You did actually read my post? I said that the only reason immigrants work for less money is because employers DON’T pay the national minimum wage!
Many British people have no objection to people from the UK going to countries like Saidi Arabia and Australia to better themselves, yet curiously object when Africans, Indians, Pakistani’s and Chinese come here to do exactly the same thing.
And why is there never any objection to the thousands of Canadians and Australians who settle here, quite a few of them illegaly to boot? Could it be that their faces are white?
There is usually a hypocrisy at work regarding ommigration…….and often with nasty racist overtones!
To Richard:
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) is not the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
To all:
The EU stipulates that Mode 4 workers brought into the EU must be ‘skilled’. To open to transnational corporations bringing in unskilled labour from the developing world as some devt agencies call for, would be an onslaught of very cheap labour indeed.
But the Minimum Wage gets bandied about, including by the EU Trade Commission and Vince Cable in relation to any critique of Mode 4, as ‘protecting workers rights’ here. Spot the mismatch.
The mismatch is in talking about TMW when Mode 4 involves skilled labour. It is inherently admitting that skilled workers here will finish up in competition for TMW with temporary migrant workers brought in. That’s a pretty dire situation, but if you consider the wage differential between other countries and here, it is perfectly feasible if allowed to happen.
The secrecy around the measures that facilitate and allow it, now and in the future, help that along. If people dont know about it, they cant object to it.
The completely inadequate response of most unions and the TUC is to call for workers brought in to have the same wages/conditions. But this fails to take account of: the comparative advantage of brought-in workers, for themselves and for the employers, that of lower cos; tthe UK govts support for this situation, despite the losses to the UK Treasury; and the fact of how much those wages, even low wages here, are worth when they are taken home.
In pursuing such a futile policy, most unions and the TUC are completely failing workers here.
Unions need to be cognisant of the bigger picture including the overriding trade agenda of which movement of labour is now a big part, hugely profitable for transnational corporations. This is now ‘trade’.
Enforce Minimum Wage laws, putting immigrant labour on a par with the domestic workforce, therefore making immigrant labour less attractive as they can’t work for less than domestic workers. Problem solved!
NB: I’m stating here what I believe SHOULD happen, not what IS happening, should there be any comfusion.