|
1/
"With Power Comes Responsibility."
It
appears, at first instance, doing away with work permits and giving
employers the right and power to issue 'Certificates of Sponsorship'
will lead to an easy life. A 'CoS' is simply a digital key or
signature. It is tantamount to handing the applicant an old-fashioned
paper permit. Indeed, those who have abused and exploited the system
in the past may think they have carte blanche, as it were, to apply
for and bring into the country, those not eligible.
The new
system represents the biggest philosophical shift in work-related
immigration procedures for over forty years. The sponsor licence
scheme will work in conjunction with and under the aegis of the PBS
for visa applications. On the face of it, the Border &
Immigration Agency state that "those who benefit most
directly from migration&ldots; should play their part in ensuring
that the system is not abused..."
This
places duties and responsibilities on employers. Bluntly, those are
not given away lightly by the government. Read the relevant
guidelines and regulations and take the depth and detail as a
warning: - those duties and responsibilities are not lightly given to
citizen-employers. To quote; "Sponsors must comply with
certain duties&ldots;" Throughout the neutral but firm
language is deceptive.
Most
employers and legal representatives know how difficult it is to
acquire a work permit. Having obtained one, the granting of a visa
still remained. A permit generally meant entry clearance was straightforward.
For the Home
Office to surrender control of work permits or Certificates of
Sponsorship is a huge shift. Don't think, however, that this power is
easily surrendered. The Home Office will extract its end of the
bargain; its pound of flesh.
In return for
enabling employers to issue 'certificates', the Home Office will
require certain duties to be carried out. Over looking the details,
it is in the penalties available that we see how seriously neglect,
omissions and dereliction will be handled. From a simple downgrade to
a fine of up to £10,000 and jail terms of 2 years! Why else
would the guidance notes contain 23 pages of immigration offences?
There's a message writ large in the sub-text and employers would do
well to heed the warning.
A shift has
occurred. Power has migrated [!] to the employer, but so too has the
burden of compliance. Failure to adhere to the new rules and
standards is going to prove painfully expensive. In essence, the
power is a tremendous one and any abuse of it will be met by equally
severe sanctions!
2/
"Financial Implications and Moral Dilemmas."
a)
Money, money, money!
Initially,
this article was meant to warn of the coming economic crises, the
threat of recession and the next headline making news in conjunction
with the additional costs of complying with the new work-related
immigration regime. Events, however, have moved far more swiftly than
anticipated (albeit in line with my own views!) January 2009 will
bring unemployment and repossessions to the fore in a most unwelcome manner.
The
hospitality sector is already facing falling consumer spending. Tie
this in with corporate dining declining, banks raising rates and
restricting lending. In addition, with local councils having
misguidedly invested with Icelandic banks, one can reasonably foresee
business rates rising. Huge increases in raw materials and utilities
over the last year have had to be absorbed too.
Now, if you
employ an overseas national, or would like to, further costs have to
be assimilated. A single Tier Sponsor Licence will cost £300-00.
Legal fees can be anything from £800 to £1,500 + VAT
depending on the circumstances. An additional tier will cost
£100. A Certificate of Sponsorship for Tier 2 will be
£170-00 per applicant.
If the
employer has identified an applicant there are further costs. Airline
tickets, accommodation and utility bills, food and drink. As per the
salary; it will have to meet NMW wage regulations (and possibly
higher NIC and PAYE in 2009.)
Clearly,
salaries are not the only cost incurred in employing an overseas
national. In light of the looming economic crisis, employers might
find it more cost effective to recruit from the resident labour
market. After all, there are now many chefs and front of house staff
who have attained the Holy Grail status of having permanent or
unlimited leave to remain. (They pay for their own housing!)
From the
workers point of view, they may have paid an agency up to £5000
for the opportunity to work in the UK. They may have borrowed much of
it and stating the obvious will need to pay it back. They will not be
prepared to work for peanuts.
When one
calculates all the above costs and then considers the contingent
bureaucratic nightmare of employing an overseas worker; the question
becomes, is it worth it? One employer has already decided to assist
his 'Indian' chef re-locate to another restaurant that holds a
licence. Bluntly, it was too costly and time-consuming trying to stay
on the right side of the law.
b) P
45's and a Moral Dilemma.
Should the UK
suffer a severe recession, employers will need to think of
redundancies. The legislation governing redundancy is very different
from previous downturns and far more onerous than in the past. "Get
any of the process wrong and, regardless of the situation, you will
lose if you are taken to a&ldots; tribunal and get heavily fined."
-Peter Done, Peninsula Business Services.
When
recruiting and employing an overseas national, it can only be done on
terms equal to those a resident worker would enjoy. Thus terminating
someone's employment has to be done whilst observing the correct
legal process. The difference is this; the overseas worker has no
recourse to public funds.
So, who do
you 'let go?' The overseas national without recourse, or the UK
citizen with full entitlement to benefits? From a business
perspective, you don't owe anyone a living. You might consider the
difficulties of recruiting from abroad in the future and thus retain
those staff. You might think of their personal financial
circumstances. The choice you make will be shaped as much by your
financial position as by your moral compass.
Lastly, what
do you think will be the response, guidance or position of the Border
& Immigration Agency or the Home Office to this particular
dilemma? Interesting times lie ahead&ldots;
top |
