weasel explains whistle

Hilarious: a weasel attempts to explain what a dog whistle really should have sounded like:

Several of the striking workers brandished placards: "In the words of Gordon Brown. British jobs for British workers." Mr Brown made the "jobs pledge" shortly after he became prime minister in his speech to the 2007 Labour conference.

Then, Mr Brown said the government would be "drawing on the talents of all to create British jobs for British workers". Supporters said the remarks emphasised the need to ensure the long-term unemployed had the skills necessary to find work…

...A spokesman said EU laws worked both ways, allowing British workers to work across the EU, but stressed ministers would be meeting construction industry representatives to ensure they were doing all they could to support the economy. Asked about the "British jobs for British workers slogan", he said:

"I do not see a reason for regret in that the action we have taken has meant that we are now putting in place measures to ensure that British workers can have access to the vacancies that exist in the system."

Obviously, people with normal English comprehension skills took the message rather differently. As it happens, I think this was probably more to do with Brown’s weirdly solipsistic obsession with Britishness at the time. He was, for a very long time, unable to keep references to it out of anything he said: that is until the current economic crisis struck, and he rediscovered the world.

There’s also an attempt to blame the EU for the wrong thing. This is nothing to do with the free movement of labour according to single market rules, but on legal interpretation of these designed to allow companies to hire gang labour for low prices in domestic markets to enable them to tender more cheaply in markets where wages are better. So:

 But worse has been a series of court rulings that have further deregulated labour markets. In 2003 the Finnish ferry company Viking Line reflagged its vessel and employed an Estonian crew, cutting its wage costs by 60%. Its actions were upheld by the European court of justice. In 2004 a Latvian company, Laval, sent workers to building sites in Sweden. The Swedish construction union asked the company to agree to the existing collective agreement within the building sector. It refused, operating instead under the Latvian agreement - including lower pay that undercut the Swedish workers' wages. Again, the court ruled in the company's favour. Workers' conditions and pay need only comply with the laws of the company's home country.

It’s a series of rulings very much in line with New Labour’s consistent approach to the whole single market idea. Here’s one from the archives.

"Something must be done urgently to increase the job creating potential of the European Union's economies. A new focus on creating lasting jobs is needed. We need to increase the flexibility of Europe's work force, look at how to combine an efficient welfare state with a dynamic job creating economy and remove the bureaucratic barriers keeping people from jobs.

Barriers, like, for instance, ther obligation to consider local staff for jobs at the agreed rates where the job is to be carried out. That’s Gordon Brown back in June 97, by the way.

Comments

[john b]

I don't think you're right on this particular case: Italy is not Estonia, it's a higher-income country than the UK and the builders are being paid the same rates as skilled UK workers. AIUI they're using their employed, in-house workforce rather than (British or Italian) contractors, which seems fair enough.

[ejh]

It may seem fair enough to you.

[ad]

Anyone remember Auf Wiedersehen, Pet?

[john b]

"It may seem fair enough to you."

If a company has got people on staff capable of doing all the work that they're contracted to do, how the hell could anyone in their right mind consider it fair to expect them to hire temps for it instead?

[Phil]

What boggles me - and has obviously boggled a few other people - is the idea that it's fair and reasonable for a company to tender for a contract in country X, without any employees in country X nor any intention to hire any. Warehousing the workforce in the harbour represents a distinctly creative interpretation of labour mobility. (Even la Repubblica (not particularly sympathetic to the strike) has called the IREM boat a floating prison.)

[ejh]

If a company has got people on staff capable of doing all the work that they're contracted to do, how the hell could anyone in their right mind consider it fair to expect them to hire temps for it instead?

What might be seen as fair, by people in their right mind is to allow other people to apply for the jobs. In a fair competition. I am damned sure you can see this whether you agree with it or not and I am equally damned sure you can understand why people who are not even allowed to apply for jobs might consider this unreasonable. You may think screw them, it's the company's business and not theirs - and they may think, screw you.

[john b]

"What boggles me - and has obviously boggled a few other people - is the idea that it's fair and reasonable for a company to tender for a contract in country X, without any employees in country X nor any intention to hire any"

So I'm a plumber in Darlington, and I employ Bob and Steve from Darlington as my assistants. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to bid for a six-week job in Southampton unless I either have staff there or intend to employ some? Because there's no non-BNP way in which that's different.

"people who are not even allowed to apply for jobs"

Hmm. So under your logic I am allowed to bid for the contract, but I need to force Bob and Steve to re-apply for their jobs so that temps in Southampton can compete for the work.

[Phil]

there's no non-BNP way in which that's different.

Are you seriously saying that taking the existence of national boundaries into account is fascist? If that's the case, I think you're mostly surrounded by fascists.

[skidmarx]

Since we're all boggling today, I can't see why the living arrangements of the Italians is an issue, unless you're suggesting that they are actually prisoners who need to be set free.

[ejh]

So under your logic I am allowed to bid for the contract, but I need to force Bob and Steve to re-apply for their jobs so that temps in Southampton can compete for the work.

Actually what you need to do is to consider the point of view of other people rather than talk as if they had nothing to be concerned about and no business thinking otherwise. If you want your argument respected, you could extend that to the people with whom you're disagreeing. Recessions are scary times for a lot of people and "screw you, it's none of your business" is a pretty poor line to take.

Incidentally, a two-person six-week contract is not quite the same as one employing several hundred people and covering several months. And where the circusmtances are different, so may be the principles being applied.

[Phil]

Well, I could up sticks and go off in search of work in another country, secure in the knowledge that I'd be entitled to non-discriminatory employment and minimum contractual standards anywhere in the EU; I'd call that "free movement of labour". Or I could be employed by a ganger who relocates me periodically to different parts of the EU, housing and feeding me in portable accommodation & docking my pay accordingly. Mandelson and Brown would call that "free movement of labour". It doesn't strike me as an interpretation we should endorse, or an arrangement we should be defending.

[ejh]

Of course, the whole point about the Darlingtton-Southampton example is that it would be relatively unusual and involve only a very small number of people working for people who couldn't be expected to find the time to undertake a recruitment process a long way away for a small job. It's not normally how jobs are filled and if the practice were to become more common, at a time like this, I think people would consider it unfair. At least, people who were interested in how it looked to the potential applicant, rather than people only looking at whether or not it is convenient to the firm.

[john b]

"Are you seriously saying that taking the existence of national boundaries into account is fascist?"

In the context of movement of labour, pretty much yes. If someone believes that a British person and an Italian person should be treated differently by the law differently in terms of the jobs they are allowed to apply for, then they are just as bigoted as someone who believes the same about women or people with different skin colours.

And yes, when it comes to nationality a lot of people are in denial about the fact that they're revolting bigots.

"Or I could be employed by a ganger who relocates me periodically to different parts of the EU, housing and feeding me in portable accommodation & docking my pay accordingly."

If decent minimum wages, rules on not overcharging for company accommodation, employment conditions, etc apply across the EU, then there's nothing at all wrong with the above - any more than there is with being employed by a consulting firm that puts you on sites internationally for a few weeks at a time, sticks you in nice hotels and pays you a fortune for the privilege.

It *would* be wrong if the ganger (say) paid you gbp2.50 per hour and then charged you gbp2 for rent and board to work in dangerous conditions. In fact, the people who find themselves in that position are non-EU migrants working for illegal gangmasters, who find themselves in that position precisely because of daft laws that prevent them from doing proper, regulated jobs.

[john b]

"Recessions are scary times for a lot of people and "screw you, it's none of your business" is a pretty poor line to take."

...and that is why I'm not a politician, because it's the *correct* line to take. I don't give a monkey's whether or not people are scared, if they're wrong and xenophobic then they're wrong and xenophobic.

[dsquared]

No, I don't see this at all. It's legal and legitimate for countries to put capital controls in place, so it can't be seen as *necessarily* racist to have similar controls on labour movements - there's a certain intellectual purity to the view that any immigration policy at all is racist, but no more.

If every worker in the UK was in a union, and the UK was a closed shop (a state of affairs that isn't fascist), then it wouldn't be possible for foreign companies to arbitrage away wage differences by bringing in non-union labour; you could even say that foreign workers were free to join the British union if they liked, albeit that this would remove all the incentive for anyone to bring them over. A "local workers" rule would achieve the same ends, so I don't see why it's intrinsically bad; the question would surely stand and fall on the actual economic effects - I'm in general pro-immigration for Phillippe Legrain's kind of reasons, but large-scale gang transport operations do seem to me to be the most likely kind of immigration to be job-replacing and least likely to be job-creating.

[skidmarx]

"Actually what you need to do is to consider the point of view of other people rather than talk as if they had nothing to be concerned about and no business thinking otherwise."

Maybe consider the view of the outland workers as well as that of the locals.

" there's a certain intellectual purity to the view that any immigration policy at all is racist, but no more."

You don't agree that any immigration policy is racist, and no more.

The two comments I quoted are from different contributors.

[dsquared]

No, I mean that (the view that any immigration policy is intrinsically racist) has the merit of intellectual purity, but no other merits.

[skidmarx]

No, you mean that you don't agree with the view that any immigration policy is intrinsically racist. I tend to think it is. It is a long time since I went over the argument, so if you want to debate the matter you might wish to find a more recently schooled opponent. Being correct is all the merit such an argument needs.

[ejh]

Well not quite, because there's the argument of practicality.

I'm quite sure that all immigration controls will operate in a racist fashion to some degree and I'm also sure that racism is always among the reasons why they're brought in, but whther it's possible for a state to simply dispense with them is another question and I'm not as convinced on that score as I once might have been.

Maybe consider the view of the outland workers as well as that of the locals

Well, I do and I've written elsewhere that I suspect no good will come of this business (besides which, on general principle you can expect life to get harder for foreigners and outsiders during a recession). But I can't see that in normal circumstances it's a good idea to have pre-packed workforces such that other people can't even apply for jobs. I wouldn't agree with a "local workers" rule but I would agree with a "no exclusion of local workers rule", that's for sure.