Comment Comment
Comment on the blogs Log in here Become a member Register now
 
Tim Smedley

Tim Smedley

6 Nov 2008 | 15:47

(Maximum of 120 characters)
Articles more than one month old can be viewed only by CIPD members or PM Subscribers.


Our online poll topic - Should there be an overall cap on the level of immigration in response to rising levels of UK unemployment? - proved very popular. At the time of writing, the vast majority of readers, 79 per cent, said ‘Yes’.

I find this surprising, for a number of reasons. Back in March, when the early warning signs of a faltering economy were starting to show, I wrote in the feature Say hello, wave goodbye: “British business has an overwhelmingly positive story to tell about its migrant workforce because, in spite of skills shortages, an ageing population and, in Scotland and Ireland’s case, high emigration, the economy has enjoyed an Indian summer of prosperity thanks in part to the immigration boom. But as the economy starts to feel the crunch, so migrants may go as quickly as they came, and with that could come problems.”

I was writing mostly about the boom of immigration from within the EU, and Eastern Europe especially. Since then, we have indeed seen large numbers leaving our shores, as Lucy Phillips reported. A Polish food factory worker in Scotland, Pawel Padziunas, told me back then, “It’s not about the country, it’s not about liking or not liking – it’s only about the money.”

The notion that a fixed cap on immigration will affect UK unemployment doesn’t seem to tally. As we enter recession, many migrant workers will lose their jobs or chose to leave for pastures new; the increasingly free movement across EU borders now allows them to do that. In a sense, for some employers this almost represents a guilt-free form of cutting jobs. Migrant workers are infamously un-unionised and can have the option to join another nation’s payroll rather than the dole queue.

The issues that remain then are non-EU workers, and the problems that required an immigration solution in the first place – skills shortages and demographics. The argument for letting fewer people in now that there are fewer jobs going around is overly simplistic. For a start, the UK is a far less appealing proposition than it was a couple of years ago. Those still wishing to enter fall very roughly into two categories – those with the skills none of us have, and those willing to do the jobs none of us want to do. Which of those two groups would you not like coming in? And in any case, the former category is covered by the new points-based system.

In rapidly worsening, or even rapidly improving, economic times – for organisations as well as governments – surely the ability to be flexible and adaptable is a necessity. If we need more people in a certain industry or skills set, so we let those people in; again, something the points-based system is designed to do. A fixed number or cap is far harder to change (imagine the headlines) and inflexible by its very nature.

I’d love to hear from the 79 per cent of you who felt otherwise. Is the points-based system not working? Has unemployment in your area been caused by immigration? Leave your comments below.

Comments

1. At 14:55 on 08 Nov 2008, James Jameson wrote:

Let's be clear. None of us want a scenario akin to the film Children of Men. Yet it wouldn't be humanitarian, let alone justified, of one of the most powerful and politically leading countries on the planet, to build a big wall to stop people 'coming in' - something that could happen if we let the Daily Mail into the walls of the UK Border Agency. There needs to be a precisely engineered and honed system, a balance. For the good of the UK economy, so that we remain to be attractive for potential immigrants, and to remain a strong international player. The premise of the points-based system is to provide a flexible, adaptable and intelligible control on UK immigration. Whether we see a successful approach here or not, one thing that the government are certain about is that something needs to be done, and that something needs to have teeth - clever teeth. A cap is surely in its most basic form too clunky an approach, too indiscriminate of skill requirements. As not just one of the most complex economies of the developed world, but in a time when nothing is certain on the international scale, as the author rightly notes, we must rely on flexibility and adaptability, a system that has been tried and tested to success (if only we could pilot all of our other domestic policies to gauge success factor before national implementation) but also engineered to offer intrinsic flexibility, has to be a move in the right direction. Who knows, in two years time, we might be calling for more people to help us if certain government departments don't pull their fingers out and improve the skills gaps in the country's natural population resource.
Report this post

2. At 18:05 on 09 Nov 2008, Sirisha Attili wrote:

I think the argument is very sensibly put. At least someone sees the point!!
Report this post

3. At 18:10 on 09 Nov 2008, Sirisha Attili wrote:

In addition to my previous comment, I'd like to say that unemployment is definitely not caused by the rising numbers of immigrant workers. This is because organisations would give jobs to only those people whom they deem 'fit'. Moreover it goes without saying that immigrant workers are always the last option the organisations resort to. I can't understand why people are complaining!!
Report this post

4. At 07:45 on 12 Nov 2008, Iain wrote:

Unfortunately many people fail to see the whole picture and think that everyone employs on the basis of best fit. In areas such as the picking and packing of farm produce the only criteria for work is to take the lowest wage. In many farming areas across the country locals have lost out to overseas imported labour as they will take below 'working wage' salaries. Construction is also a major employer of overseas labour and not all of it in accordance with employment legislation.

There are large numbers of people in the unemployment lines in this country that are more than capable of doing many of the jobs that are being filled by overseas workers, but are not employed because of discrimination by employers over age. Yes, we say it doesn't happen but it does.

Skills shortages have not happened overnight but are down to the failure of HR to get the business to invest in the future workforce. In the 70s nearly every organisation had a proper apprenticeship scheme - up to fairly recently they had all but vanished from British industry, and where they did exist the numbers were very limited. The government are as much to blame by the dumbing down of qualifications. Instead of raising the bar to the highest qualifications people should be aiming for the bar was lowered; as long as they go for the minimum qualification they can say their target was met.

Personally I am all for an overall cap on the level of immigration as we would be forced to put our own house in order. I am not saying a total ban but serious limitations and justifiable reasons why someone should come in.
Report this post

5. At 12:43 on 12 Nov 2008, Kisitor Nyuyki Ngong wrote:

No one denies the fact that immigration may put an economy under pressure. But we can't say immigration should be trimmed instantly at a time the future of the economy is uncertain. All it requires is stricking a balance. We shouldn't argue blindly. At a moment when people are suffocating because of increasing food prices and farmers complaining of increasing cost of production is not a time foreign workers should be dished out for locals charging higher wages for their labour. Yet this will not be doing good to farmers nor the government's inflationary target.
Report this post

6. At 15:54 on 12 Nov 2008, Bernard Mandica wrote:

I am not sure whether increased immigration in the country can be seen as the cause of unemployment or indeed whether increased population in the country is the cause of individual economic problems. Because if that is the case China, India, upcoming Poland, and may I also say Brazil would be in the worst state of affairs. Yet these countries are still growing albeit with reduced percentages. The USA may have a better chance of passing this economic downturn quickly than the UK because of their philosophical approach to tackling real issues to do with economic growth. In a micro-economic level environment though, the HRM will play a vital role in reducing disciminative behaviour that exists within employment systems.
Report this post

NEED HELP? Contact the website support team
 

About the editors

James Brockett

James Brockett

Deputy news editor at People Management

Jane Pickard

Jane Pickard

Associate editor on People Management

Lucy Phillips

Lucy Phillips

Senior reporter on People Management

Marianne Smedley

Marianne Smedley

Senior sub-editor at People Management

Rima Evans

Rima Evans

Editor at People Management (on maternity leave)

Steve Crabb

Steve Crabb

Editorial director of Coaching at Work, PM's sister publication.

Tim Smedley

Tim Smedley

Features writer on People Management.

Join the CIPD today

And save money with our new longer memberships

Join today (Opens in a new window)

Show your true colours

Enhance your career in 2009 with CIPD courses and qualifications

Find out how (Opens in a new window)

Links open in new window
 
People Management neither recommends, nor is responsible for, the content of external sites listed here.
Your link here: contact the PM sales team.