Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Regardless of the figures, there are a few perennial things in "discussion" of immigration that crop up consistently-

To take someones's job- This is an interesting concept. It creates the idea that a job is something that can be snatched from someone's hands, like a pint or a handbag. Unfortunately, if it happens like that, then the work is most likely black market, and is likely to involve only illegal foreign labour, generating a product or service at a great, but unfortunately illegitimate, saving to the very people who bluster about jobs being taken.

If it's legitimate employment, then, in my experience, this is usually what happens. A job vacancy appears- one which, if it's the kind of thing a newly-arrived immigrant can do, probably became vacant because it's so tedious, demeaning or poorly paid that its previous incumbent had his/her fill and quit.

The employer considers various applicants, and selects one on the basis, probably not of skills (as these are minimal), but how long the applicant is likely to remain in this lousy post, and how hard s/he is willing to work to keep it. Again, since a newly-arrived immigrant with minimal language skills is not likely to have much in the way of choice, chances are that s/he will come up trumps in that category. It may well be that, as one of my neighbours recently claimed, that they are willing to work for less, but if it's above the minimum wage then I'm afraid that's just capitalism. And if it's below, then that is also the case, but in the old-fashioned sense of "outright bloody exploitation/alienation" (oops, put that Marx away).

Even if you live in an area with high immigration impact, seriously, how many unskilled natives do you know who are unemployed ? According to the Faggot, sorry the Independent, quoting the DoE, although unemployment has risen recently there are still more people in employment than at any time since it was recorded. And how long would you expect those people to remain unemployed ? Not long, I'd reckon, if they're not "wasters" (as I read British workers described by one employment agency that prefers dagoes).

And who with a grain of sense would turn away skilled workers when we constantly hear about the lack of them ? One third of the health service is staffed by immigrants. Stick 'em on the boat back to Key Worker Land !

It may well be that this changes when marauding hordes of Olgas and Vanyas "pour in" over the next two years. I've no idea what right overseas EU members have to welfare if they have held no employment at all. I very much doubt that someone could arrive and, if they had no luck job-hunting at first, just sign on. And if things did get to the bursting point that the redtops predict, then I imagine word would get back to their home countries and their little brothers and sisters would probably decide to stay put. Especially since they will most likely be "taking" British jobs in the form of overseas outsourcing by then. The BASTARDS ! They don't come over here, take our money and we drink their beer !

2 comments:

naneh said...

you cant just show up and go on the dole, even if, like me you have got a british passport. EU citizens (and british people who have spent over a certain number of years abroad) can come and work in england, but they dont enjoy full rights, and they wont until they have paid taxes for three years. so even though i have the same passport you do, i cant apply for university stipends, and i cant get a regular mobile fone (pre paid only!) and i cant get a regular bank account (i have an "international" one, with no overdraft) until i have paid taxes in the uk for 3 years....which is unlikely to happen anytime so, as i have already returned to russia!
so let the vanyas come, they will do the jobs you dont want and they wont get more than 5.05 and hour in return. if that.

Tom Conway said...

The Times Editorial column isn't the place you normally expect to find anything that might support New Labour policy, but these are the government figures they published yesterday under the tagline "Immigration from Eastern Europe is a success and should not be curtailed"-

Of the 500,000 or so eastern European workers who arrived in Britain during 2004-2006

97% are registered in full-time employment

80+% are aged 18-34

7% have brought dependents

193 have been awarded income support, 564 have been awarded jobseeker's allownce, 453 are on homelessness assistance and 110 (0.04 of allocations at this time) have been awarded council housing. "Negligible" figures, it says, and I would agree, unless I saw anything to prove otherwise.

"Those who are economically inactive must prove they are financially self-sufficient..Only those in work can apply for (but are often denied) housing benefit or tax credits...Any person must experience a year of consistent legal employment before being eligible for jobseeker's allowance or income support.......In short, immigration is working".

Of course there are vast numbers working on the black, but I would hesitate to blame them for the wages they are paid and would wonder why any Uk native would work for that kind of employer when there are literally hundreds of thousands of legitimate jobs available in similar sectors. Most such jobs that I see advertised in shop windows and the local press pay more or less the same as what I got (around £5 an hour) when i did service sector jobs from 1993-95. So if wages have remained unchanged over 10 years, how can the last two years be blamed for it ?

Your brother's particular situation I can't, and don't think I should, comment on. My general idea of council housing has always been that it should be a short to medium term provision. If it's there as such, it provides a safety net/better option for the poor. Should their circumstances improve, they might then be able to afford to buy privately, and prices in general are kept down. Of course, it's never been like that. Labour governments and councils just treated the estates as vast revenue-generating fiefdoms til the 80s, when the Tories sold most of them.

I appreciate that the awarding of council housing on the basis of need rather than long-term local residence causes deep resentment, as it did when families who were raised in East End slums and survived the Blitz saw the newest council homes given to immigrants invited to Britain in the 50-70s. But a lot of those East End families were eventually rehoused in Essex etc.