Employer Organizations and Labour Immigration Policy in Australia and the United Kingdom: The Power of Political Salience and Social Institutional Legacies

Abstract

This article examines employer organizations and labour immigration policy in Australia and the United Kingdom. Drawing on 102 elite interviews, it analyses employer organizations' preferences and influence over recent reforms. The article builds on Culpepper's arguments relating to the significance of political salience and identifies the importance of various institutional factors, particularly social institutions, in shaping employer organizations' decisions and engagementwith the policy process. Political salience and social institutional legacies are critical for explaining why employer organizations played a central role in driving labour immigration reforms in Australia and a marginal role in the UK. Large intakes of workers from the European Union, which sustained immigration as a high salience issue and fuelled the Brexit campaign, also influenced the strategies of UK employer organizations.

Migrating Industrial Relations: Migrant Workers’ Initiative Within and Outside Trade Unions

“…In terms of the significance of the cases selected, our qualitative methodology does not allow for generalizability as historical, economic, institutional and sociocultural contexts can vary considerably, especially between Western European countries like Britain and ‘nations of immigrants’ like Australia, Canada or the US — as pointed out by Quinlan and Lever‐Tracy () and more recently by Wright (). Our context‐specific in‐depth ethnographic engagement and the historical and comparative breadth of our longitudinal research provide a grounded understanding of the organizing practices of this particular group of ‘non‐citizen’ workers in London.…”

“…). In terms of immigration policy, as pointed out by Wright (), the UK is characterized by a restrictive tradition and a heightened political salience adverse to migrants if compared to ‘nations of immigrants’ (e.g. Australia and Canada).…”

“…Like other new migrant groups, they often experience deskilling and find occupation in sectors of the economy -such as cleaning and other manual jobs -that 'local' workers reject due to their harsh and insecure conditions and low status (Kofman et al 2009;Standing 2011;Wills et al 2010). In terms of immigration policy, as pointed out by Wright (2017), the UK is characterized by a restrictive tradition and a heightened political salience adverse to migrants if compared to 'nations of immigrants' (e.g. Australia and Canada).…”

Beyond National Systems, Towards a ‘Gig Economy’? A Research Agenda for International and Comparative Employment Relations

“…Manufacturing employers tend to prefer CME-type arrangements, such as long-term employment relationships and skill regimes focused on the development of enterprise and industry-specific skills. In contrast, servicesector employers tend to favor general and portable skill regimes and arrangements that facilitate more 'flexible' employment relationships (see also Batt et al 2009;Bechter et al 2012;Caviedes 2010;Katz and Darbishire 2000;Wright 2017). …”

Why recruit temporary sponsored skilled migrants? A human capital theory analysis of employer motivations in Australia

“…Human capital economic theory has strongly influenced government policies enabling increased supply of skilled migrants in many countries (Boucher, 2019). This includes Australia where there has been a shift towards a ‘specific human capital’ system whereby visa allocation is regulated through employer sponsorship (Boucher, 2016; Sumption, 2019; Wright, 2017). However, aside from some notable exceptions (e.g.…”