Four myths about ‘low-skilled’ migration busted

The UK government has outlined plans^[1] to reduce low-skilled migration to the country. A central aspect is linking skills and training to the immigration system. This, so the thinking goes, will mean that no industry is able to rely on immigration to fill skills gaps.

Research^[2] I carried out with colleagues on employer strategies in the wake of Brexit shows that pitting legal routes for migrant workers against investment in the local workforce is based on flawed assumptions.

Evidence from sectors historically reliant on migration, such as transport and storage, food manufacturing, hospitality and social care, debunks four myths about migration and the labour market that underpin the government’s immigration plans.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter^[3] to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. Myth 1: migration and training Under-investment in skills^[4] by both employers and the state is a long-term issue of the UK deregulated economy. But the idea that employers hire migrants instead of training local workers is, to say the least, contested. Our research shows that migration can benefit workplace learning and incentivise employers to invest in training. We undertook a survey of employers’ practices^[5] after Brexit. Firms investing more in training, or seeking diverse workforces, tended also to be those (usually larger firms) that have financial and HR capacity to deal with migration hurdles. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) especially, this system remains costly and bureaucratic. Previous research showed that employers that hired migrant workers^[6] after Brexit were also more likely to invest in the domestic workforce, or in technology. The government should view the recruitment of migrants as “supplementing, not supplanting”^[7] the domestic labour force. Myth 2: migrants v inactive youth The government’s plans, as well as other narratives^[8], tend to play migrants against NEETs^[9] (young people who are not in education, employment or training). This suggests that the growing number of these young people^[10] is caused by employers using “low-skilled” migration. Engaging economically inactive people and complying with a workforce strategy that prioritises training local workers are set out as strict conditions for employers hoping to recruit from abroad. Yet the theory of replacing migrants with economically inactive people is a simplistic equation^[11]. One main finding of our research is that young people often refuse to work in these sectors because of poor conditions rather than because employers favour migrants. Our survey found that, despite marginal pay increases and other benefits to deal with staff shortages, pay across the four sectors remains benchmarked at the minimum wage. This fuels high staff turnover, intensive work and insecure contracts. These factors often make the jobs unattractive. But by introducing fair pay agreements^[12] in the care sector and by financially supporting local authorities and care providers, it should be possible to attract young people. Improving pay and conditions must be a priority, rather than closing the care worker visa^[13], which could be devastating for the sector^[14]. Myth 3: temporary migration is a sustainable option The government proposes raising the skills threshold and including a “temporary shortage list”. For occupations with a skills requirement below degree level, employers will be able to use the immigration system only temporarily. This is not a substantive change from the occupational temporary schemes and tweaks to the skilled worker visa by the previous government. Our research shows that allowing migrants entry only through a limited number of schemes has led to the crowding of visa applications into one route (for example, the care worker visa^[15]). This contributed to abuse of the system, the proliferation of bogus employers and exploitative practices^[16]. Our research with migrant care workers who lost their sponsoring employer highlighted barriers to finding a new sponsor. Only a small number of care providers can guarantee full-time employment. Overall, reactive and temporary visa schemes have proven to be negative for both workers and businesses. This is confirmed by research on seasonal migration ^[17] in other sectors like agriculture. Only a migration system that allows workers to stay and thrive in their jobs, bring their dependants and build stable lives can reduce labour turnover. This in turn can improve productivity and lead to a long-term workforce strategy. Myth 4: migration damages the economy The government’s newly unveiled immigration system risks putting the brakes on its plan for growth. Ministers have based their new plan on the assumption that increased net migration damages the UK^[18], referring to the decrease in GDP per capita during the increase in net migration as a measure. But there is plenty of evidence^[19] that leaving the European common market and external shocks like the COVID pandemic and war in Ukraine have been the cause of UK economic decline. It recorded one of the largest slowdowns in productivity^[20] among the G7 in 2023. In contrast, our research shows that migrants are vital not just in sectors like social care, but also in those considered “low-skilled” by the government. Workers in logistics, hospitality and food manufacturing were treated as “essential” during COVID but soon forgotten and then apparently relegated to “low-value”.

Our research calls for a re-evaluation of these foundational sectors, as they represent the backbone of industries considered pivotal by the government’s own industrial growth strategy^[22].

For a joined-up approach to be truly effective, employers associations, trade unions and migrant advocacy groups, together with national and local governments must contribute to longer-term migration plans^[23]. These should consider industry needs, migrant workers’ wellbeing as well as the viability of public services and other critical sectors^[24] affected by stricter migration requirements if numbers continue to decline.

Telling firms they need to invest in the local workforce before they can hire from abroad appears blind to the reality. Training is not a quick fix, it requires time and investment from employers and the state. And ultimately, improved pay and working conditions are likely to make these sectors more attractive to the local population.

References

1. ^{^} outlined plans (www.gov.uk)
2. ^{^} Research (business.leeds.ac.uk)
3. ^{^} Sign up to our daily newsletter (theconversation.com)
4. ^{^} Under-investment in skills (academic.oup.com)
5. ^{^} survey of employers’ practices (business.leeds.ac.uk)
6. ^{^} hired migrant workers (www.cipd.org)
7. ^{^} “supplementing, not supplanting” (www.smf.co.uk)
8. ^{^} other narratives (journals.sagepub.com)
9. ^{^} migrants against NEETs (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
10. ^{^} these young people (theconversation.com)
11. ^{^} a simplistic equation (theconversation.com)
12. ^{^} fair pay agreements (www.communitycare.co.uk)
13. ^{^} care worker visa (theconversation.com)
14. ^{^} devastating for the sector (www.unison.org.uk)
15. ^{^} care worker visa (www.gov.uk)
16. ^{^} exploitative practices (www.theguardian.com)
17. ^{^} research on seasonal migration (feedingthenation.leeds.ac.uk)
18. ^{^} damages the UK (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
19. ^{^} plenty of evidence (www.ft.com)
20. ^{^} largest slowdowns in productivity (www.gov.uk)
21. ^{^} Lubo Ivanko/Shutterstock (www.shutterstock.com)
22. ^{^} industrial growth strategy (www.gov.uk)
23. ^{^} longer-term migration plans (www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk)
24. ^{^} critical sectors (theconversation.com)