SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Good.
14th November Movement for Left Unity
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
Good.
Doctor Carrot
Marxist Henchman
I pay good money for the balls-rats thing I'll have you know.
Yes no doubt if all EU citizens went to live in Belgium to wait tables it would bring down wages of table waiters. And yes it can hit - and does - the poorest.
The rest however has huge variants. Industry specific, regional, the length of time wages are affected and loads more...and the longer term you look at it the less impact immigration has. Everywhere.
So the secondary thing immigration can hit is resources. Like the state resources of an ageing nation which have been underfunded for 35 years. Including any state aid to people most hit by any temporary changes in wages.
But the two things which are hitting wages for the poorest 25pc of the UK right now are 1. 35 years of neo-liberalism and it's structures and 2. the worst economic downturn in 75 odd years screwing internal demand.
Immigration is a side show. A symptom of citizens chasing the centralisation of power and wealth.
No problem with folks not agreeing but i think you get the point.
ska invita
back on the other side
Dont think this has been posted (havent kept up with thread) but Weekly Worker have an analysis of the policy conference, including some observations as to who was there...
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shape
Obviously a piece with its own bias, but worth a look.
Naturally it is the already committed (entrenched!) left who have most made the trip to Manchester...
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/1004/left-unity-moderate-party-takes-shape
Obviously a piece with its own bias, but worth a look.
Naturally it is the already committed (entrenched!) left who have most made the trip to Manchester...
Last edited:
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I doubt anyone here disagrees with any of that - I certainly don't. But the fact remains that a lot of people, and especially the low paid workers whose terms and conditions are affected - consider immigration an issue. And they have every right to.
Seems to me we can do one of two things (alright, probably more than that but you know what I mean). We can refuse to discuss economic immigration at all/say it's an unmitigated 'good thing'/call anyone raising these concerns a racist/deny any negative impact.
Or we can be honest - tell the truth that it has had a negative affect on a lot of low paid workers while pointing out that migration limits or whatever are no solution and point to the progressive solution (ie. organising). Then when you talk about the other stuff, which I agree is more important - neoliberalism, concentration of wealth, deliberate destruction of industry and attacks on public services etc - you're doing so from a position of credibility because you've not denied peoples concerns, you've been honest about what is a sensitive subject and they're more likely to listen.
Instead of downplaying the impact on low wage workers (and if you're one of the ones affected it's not just a side issue, as I think seventh bullet put pretty well) and extolling the positive impact it has on other parts of the economy and the wages of the middle class, I prefer to acknowldge there's some truth to the economic concerns and instead focus on solutions, pointing out why migration controls won't help and discussing what might, offering my preferred solution which is organising everyone together - but it is a two way discussion and it's worth remembering that.
It's an important discussion IMO not because we disagree on migration controls and all the rest - I don't think we do - but rather because it's something a hell of a lot of people - w/c people in particular - have concerns with and we need to work out how we're going to answer these concerns. I've found that the above works much better than going on about curry, how good it is for capitalist growth (migration that is, not curry lol), denying any negative impact or, as some on the left do, screaming racist.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
PS You can get the rats/balls thing for free - just sit behind a bakery where the bins are at night with no trousers on and it'll happen soon enough 
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Agreed, getting obsessed by 'open borders' is just a total and utter fucking waste of time. No left wing group is going to be in any sort of position to do anything about the UK's (or Australia, France wherever) immigration policy.I haven't read anyone else's posts on the matter but here are my thoughts anyway
The left has to tackle the issue of migration as a whole - not immigration, not "open borders" or free movement or closed borders and certainly not " immigration and the working class " as a single subject.
What does need to be thought about and addressed is how to deal with the day-to-day consequences of immigration on working-class communities, and how we can organise around them to improve the situation both for immigrants and non-immigrants.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
Definitely - but there are no silver bullets in regards that one.
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Instead of just chucking the word in, why not think about neoliberalism means? One of the central planks is "wage restraint", or, well, forcing down wages. That's not achieved simply by the ruling class declaring that wages will be lowered-labour is "disciplined" by a variety of factors, such as privatisation, outsourcing, welfare cutbacks etc. The "reserve army of labour", and the rapid expansion of that labour through migration and free movement laws, is a massive, massive part of that.
If you're still not convinced, answer this question for me: if free movement of labour within the EU isn't having any significant effect on driving down wages, then why is the European ruling class so determined to maintain the free movement of labour in the face of sometimes quite aggressive opposition?
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Free movement of labour within the EU is a pretty minor part of the general drive to deregulate labour markets over the past 35 years, and it's only one of many factors pushing wage restraint. Given that there's no prospect of putting any of the other protective barriers in place, stricter immigration controls would make very little difference. In any case, there's no way that a capitalist government is going to restrict capital's access to labour markets, it simply isn't going to happen.
For now, in the real world, there are two choices here, free movement of labour in which workers can move freely and are entitled to the same rights in any country they settle in or regulated immigration and a two-tier workforce with some rights reserved for native-born workers. Of the two, which do you think capital wants?
I'm sorry I just don't agree with this, it's not "minor" at all it's an essential part of labour market discipline, not the only factor by any means but definitely one of the most important. As SpackeFrog says, why else would the European ruling class fight so hard to defend it in the face of such overwhelming and virulent opposition? (Notwithstanding the fact that in some cases, as SpineyNorman mention, nation-states do cave into political pressure and introduce various limitations and restrictions)
There's that word free again....
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Britain sustained quite high levels of immigration throughout the 1950s and 1960s without it having a significant effect on labour market competition. In fact Britain has more or less uncontrolled Commonwealth immigration until 1962. The major shift in labour market discipline happens in the 1970s & 1980s and is about increased business competition, de-unionisation, deindustrialisation and monetarism. What it doesn't coincide with is increased access to EU labour markets.
I'd dispute that the ruling class fights hard to defend free movement of labour. I'd say some fractions of capital fight hard to maintain free access to a supply of marginalised workers, something that existing immigration controls and public discussion of immigration aids them in doing.
Yeah, free, as in you can move between countries looking for work without climbing over this (that's the Spanish/Morroccan border btw)
What we have now is not freedom of movement. We have a two-tier workforce on capital's terms. The answer is abolishing that, not adding to the restrictions.
Well firstly the levels of immigration from the 1950's and 1960's were very very small compared to the levels of immigration that we've experienced in the last few years. Between 1955-1962 the Home Office estimated that the net intake of immigrants (both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth) was in the region of 472,500. To put this in perspective in the year 2009 alone there was a net intake of 196,000, and according to the 1991-2001 census 4,900,000 people had settled in Britain from abroad (although their exact immigration status is not counted, I think that should illustrate clearly that we're living through a period of much higher overall immigration now than back then)
This graph here from wikipedia I think shows quite clearly that we're living through a period of increased immigration, and furthermore this graph ends in 2001 and before some of the EU freedom of movement laws came into being.
And secondly there's a context which, astonishingly, you've not mentioned, which is in the immediate aftermath of the second world war there was a massive shortage of labour in the UK as a result loss of manpower during the war. Therefore immigration at the rates at which it was taking place would have a very different impact on the labour market than on contemporary society. This is not the case today, we do not have a massive labour shortage like that we faced in the immediate aftermath of world war 2 in contemporary Britain, infact we have a huge surplus of labour deemed un-necessary and persistently high unemployment rates along with it, thanks in part to neo-liberalism. We're also in a long term period of wage repression, which again was not the case in the immediate aftermath of WW2, and so the effect of immigration is likely to be very different.
As a result making a like-for-like comparisons between these two periods of time without mentioning these important differences is a little bit misleading.
Yeah, free, as in you can move between countries looking for work without climbing over this (that's the Spanish/Morroccan border btw)
What we have now is not freedom of movement. We have a two-tier workforce on capital's terms. The answer is abolishing that, not adding to the restrictions.
Well firstly I'm not advocating increased restrictions on migration, I suspect we're probably in agreement on this, so please don't suggest that I'm in some way in favour of building giant 12ft fences to keep out the foreigns. I'm interesting in changing society in such a way so that millions of people don't feel it necessary to have to endure that kind of hardship just for the slim hope of a sub-minimum wage job. What I think we should be doing is dropping some of the naive preconceptions that current EU labour market policy is based on liberating workers and defending their freedom when it's actually a process that involves many coercive pressures and plays a hugely significant role in a wider neo-liberal attempt to lower wages and undermine collective bargaining and all the other things that've been mentioned on this thread. I don't think immigration limits would actually do anything to resolve the root cause of this process, which is a) massive global inequality and b) people having to sell their labour to survive so I don't advocate them, plus I'm uneasy with the very notion that the state has a right to chain a human being to their country of birth against their wishes, or that only people of a certain ethnicity have a right to live in a certain chunk of land. I just think we should start off a debate on immigration with no illusions about what purposes that immigration serves.
After all, by this logic I'm also free to choose who I work for, and in the last 3 years I've worked at a number of places where I've been bullied, attacked, paid £4 an hour, denied any kind of union representation, put in unsafe conditions, denied breaks and holidays, had wages withheld, allsorts of bullshit. And yet I freely chose to work there. Would you defend that state of affairs? I would rather not have the freedom to be exploited in that way quite frankly. Does opposing this sort of economy and these kinds of labour market pressures mean i'm opposed to my own freedom?
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Worth bearing in mind as well that in the post war boom it was possible for wages to be much higher without putting any serious pressure on the profits of the capitalists. Neoliberalism arose as a response to the fact that that was no longer the case.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
The context was the precise point I was making. Substantial levels of immigration and liberal immigration rules don't inherently in themselves affect job security, employment levels or job competition. Immigrants aren't the principle tool for weakening working class resistance.
Aside from disagreeing with the significance you're putting on immigration as a cause, I don't disagree with much of that. But (a) try formulating any of that as a coherent policy for a party platform and (b) not keeping people out means "open borders"
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Well quite. If we build a wall round the country and shut all the airports, would that cease to be the case?
I appreciate that, fair enough, although I never claimed it was the principle tool for weakning working class resistance, just one of many different processes that should be viewed in context.
Well again this is the hard bit, how do you turn a well intentioned platitude about "changing society in such a way as to negate this process" into something concrete? I almost feel embarassed saying it because it's so close to "well comrade after the revolution all this will be sorted.... by SOCIALISM!" and that's just not good enough.
But there are a number of a concete policy steps that even a midly social democratic government could undertake to deal with rampant global inequality. Cancelling third world debt? Not pandering to criminal oligarchs who loot their own treasuries by giving them tax havens to hide their loot in? Not saying any of these would be a magic panacea that would deal with this in one fell swoop but it would be a start if nothing else.
SpackleFrog
Smash showy bell-bottom pants and sporty haircuts
Either point me to where on this thread anybody has suggested we build a wall around the country and shut all the airports or stop hiding behind straw men.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
The logic of this statement is that if you cut off access to the larger global reserve army of labour by stopping migration and curtailing freedom of movement, then that would have a "massive, massive" effect on neo-liberal wage suppression.
I'm not arguing with a straw man, I'm taking the argument to its logical conclusion.
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
Yeah, I appreciate that. I just think its importance in the greater scheme of things can be overstated.
Trouble is, unless you're already a socialist revolutionary "This government will sort out all the problems caused by capitalism around the world, meaning no one will be forced into economic exile, but instead will only migrate out of personal choice" doesn't look any more plausible than Open Borders
You should see the state of this debate in Spain, by the way. On the one hand you've got people on the Left complaining that the state of the country has forced hundreds of thousands of young Spanish people into "economic exile", on the other the Right arguing that they're about to be invaded by thousands of Africans. It is by no means a good thing that people are forced to move around against their will because Capitalism suddenly changed the rules on them.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Are you bollocks. You're only taking it to its logical conclusion if the logical process through which you're moving involves introducing a wide range of additional and completely unjustifiable assumptions. You're constructing a strawman - and it's not a very convincing one either - it's got wonky legs and everything.
Another incredibly important means by which the labour force has been disciplined is via technological innovations - in particular more flexible and adaptable productive technologies, whereby the same tool can be programmed to do several different jobs and build several different components - heavily facilitated by IT developments that mean CAD drawings in electronic format can be fed into a machine and you'll get the component at the other end - leading to reduced labour requirements numerically and in terms of skill, increasing the power of the reserve army's wage restraining function in two mutually reinforcing ways.
I recognise this fact so your 'logical' process of deductions would probably lead you to conclude that I'm some kind of neo-luddite (I know Delroy, I know - I'm using it rhetoricaly, you don't have to recite chapter 14 of the making of the english working class). But I'm not and would oppose the destruction of this technology - for what ought to be blindingly fucking obvious reasons.
The two are perfectly compatible, as are recognising the impact of 'open borders' policies under current arrangements and opposing migration controls.
You appear to be implying that the acknowlement of unpalatable facts logically entails the adoption of unpalatable politics. I reject this implication completely.
Last edited:
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
It seems like a pretty direct and logical assumption to me. Someone argues that mass immigration constitutes a "massive, massive" part of neo-liberal wage suppression, why wouldn't we expect
curtailing it to have a substantial effect? I'm not saying that you or SpackleFrog have argued for that at all.
As to the impact of technology, I think the fact that technological innovations do displace and deskill workers does imply a certain form of political opposition, a form of neo-luddism, where we advocate democratic control of technology and technological change. Where does that leave you if you apply the same thinking to immigration? Democratic control of immigration? By who? And how?
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that anyone is advocating closing the borders or anything like that, and don't think anyone on this thread has "unpalatable politics". I just think you're wrong about the significance of immigration in the processes we're describing.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I'd probably disagree with the term 'massive' here too but it is an integral and arguably essential element.
Agree on the technology too - this is where I think the autonomists and other have it spot on in emphasising the importance of technology as in class struggle. And I'd agree its application, like everything else in the economy/workplace should be under democratic (workers) control. And its use to undermine wages should be resisted in the short term as well. Not necessarily by opposing its implementation full stop but by insisting that if it is applied we should get at least some of the benefits - shortened working day on the same money so jobs aren't lost, that kind of thing - the result (if it wasn't defeat) might be that the tech isn't introduced cos the boss won't benefit but I don't think that makes it a form of neo-luddism - the aim isn't to stop it being introduced but to at least stop it being introduced to our detriment at at best have it introduced so it benefits us. Because despite the much needed revisionism the luddites weren't just about retaining control of the labour process IMO - they were also trying to defend a dying craft (which I can understand - I'm a craftsman with great pride in my craft, even though I can't perform it any more for reasons I can't be arsed to go into and I'd hate to see my craft die and the skills I have get lost). Maybe neo-luddism is better defined than I'm aware of and does take into account that kind of thing, I dunno.
In a roundabout/indirect way I think there should be democratic control over economic migration too, but not movement of people. Not got it fully worked out but I think in a socialist (as opposed to proper communist) society we'd have democratic workers institutions - like unions only not the left wing of capital (lol) type ones we have now - which would decide how work is allocated. And this doesn't have to be a 'wait for socialism' solution either - it's been done (albeit imperfectly) before - I think the US dockers union used to control the allocation of work. That way you get solve core of the problem without needing to resort to policing borders and stopping people going wherever the fuck they want, which I'm in favour of as a cast iron principle.
Because unless you're a racist (and most of the people I know with concerns about migration are not) it's the economic impact that matters, not having too many foreigners here per se, or its impact on culture or whatever. If they didn;t perceive it to be being used to undermine their pay and conditions I don't think any of the people I know with these concerns would have a problem with it.
I guess this would have to be organised as internationally as possible to prevent it leading in potentially nationalist directions (British unions only overtime to British workers when others need the work - there's various potential problems that I'm sure we can all have a good go at identifying) but I reckon something could be worked out. Cos this is the crux of it IMO - both immigration controls and 'open borders' under capitalism, like everything else the capitalist state does, will be used to benefit capital (though the extent to which this happens depends on class struggle - I don't think they've got free rein before I'm accused of denying w/c agency). Who controls it is what really matters, just like with the technology.
But the point I've been trying to get across - clumsily it appears - is that regardless of how important you or I think it is (and tbh I think we largely agree) a hell of a lot of people - a majority if those I know are anything to go by - do think immigration is a big part of the reason why pay and conditions have worsened. I'm not saying indulge these people's IMO wrong ideas or anything like that - I'm just saying it's pointless and counterproductive to deny that it's been used this way, just as the tech has - because it has been. Instead, as well as pointing out the other causes of these problems, I prefer to be honest about it and say yes, it has been used in this way. But to then say why I don't think border controls are any kind of solution - for workers in the UK or anywhere else. And to advocate instead, in the short term, organising migrant and, for want of a better term, native workers together so it can't be used in that way and in the long term, to mimic ayatollah, SOCIALISM (ie democratic control of the means of production).
I'm being dead long winded and probably not that coherent cos I'm knackered and a bit stoned but I hope I'm getting the point across.
ska invita
back on the other side
Anecdotally one area where work and wages seems to have been negatively effected is building work, and ive no reason to doubt that...
You mentioned a US dockers union controlling the allocation of work... can you explain how this might work in regards to building contracts? Or any other possible ways of patching the problem? I cant picture it
You mentioned a US dockers union controlling the allocation of work... can you explain how this might work in regards to building contracts? Or any other possible ways of patching the problem? I cant picture it
dennisr
the acceptable face
maybe something from the history of the BLF - the Australian Building Labourers Federation?
At this moment in the UK - getting workers on the cards in the issue. Its an issue most would have said was impossible to achieve a few months ago:
From recent NSSN email
Unrest Wednesday is in Full Swing - 37 Agency Electricians walked off a job at AWE Aldermaston today (April 2) over the new self-employed legislation. It is a Shepherds Engineering Services job.
They are demanding to be taken on the cards direct by Shepherds. Shepherds have agreed to a meeting to discuss the possibility. A Unite Construction officer is meeting the workers and Shepherds first thing tomorrow morning.
There was also reported unrest on many other sites across the UK as payroll companies finally get to informing workers of how they are to be paid from Monday onwards. Being told that they will have to pay Employers NI and their own holiday has outraged thousands of Agency workers across the whole UK. If you are working for a JIB Company through an agency then you should be on the cards with that JIB Company.
There are strong rumours that two other large jobs may walk tomorrow in the South East region over this very issue.
FIRST THING tomorrow morning, have a meeting amongst yourselves on site, demand to be taken on the cards, call the Unite Construction Officer for your region
Last Friday (April 4), 30 agency workers downed tools at a NG Bailey job at Three Bridges, demanding to be employed directly for the duration of the job…..and won. They are now on the cards with full JIB terms and conditions.
See article on Unite website: New government measures on bogus self-employment (4 April) here http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we...government-measures-on-false-self-employment/
See article on Siteworker blog: The Fight for PAYE here
http://siteworker.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-fight-for-paye.html
Last edited:
And to Spiney as well - immigration has virtually no long term hit on wages. You can see that in the building trade in London for example, lots of immigration into the trade, lots of work, lots of people earning north of £75k etc, more. When the overall economy in housing wasn't as buoyant it appeared to have short term effects, but they were about the state of the industry itself. I would say to Spackle if you have the free movement of capital you have to have free movement of labour. If you want an even bigger example, the US. Biggest economy in the world, based on immigration. (I'm not ignoring all the bad things before anyone starts...just the economics). The effects are temporary.
What about the six million Brits who work outside the UK? Are they suppressing wages? Is there a balance? And so on...
Basically the neo-liberalism came first. The immigration aspect is secondary. It doesn't make people who are confused about it racists. I also think the statement about `open borders` is meaningless at best and bad judgement at worst. No country can have 7bn people coming to live in it.
So if I were to talk to a room full of UKIP voters (I'd like to):
1. Are you worried about resources? Health services stretched? Schools? Social workers and so on? You are right to be worried about that. Your concerns are not racist. But these concerns come because we have had a political establishment which has underfunded those services for 35 years. They underfunded these services and made disastrous choices (pull out the £6bn wasted on a singe computer system here...etc etc) and rather than take the blame for this they are trying to shift it onto people who come here to work. We must have better resourced public services regardless...and so on...
2. Have you seen your wages fall or stagnate? Immigration can temporarily hit wages for the very poorest - you know those are often other in situ immigrants - that is true, and the poor should be protected against that (scrap zero hours contracts, better rights for employees, stop subsidising corporations to pay British people zip etc etc etc). But wages have been attacked for decades now. You will have heard the term `wage restraint`. You will remember at the start of the 1980s unemployment going from 720,000 people to over 3mn people creating a vast over supply of labour, lowering wages. The political establishment has ignored this for 35 years, profited from it even, and once again tries to say it isn't their fault it's that Polish bloke down the road who works as a carpenter. And so on...
3. Are you worried that some people stay on benefits as it doesn't make sense for them to take jobs? You are right about that, you should be concerned. It's because you care about British people and you know a life shut away on benefits, just about existing, is no way to run an economy. And how does that happen in the UK when the countries with the highest benefit levels are Germany and the Scandinavians? How do they pay such decent benefits levels and have such relatively buoyant economies? It is because all the UK governments of the last 35 years have driven down wages at any opportunity, in public pay deals - remember the firemen's strikes, nurses disputes - and in a relentless drive in the private sector to pay us the very least they can get away with. It is not that benefits are too high, it is that wages are too low and those wages are not set by workers, immigrants, British or Martian. They are set by employers, many of whom are corporations who we subsidise with our tax payments to pay British workers yada yada (zero hours etc etc etc etc)
I'm going to do this...I'm going to write an open letter to UKIP voters and see if I can get it on the LU site...
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Please don't.
JHE
.
Do many UKIPers read the LU site? I doubt it!
I'm sure you could find better places. It's not difficult to find places that UKIPers use.
tony.c
Well-Known Member
A friend of mine, a painter and decorator, emigrated to Canada in the mid 70s. At the time work on sites was allocated by the relevant union. Employers wanting labour would notify the local union branch who would send people registered with them. The unions also provided a pension scheme.
I doubt that with neoliberal reforms this still happens now though.
Similar threads
