The latest restrictions on migrants claiming benefits won't only harm migrant workers but also Britons.
The latest restrictions on migrants claiming benefits won’t only harm migrant workers but also Britons
The lack of any compelling evidence to support the government’s latest move to limit unemployment benefits for EU migrants has been widely reported.
It’s a well-rehearsed line among progressives that EU migrants make a net contribution to the UK economy and that they are less likely to claim benefits than British citizens. There is also no evidence that the benefit system acts as a ‘magnetic pull’.
Across the political spectrum, commentators have dismissed this move as a cynical political ploy to appeal to voters tempted by UKIP, backed up by the tasteless photo opportunity inside the home of an illegal immigrant after a raid. The Office for Budget Responsibility has distanced itself from the government’s claim that the change will save £500m over five years.
However, the damage doesn’t stop with dogwhistle politics. Unfortunately, this policy, the latest in series of measures to limit migrant benefits, will harm not only migrant workers and job-seekers but also Britons.
The government’s plan is to cut the amount of time EU migrants who have not made national insurance contributions can claim Jobseeker’s Allowance from six months to three months. Anthony Reuben’s analysis suggests the total number affected cannot be more than 10,000 people (even this is very charitable, assuming 0 per cent of EU migrant JSA claimants have ever worked in the UK or gained British citizenship).
However if these reforms do have any significant impact, it will be to place immigrants in an even weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis employers and potential employers compared to British workers.
It’s an economic fact that unemployment benefits strengthen the position of workers and potential workers in negotiations with employers. If you know you and your family will become homeless if you lose your job, you are more likely to accept a pay cut. The less bad the prospect of losing your job is (a combination of personal savings, external support and the ease of finding another job), the harder you can bargain.
These reforms further entrench a two-track system, where migrants will have a greater incentive to accept an employer’s terms, lowering the market price for labour.
Employers will have an incentive to hire migrant workers ahead of British workers, because they know migrants are less likely to put up a fight if they decide to cut hours or pay.
Already, we know that immigrants are less likely to be members of trade unions and that enforcement of the minimum wage has been an issue with migrant workers. These moves tip the scales even further in favour of employers.
British and non-British workers alike will suffer the consequences of lower wages and worse conditions. Migrant workers will suffer the consequences if they lose their job and Britons will find it harder to get a job in the first place.
Cameron says this will ‘put Britain first‘ – first in line for the dole.
The impact is likely to be minor, but in tackling the non-problem of benefit tourism Cameron is actually worsening the impact of immigration on low paid British workers.
Charlie Cadywould is currently completing an MSc in Public Policy at UCL focusing on labour markets and regulation
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “Cameron’s migrant benefit move is even worse than you think”
Guest
Right right, jobs are not created by trade. I can’t be serious, I see.
Our employment situation is terrible. You’re counting massive numbers of part-time and zero-hour jobs as full-time, and not counting people on workfare. You’re ignoring the death spiral of falling wages and productivity – we’re worse off than Spain.
You then bring up another issue, the Euro, to try and justify yourself. No, the problem is and remains austerity.
Yes, of course you want me to be silenced and to believe your crooked figures which say that closing the borders is magically a good option.
Peter Martin
I told you to go away and get some figures. That way you can make your opinions fit the facts and not vice versa.
Yes, unemployment in the UK is bad. The UK has a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.3% according to ILO figures.
Spain has a rate of 26.7% – from the same source. So, by no stretch of any sane person’s imagination can the UK be “worse off”.
Google{ILO where is the unemployment rate the highest}
David
Realise it’s the social aspects or not, the fact remains that the economic case is pressing. We have had a low birth rate for many years, coupled with longer retirements due to extended lifespans. We risk a demographic bubble very soon where there will be too few people of working age to support the things we value. NHS, public safety nets in difficult times and a whole host of other things. Clearly we could massively increase tax on the fewer working, or cut support for the elderly, raise the retirement age dramatically, start popping out more kids and raising them in hot houses so they reach working age sooner. Or, we could just let more people in.