Capacity Collectively To Organise

Heaven knows how he got this into The Observer, but Kenan Malik writes:

‘Immigration harms British workers. We must restrict immigration to improve working-class lives.” That is the subtext – and often the explicit text – of the argument from those who are hostile to immigration or wish drastically to reduce numbers. It is an argument that has been given sharper focus by the riots in which much anger was vented towards immigrants and asylum seekers, and the majority of which took place in the most deprived regions of England.

I want to set aside the issue of whether immigration harms British workers, or, more pertinently, in what context such a claim may be true, and ask instead a different question. What other policies might we – or should we – expect critics of immigration to endorse if they are genuine in their belief that their aim is to defend working-class interests?

There is perhaps nothing that more serves working-class interests than their capacity collectively to organise. As individuals, workers possess little power, while employers have myriad ways of imposing their will on their workforce, from cutting wages and enforcing redundancies to withdrawing investment and calling on the state to police workers’ actions. Any power that workers possess comes primarily from their ability to act collectively, through trade unions and other labour movement organisations, and to collectively withdraw their labour – to go on strike. Many studies show the importance of unionisation in raising wages, improving conditions and reducing inequality.

Over the past half century, a succession of governments, beginning with Margaret Thatcher’s, have introduced a parade of laws to restrict the right to unionise and take collective action. Secondary picketing has been banned, the sacking of workers taking unofficial action made legal, and minimum notice periods enforced before strikes can be launched. The outgoing Tory government’s last assault on unions, through the 2023 Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, forces employees in sectors such as health education and transport to continue working even during a legal strike – in effect using the law to bludgeon them into being strike-breakers.

The cumulative effect of these laws has been to ravage the ability of workers to defend their interests. Not only have they held back wages and worsened conditions, they have also helped promote what is euphemistically called a “flexible” labour market, in reality a labour market in which there are fewer protections for workers and greater incentives for employers not to provide full-time or regular work or basic necessities such as sick pay. “Insecurity,” as one study puts it “has become an endemic part of British working life.” Those who most need union protection are least likely to be unionised.

Yet, many of those who want to restrict immigration to protect the interests of working-class people, from Suella Braverman to Nigel Farage, nevertheless support both the trampling of trade union rights and the growth of a flexible labour market. The chorus of condemnation of the pay deals for junior doctors and train drivers shows that many are happy to champion the working class when it is useful in promoting restrictive immigration policy but not when workers assert their collective voice to defend their interests.

A good illustration of the interplay of low pay, poor conditions, flexible labour markets and immigration is the social care sector, in which there are more than 100,000 unfilled roles and a reliance on migrant workers. Last year, the Home Office granted 350,000 “health and care” visas, which amounted to almost three-quarters of all skilled worker visas approved in 2023. As Ben Brindle, of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, said: “The government opened the immigration system to social care workers without addressing the underlying driver of shortages, namely the poor pay and conditions in a largely publicly funded sector.” In so doing, it made it easier to exploit workers and to continue denying them a living wage.

The solution to the social care crisis is not difficult to see: proper government funding for decent wages, and a sector-wide system that does not allow employers to exploit the fragmentation of the workforce. But no politician, including those critical of immigration, and claiming to be champions of British workers, has been willing to implement the obvious solution.

Critics of immigration suddenly lose interest in improving working-class lives when it comes to wider social policies In a fragmented sector with workers whom management can easily pressure and intimidate, levels of unionisation are inevitably low, with just 20% of frontline care workers, and 15% in the private sector, unionised. As in many other labour market sectors, organising to stop the exploitation of migrant workers is also essential to protect the interests of non-migrant workers. And not showing solidarity with migrant workers can undermine the rights of all workers.

It is not just when it comes to trade union rights or labour market flexibility that those who claim to defend British workers in the context of immigration fail to do so in other contexts. From housing to education, from benefits to childcare, critics of immigration often support policies deeply detrimental to the working class.

Consider benefits. The basic rate of welfare support is at its lowest level in real terms in almost 40 years. Universal credit is well below that which is necessary to cover essentials such as food, utilities, and vital household items. Such meanness not only exacerbates poverty but also throws up barriers for those seeking work. Yet, again, many of those hostile to immigration are also hostile to claimants and support welfare austerity. This should not surprise us, given the long history of a common contempt for both migrants and the poor.

Questions about the relationship between immigration and working-class interests remain contested. There are many who challenge the idea of immigration being bad for workers. There are others who combine arguments for more restrictive immigration with classical defences of trade union rights and welfare benefits. Too often, though, critics of immigration suddenly lose interest in improving working-class lives when it comes to wider social policies.

So, the next time someone declares the necessity of ending mass immigration to protect British workers, we should question them, not about immigration, but about trade union rights, the flexible labour market, the welfare state, and policies of austerity. If the working class is of interest only when it comes to justifying particular immigration policies, then that interest is worse than performative.