TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Part 2 The problem of organised Migration - why it helps UKIP and how to limit it.
This is where it all gets pretty messy as we look in depth at some areas of immigration, which of course is an issue also exploited by racists. This article looks at agriculture, but similar issues exist in the packing and hospitality industries.
A major concern of UKIP voters is immigration, and particularly immigration from within the EU. The reason for this is not hard to understand when you look at what has happened to unskilled labour in agriculture in the last thirteen years.
This analysis of the problem in Lincolnshire was provided in the House Of Commons way back in 2003.
“Historically, labour providers used to employ labour from the immediate locality to bring in the harvest, but packagers, producers and the industry are now hugely dependent on migrant labour. The point must be made, however, that without that migrant labour the food industry would not be able to operate. It has been said that 95 % of the horticulture industry is now dependent on foreign labour. To give the House a sense of the scale of the problem, half of the 72,000 casual workers employed in the industry are provided by gangmasters. It has been calculated that 20,000 workers per annum are employed by the gangmaster system in a 16-mile stretch between Spalding and Boston, and a further 20,000 workers are employed in the stretch between Spalding and Ely. However, the real scale of the problem is unknown. It is out of control to such an extent that gangmasters travel to Europe to recruit workers directly.” - Mr. Mark Simmonds Gangmasters 10 minute rule Bill, 10 September, 2003
It is interesting to note that this was before the A8 countries of the EU were granted the right to work in the UK. Indeed it has been estimated that many of the first wave of A8 immigrants were already working in the UK (38 percent at least).
"As the UK granted free movement of workers to nationals of the A8 central and eastern European countries in May 2004, a substantial number of (irregular) workers were effectively regularised. A closer look at the data of the Worker Registration Scheme indicated that 26 per cent of applicants of the first cohort were in the UK prior to accession and another 12 per cent have chosen to disguise their arrival in the UK" [1]
Here is a more recent view of the same figures.
"Figures on the precise number of migrant workers operating in the UK are hard to pinpoint, largely because of the transient nature of the sectors involved, but recent research indicated that more than 80 per cent of all peak season agricultural workers are migrants. In 2009, the UK Border Agency estimated that at least 90,000 migrant workers had been active in the previous fours years within the agriculture industry, although the total is believed to be significantly higher as workers recruited by gangmasters and employment agencies were not included. Illegal migrants – some of who work within the sector – were also not accounted for." [2]
This raises two key issues: firstly in an economy with a lack of jobs how are local people (i.e. voters) going to find work? Secondly what will be the impact of reforming the system on employers?
It is clear that EU rules do not permit the banning of migrant labour from the A8, A10 and in the future A2 countries (Romania and Bulgaria). In theory that should simply add to the pool of labour looking for work, and local workers should be able to compete on equal terms. However, and here is the main reason for the resonance of the UKIP message, the reality is EU (and other migrants) lock local people out of jobs for a whole variety of reasons.
Firstly let's be absolutely crystal clear on what is driving organised migration in such a way it erodes the quality of life of the working classes. The answer predictably is employers (large and small) in hospitality, packing and agriculture - in the latter case it is worth noting the close links between these employers and the Tory party. When asked these employers want the following from their workforce:
- Hard working, which is often code for non unionised and compliant.
- Zero employment rights, i.e. they want the ability to hire and fire at will and to get rid of trouble makers.
- Short term casual labour, available quickly to meet demand peaks.
- Low cost, i.e. minimum wage or below.
The reality is these industries are simply not prepared to pay what it takes to make their jobs attractive to local people. So in times of high employment they turned to migrant labour and as unemployment has crept up they see no reason to use the local workforce. There is interview evidence that some employers seek out migrant labour, a sort of inverse racism. For example:
"Because of their great work ethic the demand for Eastern Europeans is huge and we have became very established in only supplying them and that's why clients come to us... a lot of my clients would never dream of taking on somebody who wasn't Eastern European, they just wouldn't entertain it because they are so different in that they have got a completely different mentality to the Brits where they don't feel that life owes them a living and they want to work and they have a completely different way of looking at things than we do and when you get people that are that hard working then why would you go anywhere else?' Samantha, director, labour provider firm, rural England" [3]
On the other hand the same report also reports an alternative view.
"‘Before the recession the soft fruit industry lost millions because crops were left in the field because there was no-one to pick them yet Dundee's got very high unemployment. So I'd say the biggest problem for us is in getting quality workers because if the economies of the Eastern European countries pick up then people from there might still come but they won't want to pick fruit and I can't see the locals wanting to do it. We would love it if the local population would come in and do the job and then go home at night because we wouldn't have to provide accommodation and things like that which cause us problems. But I don't know how'd we get the locals in, the government would have to take their benefits away I suppose'. Nadine, owner, soft fruit farm, rural Scotland " [3]
There are other reasons than employer preference and a desire to force wages to the floor why locals are often excluded. Large numbers of migrant labour provide a reliable source of income and profit for gangmasters, their associates and often family. In particular sub standard temporary accommodation and transport can turn healthy revenues and would not be services required by local labour. This of course makes sourcing migrant labour preferable to locally sourced employees from a temporary labour provider perspective. In 2004 the results of a survey into migrant labour in Lincolnshire reported the following.
---
"73 % of the interviewed labour providers do not provide accommodation for their workers. 27 % provide accommodation.
Evidence gathered from the migrant worker survey suggests many gangmasters, after saying they do not supply accommodation, still work very closely with accommodation providers, who are sometimes family members.
The migrant worker survey found that 23.2 % of migrant workers who are working through labour providers have direct deductions made from their wages for accommodation and other services. " [4].
---
Similarly on transport.
---
"When asked the question “Do you charge for transportation?” 36 % of the gangmasters interviewed said they are not allowed to do so because they have no PSV licence.
Of the 93.3 % gangmasters which provide transport for their workers, 36 % charge their employees. When comparing the gangmaster survey with the migrant worker survey, almost the same percentage (38.8 %) of migrant workers say they have been charged for transport.
If labour providers use a vehicle with more than eight passenger seats, they need a PSV Operator's Licence from the local Traffic Commissioner. " [4]
---
Incidentally despite lobbying of the government for a decade the requirement for a PSV license still stands and in fact the requirements have been tightened still further. It is now no longer permitted to deduct transport costs from wages, which the Gangmasters Alliance is trying to get reinstated, see
http://www.thegangmastersalliance.co.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... tsolve.htm. Keep an eye out for that to be changed in a future red tape, i.e employment rights crack down ( Do UKIP have a policy on this I wonder).
So to summarise, we have in the UK an industry of minimum and sub minimum wage migrant labour, with no job security. This has the added bonus, from the labour providers view, of providing a semi captive market for add on services like accommodation and transport. Given this, it is hardly surprising that the local workforce feels excluded and discriminated against. Fertile ground of course for right wing populist and near racist politics of UKIP. However there are some clouds on the horizon for this nice money making operation.
A particular concern for this industry of minimum wage temporary labour is the EU. That's right - the EU - the very organisation that Farage blames for depriving local people of jobs. In particular two areas concern them, firstly as per all bad employers improved workers rights. Here is a view on the problems that this causes.
"‘The challenge now is how to deal with the incoming new legislation for temporary workers which is coming through next April [Temporary and Agency Workers Directive] because it means that after thirteen weeks employers have to make a commitment to their temps and give them the same benefits and salary and rights as permanent staff so my clients have told me they won't be using agency temps and they will just take someone on on an eleven week contract direct instead. So all this legislation is fine and it is all about protecting worker's rights but effectively what it is doing is spoiling the UKs flexible workforce because it is making temps more expensive'. " [3]
So in effect the EU is going to level the playing field for temporary staff ( Farage and Cameron definitely wouldn't approve) and an impact of that is that migration agency workers may lose out to the open market (in which locals can compete) - if the open market is prepared to sign away its rights on a fixed term contract.
An even bigger concern for these employers is that when Romanian and Bulgarians can work in the UK outside of SAWS (Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme) the wages and conditions on offer are so poor they will leave for better jobs. (In other words the dreaded A2 influx has already happened and is picking fruit - Cameron kept that quiet didn't he).
‘We can get the right people at the minute because Romanians and Bulgarians are restricted to working on farms but come the end of 2013 they will get freedom to work wherever they want in the UK and SAWS could well be abolished around then too and that will be a crunch time for agriculture because once we get past year one and year two of full working rights then I think that as we have seen with Spain and Portugal and now with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania that people will move away from agriculture so the sector will be short of workers'. Yoshi, chief executive, labour provider firm, rural England [3]
This is the reason that the very industry that backs the Conservative party is demanding more immigrant labour via a renewed SAWS; whilst abolishing the agricultural wages boards of course. This is a natural point of tension between a UKIP voter and the Tory party establishment which seeks the largest possible pool of low paid labour to maximise its profits. So far despite pressure Cameron has refused to renew SAWS, this combined with the A2 workers gaining access to the UK jobs market is likely to change things in the UK, one or more of the following can be expected to happen:
- Wages will rise in agriculture and conditions will improve.
- Gangmasters and by extension employers will turn to illegal labour to keep costs down.
- Supermarkets will import more food from abroad resulting in loss of capacity in agriculture.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months.
So far this article has talked about the legal use of migrant labour, however exploitation does exist. A key weapon in the fight against it is the Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA). An Ecologist article on exploitation of migrant labour looked at this in some detail.
---
"Between April 2010 and March 2011 the GLA uncovered more than 800 workers being exploited across the UK, prosecuted twelve companies and revoked the licences of 33 gangmasters, according to the organisations' latest annual report. And a number of major cases are forthcoming, including the prosecution of more than a dozen farmers in the dairy sector who are accused of using unlicensed labour. Arrests also recently followed a major operation into people trafficking in the North West.
But the agency faces a difficult period as spending cuts begin to bite. It has been hit by a number of funding reductions, including the slashing of funds for a network of community intelligence operations set up in cooperation with local councils. The GLA's most recent annual report notes that it 'faces a major challenge in seeking to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable workers with the prospect of fewer resources'.
Campaigners point to recent criminal cases as evidence of ongoing problems in the sector – and why the GLA's work is so vital: earlier this year, Northampton Crown Court heard allegations that Eastern European workers picking leeks for several major supermarket chains ‘were treated like slaves’, with workers ‘intimidated, threatened and beaten’ by gangmasters, and many workers housed in ‘squalor.’ " [2]
---
This level of exploitation to date would seem to be less common than the article suggests, to a large degree because of the role of the supermarkets who while being the chief culprits of low wages also seek to comply with employment law. Surveys within the agricultural sector suggests this has a significant impact.
"Interviewees reported that the supermarkets, in dominating the supply chain and insisting on checking that workers involved in producing the food that they sold on their shelves, actually had a positive impact on the industry in that they raised the standards of employment in that sector. However some interviewees reported that the role of the supermarkets was contradictory in that on one hand they insisted on workers in agribusiness being treated to strict minimum standards but at the same time they used their buying power to drive down the price that they paid producers for their product, meaning that their suppliers had to reduce their costs in order to remain profitable. As labour was the biggest cost to suppliers it is on this outgoing that producers sought to reduce expenditure, which in turn had a detrimental impact on the standards of employment for workers." [3]
However exploitation does go on and unscrupulous business practises like the use of umbrella companies to reduce tax payments cause problems by allowing bad employers to undercut good ones. This situation is only going to get worse. The GLA is the only effective regulator of this labour market but it is a victim of the war on employment rights AKA "red tape". Even when malfeasance has been uncovered the tradition reluctance of the courts to punish the wealthy is in play as the head of the agency recently bemoaned.
The following is from an Interview with the CEO of the GLA conducted for the Independent on Sunday by Emily Dugan on the 23rd June 2013.
---
"The fines for agencies and farmers exploiting staff are so small that they are seen as a “hazard of the job” and not a deterrent, Paul Broadbent, chief executive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority said in an interview.
“Often the punishment doesn't fit the crime”, he said. “I'm as yet to fully understand why, with the Gangmasters Licensing Act, generally the punishments as far as I've seen have been unduly lenient.”
He cited two recent cases in Northern Ireland, where unlicensed gangmasters were fined £500, despite making more than £60,000 and £10,000 respectively from unscrupulous labour practices, including charging extortionate ‘finding fees’ to workers brought over from Eastern Europe."
---
So when Cameron cuts back on the GLA he is effectively giving the green light to allow importers of migrant labour to drive down conditions, and drive the local workforce even further into the mire.
In conclusion, UK agriculture has become dependent on low cost migrant labour, operating at or below minimum wage levels and performing demanding and seasonal manual work. Prices are kept low by the markets that agriculture is supplying, but some fairly large profits are being made. Local labour is effectively locked out of much of this labour market which feeds UKIP voting in the shires. However there is some evidence that even if it wasn't, the wages on offer would not be sufficient to induce local people to take on the work, at least in good economic times. The willingness of the Tory and Lib Dem government to erode the oversight of gangmasters is going to make things worse rather than better for local people, despite the best efforts of the EU to protect them.
What is clear at this point is the following.
- The actions of the EU help rather than hinder the UK workforce.
- If the EU migrants were removed, UK agriculture would not suddenly offer well paid jobs to the local population, it would either shrink in size or turn to illegal labour.
- The Tory agenda of reducing regulation (and the UKIP agenda of no regulation) is the exact opposite of what is required.
What is less clear is what could an incoming Labour government do about any of this.