Excerpts from an editorial in The Independent yesterday:
You could hardly wish for a more graphic illustration of the pluses and minuses of globalization, and here it is in our own backyard. The French multinational Total is building a new unit for the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, and employing Italian and Portuguese workers to help to build it.
Trade unions argue that unemployed workers living locally had the skills and should have had the chance to compete for the jobs. A protest strike began four days ago and yesterday spread across the country.
There was always a downside to the free movement of labor, in the form of depressed wages in some sectors and fewer vacant jobs. So long as those who lost out were mainly unskilled workers, unwilling or unequipped to fill vacancies, public awareness and sympathy were limited. But with the downturn — which only threatens to become worse — skilled manufacturing and white-collar jobs are being lost. In such circumstances, the arrival of the foreign workers at the Lincolnshire refinery was bound to provoke discontent.
What is more, labor legislation in Britain, and the prevalence of agency recruitment — aspects of the flexibility that made this country attractive to outside investors — can also work to our disadvantage when economic figures move the wrong way. It is simpler for companies to shed labor and withdraw their money than it is in many other European countries. The competitiveness that contributed so much to our economic boom brings with it vulnerability. And the knee-jerk response everywhere is the one being demanded by the protesters in Lincolnshire: Preferential treatment for nationals — protectionism by any other name. It is one that, regrettably, appears to form part of President Obama’s economic stimulus package for the US, although the World Trade Organization may have something to say about it. It also finds expression in new trade tariffs levied by India and Russia.
