Conservative Finlay Low Wage Immigrant Workers.

[Guest Derek L]

Wow......

Well if as alluded to by many, migrant workers will drive down wages and take jobs away from unemployed Canadians………So if the inverse is done, Canadian workers will benefit, both in terms of higher wages and lower unemployment. So by extension, if we stop the influx of immigrants over a handful of years, thus lowering the potential labour pool, wouldn’t this further reduce unemployment and increase wages for Canadians?

[Argus]

This policy hurts the economy and hurts the middle-class.

It sure as hell doesn't do anything good for the poor, either.

[Argus]

Seriously though, if immigration negatively effects employment numbers and wages, shouldn’t we just stop immigration?

This is not immigration. These are temporary workers.

[Argus]

So, if we stop temporary migrant workers, this would improve unemployment and wage numbers?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

[Guest Derek L]

This is not immigration. These are temporary workers.

And what is the distinguishing point at which a migrant worker becomes a negative and an immigrant worker a positive in terms of unemployment & wages?

[TwoDucks]

The market isn't free if there are foreign workers prevented from working there.

The market is also not free when the government gives businesses a backdoor to undercut going rates for labour. If you're going to crow about how great the free market is, at least try to be consistent.

Creates more profit and lowers the cost of business. Canada benefits from this too, as B_C has pointed out, taking jobs from the US.

Although I appreciate the technical quality of your logical contortions, I'm not sure I support your assertion that bringing migrant workers to Canada will result in a lower jobless rate. Can you elaborate on how Canada benefits? If you wouldn't mind highlighting specifically the impact on anyone who isn't a shareholder in the companies planning on hiring migrant workers, it would be appreciated.

[TwoDucks]

And what is the distinguishing point at which a migrant worker becomes a negative and an immigrant worker a positive in terms of unemployment & wages?

I think the main sticking point has nothing to do with migrant workers vs immigrants. That said, an immigrant who lives here permanently is far more likely to be contributing to the local economy, wheteas a migrant worker would, presumably, be saving up as much as possible to send home.

[Guest Derek L]

I think the main sticking point has nothing to do with migrant workers vs immigrants. That said, an immigrant who lives here permanently is far more likely to be contributing to the local economy, wheteas a migrant worker would, presumably, be saving up as much as possible to send home.

Is there any evidence to suggest that? Landed Immigrant’s don’t save and/or send money overseas?

None the less, is that your only perceived difference between a migrant worker picking berries or serving coffee at Tim’s and an immigrant worker employed in the same fields (pun intended)?

[Michael Hardner]

The market is also not free when the government gives businesses a backdoor to undercut going rates for labour. If you're going to crow about how great the free market is, at least try to be consistent.

A backdoor to wages at world market levels ? Doesn't sound like a market to me.

I didn't crow about how great the market is.

Although I appreciate the technical quality of your logical contortions, I'm not sure I support your assertion that bringing migrant workers to Canada will result in a lower jobless rate.

I don't think I said that.

[eyeball]

Can anyone say race to the bottom?

Chased you mean.

[Evening Star]

While my impulse is to oppose this, I have to admit that Derek is raising some good questions!

[Evening Star]

I'm actually a little confused about this, honestly. This article says that employers are now "allowed to pay foreign temp workers 15% less than the average wage": http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1168905--two-tiered-wage-system-announced-by-tories

Does this mean that until now, there was some legislation preventing employers from paying whatever wage they wanted as long as it was at least the minimum wage? Is this a modification of "equal pay for equal work" pay equity legislation then? I didn't think there was a requirement to pay an "average wage".

[Guest Derek L]

While my impulse is to oppose this, I have to admit that Derek is raising some good questions!

Don’t get me wrong, my wife and father were born in different countries (as was my mother’s parents) and I myself have been a “migrant worker”, but as it stands, I’ve nothing against immigrants from any nation/race/religion etc, but if those opposed to migrant workers don’t see the correlation between immigrants in general, I fail to see their opposition to the Government’s position.

Perhaps, we should consider closing our doors for a decade or so……..What would the net effect be? Would those with expensive University Educations and born here and unable to find work be willing to pick the berries, serve the coffee and clean other’s toilets? I don’t know?

[The_Squid]

Perhaps, we should consider closing our doors for a decade or so……..What would the net effect be

Migrant temporary workers are NOT the same as immigrants.

Immigrants are job creators, not job takers. Nor do they drive down wages like this Conservative gov't policy will do.

[Evening Star]

I'm actually interested in hearing the answer to his question though:

And what is the distinguishing point at which a migrant worker becomes a negative and an immigrant worker a positive in terms of unemployment & wages?

(I'm generally very pro-immigration myself btw.)

[The_Squid]

I'm actually interested in hearing the answer to his question though:

(I'm generally very pro-immigration myself btw.)

It's not that hard.... If they are temporary, drive down wages and take their earnings back to their home country, they are not a net benefit, other than to the multinational company that is allowed to do this.

[Bonam]

I'm actually a little confused about this, honestly. This article says that employers are now "allowed to pay foreign temp workers 15% less than the average wage": http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/1168905--two-tiered-wage-system-announced-by-tories

Does this mean that until now, there was some legislation preventing employers from paying whatever wage they wanted as long as it was at least the minimum wage? Is this a modification of "equal pay for equal work" pay equity legislation then? I didn't think there was a requirement to pay an "average wage".

If an employer wants to bring in a foreign worker, they have to provide all kinds of documentation, among that proof that they are going to be paying them the prevailing wage for that kind of job in Canada. The US has exactly the same kind of rule too. It's intent is both to protect potential immigrants/workers from being underpaid for a given job, and to protect Canadians from having their jobs replaced by cheap imported labor.

Allowing an employer to pay a 15% lower wage is a bad move. Very bad move. I could see the argument for it if we were in a period of rapid economic growth and had a desperate shortage of workers. But that is not the case. In fact, I think bringing in immigrants and temporary workers should be dramatically restricted during periods of slow growth / recession.

It also has the potential to drive wages down much more than 15% over time. Let's say the wage for a given job is $30/hour. You start bringing in workers that are allowed to be paid $25/hour, and Canadians start taking the job at the same rate too so they can still be employed in their field. Well, after a year or two, the wage has been driven to $25/hour. Now that's the prevailing wage, and you can bring in workers who'll get paid $21/hour. Repeat that cycle a few times and you can drive wages down much much more than 15%.

Anyway, I guess the only protection as always is simply to have a skill-set sufficiently unique and specialized that it cannot realistically be replaced by any other person, period. Then hope the company where you have all this special skill and knowledge doesn't fold.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

I'm actually interested in hearing the answer to his question though:

(I'm generally very pro-immigration myself btw.)

As would I like to hear the answer to the question...not holding my breath though

[Bonam]

As would I like to hear the answer to the question...not holding my breath though

The distinction is a very thin one. Many migrant workers will be looking for any available opportunity to change their status to a permanent resident and eventually to citizen, anyway. Personally I think importing additional labor in a time when there aren't enough jobs to go around is foolish. I'd say you should only be allowed to bring in foreign workers if there are no qualified Canadians who want to take the job, and at a reasonable wage, and after it's been thoroughly advertised in the job market.

The US has such rules and they serve the purpose of protecting jobs against being taken over by (legal) immigrants very well.

Anyway, the question of net benefit to Canada is simple. What is of benefit to Canada? That which is of benefit to Canadians. A nation is nothing more than the collection of all its individual citizens. Putting those citizens out of a job is not good for them. Bringing in additional people, whether they are temporary or permanent, when there aren't enough jobs, is just not good policy.

[Guest Derek L]

The distinction is a very thin one. Many migrant workers will be looking for any available opportunity to change their status to a permanent resident and eventually to citizen, anyway. Personally I think importing additional labor in a time when there aren't enough jobs to go around is foolish. I'd say you should only be allowed to bring in foreign workers if there are no qualified Canadians who want to take the job, and at a reasonable wage, and after it's been thoroughly advertised in the job market.

The US has such rules and they serve the purpose of protecting jobs against being taken over by (legal) immigrants very well.

Anyway, the question of net benefit to Canada is simple. What is of benefit to Canada? That which is of benefit to Canadians. A nation is nothing more than the collection of all its individual citizens. Putting those citizens out of a job is not good for them. Bringing in additional people, whether they are temporary or permanent, when there aren't enough jobs, is just not good policy.

That’s all well and good, but are University educated Canadians going to pick produce or drive taxis?

[Bonam]

That’s all well and good, but are University educated Canadians going to pick produce or drive taxis?

There are plenty of Canadians without university educations, who also have high unemployment rates.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The US has such rules and they serve the purpose of protecting jobs against being taken over by (legal) immigrants very well.

Not sure what you mean by this...higher wage/salary positions are somewhat protected by the work visa process in the US, but legal immigrants with residency are free to compete for and get jobs regardless of the impact on the labor pool. They dominate many service sector and agricultural jobs.

Edited April 30, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Not sure what you mean by this...higher wage/salary positions are somewhat protected by the work visa process, but legal immigrants with residency are free to compete for and get jobs regardless of the impact on the labor pool. They dominate many service sector and agricultural jobs.

People that want to get a visa to work in the US, whether temporary or permanent, generally go through the H1 visa process. To get an H1 visa, your prospective employer has to get a department of labor certification, to do this they have to prove that they have advertised the job, offered the prevailing wage, and that absolutely NO minimally qualified Americans applied (even if the prospective immigrant is more qualified, it only matters if a minimally qualified American applied). This process inherently protects American jobs. (There are some exceptions, generally for exceptionally highly qualified people, who exist in such small numbers so as not to make a major impact on the job market anyway. )

Now, after an immigrant gets their H1, they can potentially eventually get a green card. Once they have a green card, they can accept any job at any wage, being a permanent resident. But not until then. This is a powerful barrier to employers bringing in cheap foreign workers if there are Americans willing to do the jobs at the prevailing wage.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

There are plenty of Canadians without university educations, who also have high unemployment rates.

And they are competing with migrant workers and immigrants for low paying work no?

[Bonam]

And they are competing with migrant workers and immigrants for low paying work no?

Low paying work of which there isn't enough for the existing population, resulting in the relatively high unemployment rates. You don't bring in more people when there aren't enough jobs for the ones that are already there.