Ed Miliband says he wants to halt the “race to the bottom”
in wages, jobs and employment rights. Fine sentiments, except that when it
comes down to policies, Labour is in its very own race to the bottom over
immigration.
On Friday, Nigel Farage, the leader of the
nationalist-populist Ukip, blamed migrant workers from Eastern Europe for many
of Britain’s woes. He ludicrously claimed that “Romanian crime gangs” were at
the centre of a London crime wave. Farage demanded action to prevent the free
movement of Romanian workers into Britain from January 1 under European Union
rules.
Less than 48 hours later, Miliband and his immigrant
spokesperson Chris Bryant were at it. Trailed in the media as a policy that
offered “a Brit job for each foreign worker hired”, Miliband was quoted as
saying: “Any firm that wants to bring in a foreign worker from outside the EU
will also have to train up someone who is a local worker."
In a rambling interview
with Andrew Marr, the Labour leader added: "I do want to get low skill
immigration down and therefore overall immigration down, yes. In our first year
in office we will legislate for an immigration bill which has secure control of
our borders, cracks down on exploitation of workers coming here undercutting
workers already here.” For good measure, Bryant in an article
for the Huffington Post, warned about
the dangers of a “growing reliance on overseas workers”.
All this is pandering to the most reactionary point of view,
that workers’ wages have been driven down by cheap labour from other countries.
This is nationalism pure and simple, looking for a scapegoat when the causes
are to be found in the economic system itself.
Miliband – first generation British, by the way from a
family that fled Nazi persecution – implies that if low skilled workers are
blocked off, wages would rise in proportion. Nothing, of course, could be
further from the truth. How, for example, does Labour explain that in earlier
periods of mass immigration to Britain, in the 1950s and 60s, wages did not
fall and unemployment was relatively low?
The movement of workers is an expression of the
globalisation of the capitalist economy that has happened largely at the
expense of wages, conditions and jobs in every
country, including the United States. Here, average weekly earnings are
still 14%
below their peak achieved in 1972, having fallen 40 years in a row.
In Britain, as the power of globalised capital to dictate to
governments and trade unions grew, so the share of wealth going to workers
actually fell. The wage share of annual national income (GDP) reached a high of
64.5% in 1975, falling to a record post-war low of 51.7% in 1996 and was 53.2%
in 2008 – close to where it was more than a decade before
As the 2009 TUC
report Unfair to Middling explained:
“The declining wage share has been driven by the introduction of flexible
labour markets since the 1980s (with the paring back of employment protection
rules); economic liberalisation (including privatisation); the increasing
constraints on collective bargaining; a reduction in the demand for unskilled
labour resulting from technical change; and the global transfer of jobs
triggered by globalisation.”
And in another report, The Great Wages
Grab, the TUC found that by 2010 the average full time person in work
would be paid £7,000 more than they actually were if wages had kept up with
economic growth and “if the best paid had not increased their wages at the
expense of everyone else”.
And this was after 13 years of New Labour governments!
Miliband’s shameful race to the bottom over race and
immigration is already suffering internal contradictions. The original policy
of getting employers to offer an apprenticeship to a local person for every “foreign
worker” hired has fallen foul of the requirement to make jobs available to
workers from all European Union member states.
With living standards for most falling away rapidly – a situation
certain to worsen when fuel and transport costs rise sharply in the next few
months – Miliband and Labour are looking for anyone but capitalism to blame. One Nation Labour is as reactionary as its new name would
suggest.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
No comments:
Post a Comment