An “Ugly Outbreak” of Migrant Workers Rights

by Fergus Sun Mar 19, 2006 19:16

I’ve rewritten the article up to the point of the radio interview transcription

An “Ugly Outbreak” of Migrant Workers Rights 2

Welcoming ‘enlargement’ in May 2004 most EU countries kept the door shut with two-year limits on the migration of people from the ‘accession’ countries.

In 2006 the limits are up for review; either to be removed or extended for a further five years.
So far Finland, Spain and Portugal have agreed to rescind the limits in May,
when they will join Ireland, UK and (shush) Sweden as the only EU states offering free ‘labour market’ access.

I’m not au fait with the situation in the other countries but in Ireland and the UK this access is conditional
and apparently controversial.

In Sept 2005 It was reported in the mainstream media that the European Commission had sent a “notice of infringement” to the Irish govt over the extent to which social benefits were being denied to EU citizens.
Allegedly, following the Commission’s warning, changes were made to allow the spouses of migrant workers who worked in Ireland to receive Child Benefit.

I found this odd, given that a ruling in 2004 by the European Court of Justice had already indicated that the Irish govt could use “habitual residence” as a means to infringe the welfare entitlements of EU citizens.
http://indymedia.ie/article/64014

Looking closer the topic of the “notice of infringement” seems to have rested on Child Benefit - a “universalist” social payment.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63681

The Dept of Social Affairs website shows that in April 2005 a booklet on Child Benefit was published which quietly straightened the infringement.

So is this a case of
EU diplomaticrats: Good. Irish govt: Bad?
Or is there a smell of collusion?
A ‘Strategy Statement’ by the Dept of Social Affairs notes that
“There is strong recognition of the need for greater balance between the economic, employment and social dimensions if the EU is to be seen by its citizens as credible and relevant.”

For me a “notice of infringement” does not restore ‘credibility’ that the EU lost in its handling of Enlargement.
In its overriding mantra of ‘competitiveness’
And by failing to coordinate the putting in place of proper provisions for people.
Where was the ‘relevant’ additional staffing for the Irish Labour Inspectorate?
Where was the ‘relevant’ measures to help prevent homelessness?
Where was the ‘relevant’ guarantees that social standards would not be eroded?

However, the EU “notice of infringement” does find resonance with the immigration policy of the US govt.
Interviewed recently on RTE a US Republican admitted that the main concern of the US govt. on this issue was the cost of providing services for the teaching of English to the children of Mexican immigrants.

In this light the “Ugly Outbreak” of the ‘universalist’ social payment can be seen as the cheap fix for govts to deal with the costs of children who have language barriers.
The message to the “accessioners” is; you’re welcome to work here but please consider leaving your uncompetitive children back at home.

“Now, there’s no problem…

by R. Isible Wed Feb 22, 2006 21:36

{a}s ... people who work under Irish capitalism) gain more and more "rights", the result is that exploitation is simply transfered to less democratic or developed countries.
You make that sound like a zero-sum game in which there's a finite amount of rights over which we're all fighting. I don't think that's true and I'll bet that as trade unionism and socialism developed in the "West" it had positive echoes and the development of more rights for people in the colonies, especially as they fought to become ex-colonial. That temporarily squeezed profit-margins for capitalists and since then they've been fighting back.

The Irish were once exploited in Ireland, in US sweatshops or on motor way construction sites in England. Today, we do the exploiting.
While the first sentence is true on it's own and the second is true on it's own, taken together they seem to imply that the Irish are no longer exploited. Yet if you look at the reports of the Ballybrack bricklayer's struggles or the reports on poverty levels in Ireland, or reports on the massive levels of poverty and mental illness among the Irish in England it looks like a lot of us are still exploited.
Allowing exploitation in other countries opens up the field for exploitation within our own. And allowing exploitation of whatever arbitrary division (class, ethnic background, religion..) within our own opens up the field for exploitation of other classes. Capitalism is a virus that searches out a weakness in its host and then takes over the whole body. "Localism" can only work through Internationalism.

by R. Isible Wed Feb 22, 2006 21:26

Irish capitalists (people who work under Irish capitalism)
That's a pretty weird definition of capitalism, especially if you're quoting Marx later. Capitalists are the people that own the means of production. If you don't own it then you're not a capitalist, you're just a proletarian no matter the colour of your collar. Capital and capitalism is international now and so is the proletariat. Borders have been eroded whether we like it or not and wasting time fighting with each other instead of against the capitalists is a losing game. The best you get out of it is a return to the "good old days" of .... ? when exactly? when people moved around less.

by Localist Wed Feb 22, 2006 20:23

As Irish capitalists (people who work under Irish capitalism) gain more and more "rights", the result is that exploitation is simply transfered to less democratic or developed countries. The Irish were once exploited in Ireland, in US sweatshops or on motor way construction sites in England. Today, we do the exploiting. The "rights" that we have gained have been at other peoples expense. Carl Marx spoke of this phenomenon when he discribed how there was this cyclical process whereby the poor would overthrough the rich, thereby replacing them as the new rich. With this in mind, I don't see the point of fighting for rights for those involved in Capitalism because the result is that these so called rights (AKA more money) will position the exploited to become exploiters themselves. Instead I think socialists should concentrate on removing themselves from capitalism completely by becoming self-suffient while encouraging others to do the same. Just because some corporation increase what it pays its poorest employees in Ireland, doesn't mean that it isnt going to cut corners somewhere else - infact, a corporations responsibilty to its shareholders would dictate that this is exactly what will happen.

by Mago Mon Feb 06, 2006 20:21

Apparently, there has been a slight change in the HRC since 15 November 2005 in that if you are an EU national (obviously, leave aside preferential treatment towards citizens from the UK) and you have worked in Ireland for a length of time (say 3 months or more), a Community Welfare Officer will look on your case favourably if you want to access emergency payments until you find another job.
What does that mean? Let's wait and see until it is official and all the relevant reports are made on the impact of the implementation of the new changes, ongoing consultation and current reviews from the Commission take place and Mars gets in line with the moon.

by Gael Sat Feb 04, 2006 15:11

What is meant by those saying "we need these people" is for 6% economic growth. However, we are a nation and not just an economy. The rate of growth of an economy can mask serious inequalities and an increase in migration of cheap labour could actually reduce GNP-per-capita and worsen living standards, especially if it forces down rates of pay. It also threatens to make our economy even more dependent on the construction industry. This amounts to putting all our eggs in the one basket with devastating consequences if there is a global downturn in the future leading to a sudden drop in housing demand. It would be better then if we try to gradually ween ourselves off of overdependence on the construction sector and reduce the flow of migrants. May I add that the Government has admitted that 166,000 PPS no.s were issued to nationals of the new EU states yet we are told we need 57,000 a year for the next 10 years. We are already triple that target in the past year. We can thus afford to reduce the flows, which will also help reduce pressure in the hospitals, schools and infrastructure. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.