Crossing the Border… or the Channel: Migrant Labor In Great Britain

This recent article in The Economist shows that the United States is not alone in its consideration of a controversial question: at times of high unemployment, should nations encourage the use of migrant workers to do those “undesirable” jobs. The Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS) brings workers from Bulgaria and Romania to work on farms in Great Britain. British farmers praise the programs for safeguarding the survival of their labor-intensive industry. The British government, however, would like to see unemployed Britons try their hands in the fields. As Martin Wolf writes in today’s reading, national sovereignty often creates obstacles to migration. Is this harmful, however?

The issue here is the industry involved. In the United States, agriculture evaded early the development of labor laws and regulations that affected other sectors of the economy. Agricultural workers also remained isolated from social insurance programs established during the New Deal. Farming often operates as its own sphere, overseen by distinct regulations and reliant on employees isolated from the rest of the workforce. I am not as familiar with the agricultural sector in Great Britain, but judging from this article, our ally across the ocean deals with its farms in a similar way. Because of poor working conditions and low compensation, agricultural employment remains undesirable to the vast majority of British citizens.

Unfortunately, cutting welfare benefits will make this employment more necessary, but not more desirable. The current British government believes this will be the effect of its latest austerity measures. Without such a generous safety net to fall back on, it believes, many of the 2.6 million unemployed Britons will then flock to the fields. But this is an undesirable state. If austerity forces individuals into jobs that are so undesirable that two-thirds of the temporary agricultural workforce is currently composed of migrant labor (as this Economist article states), then British citizens would be experiencing a significant decline in social protections and standards of living.

Perhaps the question should be why agricultural jobs remain so undesirable. Through sufficient regulations, can farms supply the country with adequate sustenance while also providing living wages to their employees? Can some of the 2.6 million unemployed Britons be employed in agriculture through positive incentives rather than through forced desperation? These should be the questions that the country considers as it moves forward in this debate.

No simple answer to this dilemma exists. But while Wolf would argue for the removal of any barriers to the free migration of labor into Great Britain, I contend that certain oversight of this migration is necessary. The country’s citizens have created and maintained certain standards in regards to compensation and benefits. Any process that promotes labor inflows can threaten these standards. Thus, British citizens are justified in their careful consideration of the effects of SAWS and other proposed temporary worker programs.