Category Archives: Wage Slavery

1. Name and outline of policy proposal, guidance, or operational activity

Increasing the full rate of Immigration Health Charge to 1,035 per year and the discounted rate to 776 per year.

The Immigration Health Charge was introduced to ensure that migrants contribute to the cost of healthcare provided by the NHS. Prior to the introduction of the Health Charge, temporary non-EEA nationals, in the UK for six months or more, could access NHS treatment on the same basis as UK nationals for the duration of their stay. The NHS entitlement rules in place prior to the introduction of the Health Charge provided a cost burden on NHS resources. In 2013, the estimated cost of treating non-EEA nationals was around 1 billion annually, which placed a significant burden on NHS resources.

The Immigration Act 2014 provided the Secretary of State the power to impose the requirement to pay a Health Charge on migrants applying for temporary immigration permission. The Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 (the Order) outlined the level of the Health Charge, the way the Health Charge is calculated (i.e., that the Health Charge is charged in six-month blocks and is based on the duration of immigration permission applied for), consequences of failure to pay the required Health Charge and exemptions from charge for certain cohorts.

On 6 April 2015, The Order introduced a requirement that temporary migrants who make an application to come to the UK for more than six months, or to extend their stay in the UK, pay an Immigration Health Charge, unless they are subject to an exemption. At inception the Health Charge applied solely to temporary non-EEA migrants. Having paid the Health Charge, migrants may access the NHS on broadly the same basis as UK residents for the duration of their immigration permission in the UK. The total Health Charge that a temporary migrant is required to pay, is based on the duration of the immigration permission applied for. In 2015, the Health Charge rate was set at 200 per person, per year for most applications, with a discounted rate for students and their dependants set at 150 per person, per year. The Health Charge rates in 2015 represented around 25% of the average per capita cost to the NHS of treating Health Charge payers.

Additionally, the Order allows for specified cohorts to be exempt from payment of the Health Charge. These exemptions are broadly based on UK treaty obligations, international agreements, and previous ministerial commitments. The exemptions from charge include protection cohorts such as asylum seekers and victims of human trafficking and cohorts exempt on the basis of international agreements such as the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. Certain migrants employed in the Health and Care Work sectors are also exempt, due to the contributions they make to the NHS through their work.

Overtime, the Health Charge policy has developed alongside the wider immigration system. On 6 April 2016, the Youth Mobility Scheme became subject to the discounted rate and the exemption from payment of the Health Charge which applied to nationals of Australia and New Zealand was removed.

On 6 April 2017, a new exemption was added to explicitly exempt Victims of Modern Slavery from payment of the Health Charge, to reflect the vulnerability of the cohort. At the same time the exemption from charge for Intra-company transfer migrants was removed.

On 8 January 2019, the Health Charge was increased to 400, with the discounted rate for students, their dependants, and applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme increasing from 150 to 300.

The Governments manifesto, in 2019, committed to increasing the Health Charge to a level which broadly covered the average cost to the NHS of treating Health Charge payers.

On 1 October 2020 the Health Charge full rate was increased to 624, and the discounted rate increased to 470 for students, their dependents, and applications to the Youth Mobility Scheme. The Government recognised that increasing the Health Charge may have a larger financial impact on families than individuals. Therefore, children under the age of 18 also became subject to the discounted rate.

Following the UKs exit from the European Union, EEA nationals became subject to immigration control from 1 January 2021, unless eligible for the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS). EEA nationals are required to pay the Health Charge when making an immigration application to work, study or join family unless eligible for the EUSS.

The amendments to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2020 also exempted those working in the Health and Care sector from payment of the Health Charge. Migrants sponsored on the Health and Care Work visas are exempt from payment of the Health Charge upfront, whereas migrants with a general right to work which is not tied to a specific sector or role can claim reimbursement for periods they were employed in the Health and Care sector.

The Government is aiming to amend the Immigration (Health Charge) Order to increase the Health Charge from 624 to 1,035 per person per year, with the discounted rates for students, their dependents, applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme and children under the age of 18 increased from 470 to 776 per person per year. The Health Charge increase will apply to immigration applications made on or after the date the amended Order comes into force.

The increase continues to deliver the 2019 manifesto commitment to ensure that the Health Charge reflects the full cost to the NHS of treating Health Charge payers. The increases to the Health Charge will ensure that the full cost of providing NHS services for those who pay the Health Charges are covered.

The Immigration Rules currently provide for exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless immigration route. It is therefore intended to formalise these exemptions from payment of the Health Charge, in legislation. The Health Charge has been waived for applicants on the Ukraine Schemes since the inception of the schemes in March 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Formalising the exemption will solidify the support for Ukrainian nationals, align the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 with the Immigration Rules, and deliver the will of parliament.

The Stateless immigration route provides a pathway for migrants to regularise their stay within the UK where they are not recognised as a citizen or remain permanently in any country. The Health Charge has not applied to applications for the Stateless immigration route since inception, in line with equivalent provisions for asylum seekers.

The Government also plans to update the legislation to replace obsolete terminology in the Order with current terminology ensuring consistency with the Points Based Immigration System.

The Health Charge is paid by migrants who apply to enter the UK to work, study or join family for six months or more. It is also paid by migrants applying to extend their temporary immigration permission in the UK. Visa Applications made on or after the commencement date of the Order will be required to pay the Health Charge at the increased rate.

The Health Charge is set at a fixed amount which takes no account of an individuals usage. The charge is based on how much healthcare an average Health Charge payer is expected to use and not directly linked to the healthcare usage of each individual payee. This is likely to benefit those who use the NHS more than average, for example those with pre-existing health conditions (which could be young people of working age), pregnant women and the elderly. All migrants who are liable to pay the Health Charge must pay upfront and in full, covering the duration of the immigration permission applied for.

Formalising the exemption from payment of the Health Charge provides legal protections for these cohorts affected and ensures that legislation clearly specifies those that are exempt from the Health Charge.

The Ukraine Schemes are comprised of the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Homes for Ukraine Scheme and the Ukraine Extension Scheme. The Ukraine Family Scheme provides Ukrainian nationals (and their dependants) with family members in the UK who hold permanent status, the ability to join family. The Homes for Ukraine Scheme enables Ukrainian nationals to live with approved sponsors within the UK and the Ukraine Extension Scheme permits applicants to remain in the UK if they have an existing immigration permission. Between the inception of the Ukraine Schemes and March 2023 there were 233,771 grants of leave on the Ukraine Schemes. Since the inception of the Stateless immigration route there have been around 1,000 applications.

1. The public sector equality duty (PSED) under s149 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that public authorities must, when exercising their duties, have due regard to the need to:

(1) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act

(2) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

(3) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

2. This PSED covers the following nine protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race (including ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality); religion or belief; sex; marriage and civil partnership and sexual orientation.

3. Marriage and civil partnership is not a relevant characteristic for the purposes of limbs (2) and (3) of the duty. It is a protected characteristic for the purposes of limb (1), but only the in the context of employment.

4. Schedule 18 to the 2010 Act sets out exceptions to the public-sector equality duty. In relation to the exercise of immigration and nationality functions, s149(1)(b) of the Act (to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it) does not apply to the protected characteristics of age, race (insofar as it relates to nationality or ethnic or national origins) or religion or belief.

5. Paragraph 2(1) (Part 1) of Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act provides that the prohibitions against unlawful discrimination provided for by virtue of section 29 of the 2010 Act do not apply to the preparing, making, approving or consideration of particular forms of secondary legislation. However, this EIA demonstrates compliance with the PSED in regard to the formulation of the policy behind these legislative changes. This EIA builds on the equalities considerations which have been undertaken since the introduction of the Health Charge.

6. Schedules 3 and 23 to the 2010 Act operate so that certain discrimination in relation to age, nationality, national or ethnic origins, or place or duration of evidence does not amount to unlawful discrimination. This includes where the discrimination is authorised by the Immigration Rules or by primary or secondary legislation. For example, a Home Office official will not be in breach of section 29 of the 2010 Act on grounds of age discrimination by applying the full rate of the Health Charge to an adult or the reduced rate to a child, nor will they be in breach of section 29 on grounds of nationality discrimination by applying the exemption from the charge to an application for leave to enter or remain made under Appendix Ukraine Scheme. This is because the caseworker will be acting in accordance with the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2023.

7. However, it is still necessary to consider the justification for the discrimination and the impact on equalities as a matter of public law. This Equality Impact Assessment therefore considers all the proposals through the framework of the 2010 Act.

8. No evidence of unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation of any group has been identified during the course of our analysis. However, there are instances where individuals of a certain protected characteristic are likely to be more impacted by the proposed changes. Further detail is below.

To produce this Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) officials considered a range of factors and data from various sources, comprising of Government and external information.

The Health Charge applies to most UK immigration routes unless an exemption from payment of the Health Charge applies. The Health Charge paid is specific to the visa application, for visas for both entry clearance and permission to stay. Therefore, migrants applying for further temporary visas to extend their immigration permission within the UK will be required to pay the Health Charge covering the duration of the further immigration permission.

Data from the published migration statistics provides information regarding the nationality breakdown of visa applicants for work, study and family applications since the current rates of Health Charge were implemented in 2020. Table 1 below provides the continental breakdown of entry clearance visa applicants and Table 2 provides information on the nationalities with the highest visa grants in the same period for each broad category of Entry Clearance.

The data in Table 1 and Table 2 highlights that a significant volume of entry clearance visas in work, study and family routes are associated with a small number of nationalities. In the year ending June 2023, the top five nationalities for sponsored study applications by main applicants and dependents accounted for 73.8% of all sponsored study applications. Similarly, the top 5 nationalities granted work and family visas account for 57.5% and 35.4% respectively of total entry clearance grants. Due to the high proportion of visas issued to a small proportion of nationalities, increases to the Health Charge are likely to have a higher impact on applicants from certain nationalities.

Some nationalities are represented across the top five nationalities for visa grants under study, work and family routes, meaning that increases to the Health Charge may have higher impacts on these nationalities. However, for work especially, the volumes of visa grants will not fully align with Health Charge payers, certain immigration routes within the broad work category will not pay the Health Charge. For example, the Health and Care Worker visa accounted for 259,289 grants of entry clearance (121,290 main applicants and 137,999), meaning nationalities which account for significant volumes of grants on the Health and Care visa (India, Nigeria, Zimbabwe) may not be impacted as highly.

Table 3 below provides the continental breakdown of visa applications for further immigration permission from within the UK.

In line with the breakdown of entry clearance visas, Table 3 highlights that the volumes of visa extensions granted per region is also heavily weighted towards applicants from Asia and Africa with around 80% of extensions granted being submitted by migrants from these regions. Due to the entry clearance visas also being heavily weighted towards migrants of Asian or African origin, it is unsurprising to see extension applications following a similar pattern. For in-country applications, due to switching it is difficult to ascertain whether migrants granted under a pathway (e.g. study) continue on that pathway or switch into a different route, as such there is limited value in determining the most common nationalities for further applications.

The NHS publish information annually on NHS usage which includes demographic information such as age, gender and religion. The data however does not differentiate between the migrant community and the resident populace.

The GP patient survey conducted by NHS England highlights the demographic split of GP Registrations, Figure 1 below highlights the sex split of individuals registering with GP practices in England, the data is based on around 750,000 responses. The data highlights that 52% of respondents were female with 47% of registrations being male.

The split of GP registrations recorded in the survey does not fully align with the sex of visa applicants. Home Office data for Entry Clearance applications between March 2021 and March 2023 highlights that 49% of Health Charge payers were female with 51% of Health Charge payers being male. Figure 2 provides the sex breakdown of the UK populace as per the 2021 Census and the breakdown of sex for Health Charge payers between March 2021 and March 2023. The demographic split of Health Charge payers in relation to sex is broadly similar to the overall populace of the UK.

NHS digital undertakes annual research on the volumes of hospital admissions, critical care admissions and admissions requiring consultants, the data for 2022-23 was published on 21 September 2023.

Figure 3 provides the age and gender breakdown of hospital admissions for 2022-23. The data highlights that the volume of hospital admissions increase substantially beyond the age of 50, individuals who are in the age group of 75-79 accounted for 1.9 million admissions constituting 9.5% of all admissions in 2022-23. The likelihood of being admitted to hospital increases after the age of 50, individuals aged over 50 accounted for 64% of all hospital admissions in 2022-23.

Female patients accounted for 10.9 million admissions, accounting for 54.7% of the total admissions. When age and sex are viewed in combination, the volume of admissions is broadly similar for males and females for each age category, except for treatment for individuals between 20-39 where females are significantly more likely to seek hospital treatment. Females between the age of 20-39 are 2.5 times as likely to be admitted to hospital than males in the same age band. This can be explained predominantly due to maternity services as 20-39 would be the prime age for admissions to access maternity services.

In the period of March 2021 to March 2023, more than half of Health Charge payers (including dependants) were aged between 20 and 29 (52%). This represents a significantly larger proportion than the UK population as a whole (13%), or those who identified as a migrant as part of the census (34%).

More than 75% of Health Charge payers (including dependants) were of working age (20-64). As Health Charge payers are generally younger than the resident populace, they are potentially less likely to access NHS services. NHS England publishes Age-cost curves which show the relative costs of healthcare in selected settings for different age and gender cohorts.[footnote 5] This data is for the general population of England; it is not known whether migrants in the same age-gender categories as the England population impose similar costs on the NHS. The age and gender profile of migrants is captured in the calculation of the Health Charge to reflect the younger, and so lower cost, profile of the cohort.

The NHS also publish information pertaining to the tariff which is applied to specific treatments, this provides information on the cost to the NHS of treating conditions which can therefore be attributed to certain cohorts.[footnote 7] Overseas visitors who are not eligible for free treatment are charged at a tariff of 150% of the cost to the NHS of treating patients.

For example, for maternity treatment the cost is differentiated on the basis of duration and intensity of treatment, with the cost graded within six levels. The cost of the delivery phase is between 2,242 and 6,652 with antenatal costs being between 1,107 and 2,947 with post-natal costs of between 233 and 793. Therefore, maternity treatment will cost the NHS a minimum of 3,582 with the highest cost delivery combined with intensive ante-natal and post-natal care coming to 10,392. The cost to the NHS of providing maternity services equates to a total which exceeds the cost of the Health Charge.

Given that the proposed Health Charge increases will be applicable equally to applications subject to the full and reduced rates, we do not consider that there will be any direct discrimination on the grounds of age as a result of these changes.

The Health Charge is set at a lower rate for children under 18, students and applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme, however, as the full and reduced Health Charge rates are being increased in the same proportion, the discounted rate will continue to be set at 75% of the full rate, we do not consider the increase fundamentally changes the rationale on which those differential charges were originally set, or that it is necessary or proportionate to revisit that rationale in this analysis.

Neither the changes to formally exempt applications for the Ukrainian Scheme and the Stateless immigration route from payment of the Health Charge nor the technical changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to impact on the protected characteristic of age.

Younger migrants such as students may be indirectly impacted by the increase to the Health Charge. Individuals in younger age brackets have lower average earnings, statistics for the UK highlight a disparity between the median earnings of individuals between 18-29 contrasted with median earnings for individuals 30-69. Figure 5 shows the median weekly wage per age group, individuals in the 22-29 age bracket have a 546 average weekly wage whereas the average weekly wage for individuals between 40-49 is 727. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also highlight the younger workers globally earn significantly less than the mean earnings of individuals within the prime age bracket of 25-54. For the countries featured, including developed world economies, the reported negative differential for individuals in the 16-24 age band is between 25.5% and 48.6% of the average earnings of individuals in the prime age range.[footnote 8]

The disparity between the median weekly wage may mean that migrants who are under 30 may see higher impacts from the increase to the Health Charge due to lower average wages making saving to pay the Health Charge more difficult. However, students and applicants for the Youth Mobility Scheme are already subject to the discounted Health Charge reflecting the lower earning potential during this period of their careers. It is also important to note that the requirement for migrants to maintain and support themselves is a key tenet of the immigration system, the increased Health Charge does not change this.

Migrants employed in the UK are likely to earn above the UK average. A study conducted by Oxford University Migration Observatory in 2021 highlighted that migrant born employees within the UK labour market earned on average more than the median average for the UK resident population. In fact, with the exceptions of Pakistan and South Asian countries, EU2 countries and EU8, the median annual salary for the migrant born populace exceeded the average for the UK resident populace as a whole. The median salary for the UK resident populace in 2020 was 28,600.[footnote 9] As migrants in the UK may earn more than the national average, this may reduce the scale of impact on migrants applying to remain in the UK.

Older migrants may also be indirectly impacted by the increase to the Health Charge due to the lower average earnings. Statistics from the OECD highlight that the mean average earnings among individuals aged 55 or over was generally between 2.2% and 13% lower than the prime age category, however in some instances such as Norway (10.7% higher) the average wage for individuals who are aged 55 or over is higher than the average wage for individuals in the prime age category.

Although older migrants may have lower average earnings with which to afford the Health Charge, they are also likely to use the NHS more intensively than younger migrants and provide a higher cost burden to the NHS. The Health Charge is set at a fixed rate which does not take account of the usage an individual makes of the NHS, therefore migrants who are proportionally more likely to use the NHS at a greater intensity will receive greater value for money.

Home Office analysis suggests that the impact on older people is likely to be minimal, with only around 1% of IHS eligible applications made by those over the age of 65 in the year ending March 2023. Older people who do not have the disposable income to pay the Health Charge are less likely to be able to meet the requirements of the immigration routes affected.

While there may arguably be an indirect impact on migrants who are younger (18-30) or older (65+), the impact is deemed to be justified by the overarching policy objective of ensuring that migrants coming to or remaining in the UK contribute to the NHS through the Health Charge. The calculation of the Health Charge takes account of the age distribution of migrants on relevant visa routes and so the average amount of the Health Charge reflects the lower expected healthcare use (and costs) of migrants due to the younger average age of the cohort.

Neither the changes to formally exempt applications for the Ukraine Schemes and the Stateless immigration route from payment of the Health Charge nor changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to have an indirect impact on the protected characteristic of age.

No direct impacts have been identified for migrants sharing the protected characteristic of disability. The Health Charge is set at a fixed amount and is not differentiated on the basis of the usage a migrant makes of the NHS.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to impact on the protected characteristic of disability.

There is evidence to suggest that individuals within the protected characteristic of disability are less likely to be working and more likely to earn less annually[footnote 11] and therefore may be disproportionately affected by the increase to the Health Charge.

Statistics compiled by the Department for Work and Pensions indicated that for 2022, the disability employment rate in the UK was 52.6% compared to 82.5% for individuals who do not share the protected characteristic of Disability.[footnote 12] The Disability employment gap was therefore 29.8%. Figure 6 below also highlights that the disability employment gap increases with age, with a higher percentage of older individuals sharing the protected characteristic of age being unemployed. This means there is a correlation between the protected characteristics of age and disability and therefore there is likely to be a higher impact on individuals who fall within the intersectionality of age and disability protected characteristics.

The disability employment gap is also significant for countries outside of the UK with the disparity between the percentage of individuals sharing the protected characteristic of disability of those who do not being significant. Figure 7 below highlights that for developed countries, the disability pay gap ranges between 16% (Switzerland) and 39% (USA) with an average disability employment gap of 27%, indicating that individuals sharing the protected characteristic of disability are less likely to be employed. The disparity between the disability employment gap is likely to be larger for developing countries. In countries without a developed social security framework, the disparity could be larger as there may be limited or no protection for individuals sharing the protected characteristic.

Additionally, research conducted by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) outlined that in the UK, individuals with the shared protected characteristic of disability will on average earn 13.8% less than individuals who do not share the protected characteristic.[footnote 14]

Due to the combination of lower employment rates and lower earnings for individuals with the protected characteristic, it is likely that increasing the Health Charge may have a higher impact on migrants sharing the protected characteristic of disability. For those who earn less, it is likely that they would not meet the requirements of the immigration routes that require the Health Charge to be paid. Any additional impact is proportionate to the wider aims of the policy.

Some disabled people may use health services more intensively than other groups. However, the Health Charge is charged at a flat rate, not based on potential use of NHS services by an individual. People with disabilities may use the NHS more intensively and represent a higher cost burden for the NHS. Migrants within the protected characteristic of disability may receive proportionally better value for money due to the NHS care they receive. As the Health Charge paid is not differentiated on an individuals usage, migrants who are in the protected characteristic of disability would likely pay less through the Health Charge than they would pay if charged for treatment directly.

The Home Office does not record data on whether applicants are within the protected characteristic of disability, as such there is no data available to highlight the proportion of applicants who may fall within the protected characteristic of disability.

Although increases to the Health Charge may indirectly impact on migrants in the protected characteristics of disability due to lower average earnings, the impact is deemed to be justified by the overarching policy objective of ensuring that migrants coming to or remaining in the UK contribute to the NHS through the Health Charge.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to have an indirect impact on the protected characteristic of disability.

No direct impacts have been identified for persons sharing the protected characteristic of Marriage and Civil Partnership from the increase to the Health Charge.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to impact on the protected characteristic of Marriage or Civil Partnership.

It is arguable that the increased Health Charge rates may have a higher impact on migrants who share the protected characteristic of Marriage and Civil Partnership. Migrants applying to enter or remain in the UK at the same time as a dependent partner will have an increased upfront burden of costs compared to migrants who do not share the protected characteristic.

The Health Charge is applied to individuals at a flat rate regardless of whether an individual shares the protected characteristic of Marriage and Civil Partnership or not. The Health Charge is paid by each individual applying to enter or remain in the UK, the amount of Health Charge which must be paid is based on the duration of immigration permission applied for rather than the marital status of the applicant.

Fee Waiver applications are available on certain Family and Human rights routes, they enable applicants to request a full or partial fee waiver. Applications for Fee Waivers are assessed on affordability which takes into account the overall cost of visa fees and Health Charge. The provision of Fee Waivers for Human Rights applications is necessitated by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act, Fee Waiver applications ensure the Home Office is compliant with convention rights. These waivers ensure that the department meets its international obligations including under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Migrants with the protected characteristics of Marriage and Civil Partnership are potentially more likely to qualify for a fee waiver due to the overall cost of the visa fees and Health Charge.

Although the upfront cost implications for migrants with the shared protected characteristic of Marriage and Civil Partnership may provide a cost barrier, the impact is justified by the overarching policy objective of ensuring that migrants coming to or remaining in the UK contribute to the NHS through the Health Charge.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to have an indirect impact on the protected characteristic of Marriage and Civil Partnership.

No direct impacts on individuals sharing the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity have been identified. The Health Charge is applied at a flat rate, it is not differentiated based on pre-existing conditions.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to impact on the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity.

Migrants with the shared protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity may be indirectly impacted by the increase to the Health Charge. Individuals with the shared characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity are likely to be on lower wages than individuals who do not share the characteristic.

In the UK, statutory maternity pay is set at 90% of an individuals weekly wage for the first six weeks and whichever is lower of 172.48 or 90% of an individuals weekly wage thereafter.[footnote 15] Although statutory maternity pay is set at this level within the UK, this is a minimum requirement which employers can exceed.

Globally, maternity pay generally equates to a proportion of the full salary that an individual would receive. The level which maternity pay is set at differs dependent on country. Some countries require 100% of salaries to be paid throughout maternity leave. However, across countries surveyed the average percentage of salaries is usually significantly less.[footnote 16] For example, in the USA there is no requirement for maternity leave to be paid.

The lower earnings for individuals with the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity is not solely predicated on the level of maternity pay, it can also be influenced by the statutory period of maternity leave offered. The minimum length of maternity leave provided also varies significantly, for example, some countries which require full salaries to be paid during maternity leave, have substantially shorter periods of statutory maternity leave than those countries which offer longer periods of maternity leave at reduced pay. For example, Germany offers 100% salary during maternity leave, however the minimum maternity period offered is 14 weeks. Optional maternity leave exceeding the statutory period is unpaid, therefore individuals sharing the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity are likely to have lower incomes throughout the statutory period as well as any additional period of further leave.

Therefore, migrants with the shared characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity are likely to earn less, meaning that migrants sharing the protected characteristic are potentially less likely to be able to afford the increased Health Charge.

The Health Charge is paid at a flat rate which does not take account of individual usage. Migrants who are pregnant at the time of application are more likely to use the NHS during their immigration permission at a higher intensity than individuals who do not share the protected characteristic.

For example, for maternity treatment the cost is differentiated on the basis of duration and intensity of treatment, with the cost graded within six levels. The cost of the delivery phase is between 2,242 and 6,652 with antenatal costs being between 1,107 and 2,947 with post-natal costs of between 233 and 793. Therefore, maternity treatment will cost the NHS a minimum of 3,582 with the highest cost delivery combined with intensive ante-natal and post-natal care coming to 10,392.[footnote 17] The cost to the NHS of providing maternity services equates to a total which exceeds the cost of the Health Charge.

The Health Charge is set at a flat rate regardless of the usage an individual migrant makes of the NHS, whereas the cost of private medical insurance is differentiated where an individual has pre-existing health conditions, additionally certain healthcare such as maternity are not always covered under private health insurance. The Health Charge provides applicants with comprehensive access to the NHS for the duration of their stay, it does not impose further charges for maternity care.

Therefore, migrants with the shared protected characteristic of pregnancy and maternity are likely to get better value from the Health Charge than migrants who do not share the protected characteristic.

Since August 2017 NHS-funded assisted conception services in England are not free of charge to people who have paid the Health Charge unless another exemption applies in the Charging Regulations.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to indirectly impact on the protected characteristic of Pregnancy and Maternity.

The Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 will provide an express authorisation for caseworkers to apply an exemption from the Health Charge to applications made under Appendix Ukraine Scheme. The exemption from charge will predominately put Ukrainian nationals in a more favourable position than others, although non-Ukrainian family members of certain Ukrainian nationals are able to apply under the Appendix in certain circumstances. The exemption from payment of the Health Charge supports a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of supporting individuals displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The exemption from payment of the Health Charge supports the broader humanitarian response to the invasion of Ukraine, in line with the statement the Home Secretary made on 1 March 2022.[footnote 18]

No direct impacts for migrants sharing the protected characteristics of Race have been identified from increasing the Health Charge or updating obsolete terminology.

As highlighted in Table 1 through 3 above, entry clearance and extensions visas to the UK are predominantly composed of a relatively small number of nationalities with India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines contributing a significant percentage of applications. For Sponsored study applications, the top five nationalities in the year ending June 2023 (India, China, Nigeria, USA and Pakistan) account for 73.3% of all entry clearance grants. Due to the high volumes of applications from these countries, a higher amount of applicants overall from these countries are likely to be impacted by the increased Health Charge compared to nationals from other comparator groups where the amount of visas granted or extended are lower in number. However, the Health Charge is not differentiated based on an individuals race, the Health Charge is a set rate which applies equally to each individual within those groups, regardless of Race.

Although there is the possibility that migrants may be indirectly affected by the increase to the Health Charge, the Health Charge increase is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring that migrants, regardless of their Race, pay the Health Charge at a rate which covers the cost to the NHS derived from treating Health Charge payers.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to indirectly impact on the protected characteristic of Race.

No direct impacts for migrants sharing the protected characteristics of Religion or Belief have been identified from increasing the Health Charge.

Neither the changes to formalise exemptions from payment of the Health Charge for the Ukraine Schemes and Stateless applications nor the changes to replace obsolete terminology are deemed to impact on the protected characteristic of Religion or Belief.

As outlined in Table 1 through 3, the majority of grants of entry clearance and extensions of stay across work, study and family routes originate from Asia, with over 50% of grants in each category. Due to the high proportion of entry clearance applications from the region, analysis of the religions followed in the region would determine any indirect impact. The countries with high volumes of UK visa applications do not have a single homogeneous religious population. For India, the population is predominantly Hindu, Muslim or Sikh and for China Buddhism and Folk Religion form the majority of religious belief.

Continue reading here:

Immigration Health Surcharge: equality impact assessment 2023 ... - GOV.UK

The War Against the Commons: Dispossession and Resistance in the Making of Capitalism By Ian Angus Monthly Review Press, New York, 18.99

A GOOD history book makes you think about the present.

On the day I finished Ian Anguss The War Against the Commons I visited my local station ticket office. The queue was long and I had time to look around and reflect. Once all this great building, this marvel of engineering, this vital service, had been publicly owned, part of the modern commons.Even now in its privatised state there remained some good elements like the expert and helpful staff in the ticket office which the train-lords and rentier bankers were planning to evict!

So, Anguss book is timely indeed.

For modern people brought up in a society where virtually all land is privately owned there are many surprises. At the time of the Norman conquest vast swathes of the land were held in common. While lords still claimed ownership and took a cut of the surplus food grown, their ability to exploit and control the people was therefore limited. Just about everyone relied on agriculture to survive and this was largely a collective endeavour, carried out on open fields divided among families according to rules and customs that had evolved over centuries.

An essential part of the economy was the commons.These lands were available to all and provided vital resources, like firewood, grazing for animals, wild berries and greens. Again, the people understood the need to manage them sustainably for the long term and were guided by mutually agreed customs.

Angus traces how medieval and modern elites successfully expropriated these common lands, enclosing them for their own profit. The focus is mainly on Britain, although the author takes care to put events in their proper international context. All this helps explain not only how capitalism developed here, but also why it has taken the particularly exploitative form we enjoy today.

For millions of people the seizure of the commons removed the possibility of a more independent life, however hard, and forced the people into a system of wage slavery. Out too went traditions that had sustained community life for millennia.

Naturally, the people resisted which helps explain why the enclosures took centuries, requiring a brutal combination of lawfare and warfare. Most revolts were reactive, like riots by levellers to pull down hedges, or armed demonstrations to warn off enclosing lords.

Some were incredibly forward thinking for the time. For example, Gerard Winstanley and the Diggers during the English Revolution of the 17th century understood that the land was ultimately our common treasury that should be owned and managed for the benefit of all.

But in the end the bosses won. Anguss account raises some interesting questions about why this happened and what ordinary people could do differently today. He also addresses the debates around land ownership and arguments used to justify enclosure.

It has become an article of faith in capitalist economics that there is a tragedy of the commons.The argument goes like this: collective ownership of land inevitably leads to low productivity and environmental degradation as everyone scrabbles to get the maximum benefit from it, without a thought for the longer-term consequences. Therefore, only private ownership will ensure that it is fully productive and not over-exploited, as it is in the self-interest of the owners to do so. This capitalist farming feeds the millions in industrial cities that allows modern civilisation to flourish.

Angus comprehensively demolishes the idea of a tragedy of the commons using rational argument and factual evidence. If he is right, then the implications for our own time and the growing environmental crisis are immense. If collective management of our common treasury, guided by mutual self-interest are indeed needed, then the whole question of who owns the land is back on the agenda.

So, this is a well-written book that is worth reading. The author allows the people of the time to speak for themselves wherever possible and keeps the narrative moving forward without over-simplifying a complicated story. We are getting plenty of sweep here, but plenty of interesting detail too. Ultimately the book succeeds because it embodies a powerful moral and social message that is still relevant today.

One anonymous 17th century poet quoted by Angus in his conclusion put it best of all: The law locks up the man and woman/ Who steals the goose from off the common/ And geese will still a common lack/ Till they go and steal it back.

See the original post:

Books The common cause - Morning Star Online

ACT Policing has executed search warrants at a residence in OMalley and a business in Majura Park as part of an investigation into alleged human trafficking and slavery.

In June 2023 information was provided to police alleging a woman had been trafficked from Colombia to Canberra in early 2023. The woman alleged:

she was forced to work from before 7am through to late each evening, cleaning, cooking and caring for children in the home.

She worked seven days a week and was not permitted to leave the home without being escorted.

She was provided minimal food and was paid cash for her work at well below minimum wage provisions.

She forced to work at a Majura Park business

She was not permitted to return home to Colombia

The warrant activity took place about 8.40am on Thursday, 31 August 2023.

Investigations into these allegations are continuing.

Anyone with any information about this matter is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via http://www.crimestoppers.com.au referencing Operation Paxton.

Police are urging everyone to be on the lookout for cases of human trafficking and slavery. Signs that someone may be a victim of human trafficking include:

The person appears reluctant to travel, and/or their movements appear to be controlled by another person;

The person does not have a passport or another form of identity or the person can't access them;

The person is subject to poor living or working conditions;

The person never or rarely leaves their house for non-work reasons;

The person has little or no money or no access to their earnings;

The person has physical injuries which may have resulted from assault, harsh treatment or unsafe work practices; or

The person is always in the presence of their employer or another person, who does not want or allow them to socialise with others.

The maximum penalty for trafficking in persons in Australia is 12 years' imprisonment.

ACT Policing has specialist officers who are not only trained in the investigation of these sensitive matters, but who are compassionate and empathic and will make victims' safety and their wishes the priority.

Reporting human trafficking

Assist us in combating this global problem. Use our online form to report information regarding human trafficking for the purposes of sexual and/or labour exploitation, organ harvesting, forced marriage and slavery or call 131 AFP (131 237).

An Australian Government Department or Agency can make a report of an allegation of criminal conduct to the AFP National Operations State Service Centre (NOSSC).

In case of an emergency, call Triple Zero (000).

For journalists:Broadcast quality video related to this matter can be downloaded fromHightail.(This link will expire in seven days.)

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

POLICE MEDIA (02) 5126 9070, act-police-media@afp.gov.au

More here:

Search warrants executed in alleged human trafficking and slavery ... - ACT Policing News

About this guidance

This guidance tells Home Office staff about how to identify suspected perpetrators of modern slavery related criminal offences.

It covers the main principles around the identification of perpetrators of modern slavery related offences as outlined in:

It is important for all Home Office staff to adhere to the modern slavery referral procedures for their area, to ensure the appropriate modern slavery identification and referral procedures are applied and are consistent with those agreed with the law enforcement partners, local police forces and other modern slavery (anti-trafficking) network partners and organisations.

The Home Office has a duty to safeguard vulnerable people and promote the welfare of children. For more information see: Vulnerable adults and children

Criminal Investigators in Immigration Enforcement must be aware of their obligations under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Part 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 see: Data Protection CFI Policy and Data protection

If you have any specific questions or queries about the content of this guidance you can email:

If you have any general questions about the guidance and your line manager cannot help you or you think that the guidance has factual errors, then you can email: CFI Operational Capability and Compliance Enquiries.

If you notice any formatting errors in this guidance (broken links, spelling mistakes and so on) or have any comments about the layout or navigability of the guidance then you can email the Guidance Rules and Forms Team (GRaFT).

Below is information on when this version of the guidance was published:

This is new guidance.

This section tells Home Office staff about the different definitions of modern slavery related offences, as outlined in the College of Policing guidance on Modern Slavery (Definitions).

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 consolidated existing criminal offences and increased sentences for these offences from 14 years to maximum sentences of life imprisonment. The act also introduced a statutory defence for slavery or trafficking victims who are compelled (in the case of an adult) or forced (in the case of a child) to commit certain criminal offences:

section 1 slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour

section 2 human trafficking

section 4 committing an offence with intent to commit offence under section 2 (human trafficking)

section 45 - Defence for slavery or trafficking victims who commit an offence

The section 1 and 2 offences have maximum sentences of life imprisonment, and the section 4 offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The 2015 act also introduced Slavery and Trafficking Prevention and Risk orders (STPO) (STRO)

For more information see: Modern Slavery, Human Trafficking and Smuggling

For relevant legislation and guidance in Scotland see section 1 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 and the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy (Scotland).

For relevant legislation and guidance in Northern Ireland see sections 1 and 2 of Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 and the Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Strategy 2022

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 came into force on 31 July 2015.

For modern slavery related offences prior to this date, slavery, servitude and forced labour are primarily covered under the:

Offences of trafficking prior to this date were primarily covered by the:

Below are a number of offences that are commonly associated with slavery and trafficking and may be considered if there is insufficient evidence to support a charge under the Modern Slavery Act 2015:

Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 defines a person as a victim of exploitation if one or more of the following apply to them:

slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour

sexual exploitation

removal of organs

securing services and such like by force, threats or deception

securing services and such like from children and vulnerable persons

For more information on the above definitions see: Home office Modern slavery statutory guidance

If a person acts with the intention of committing one or more of the above offences, including by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, they are guilty of perpetrating modern slavery.

The consent of a person (whether an adult or a child) to exploitation is not relevant in determining whether or not a person has been exploited.

Slavery is described as the status or condition of a person over whom any, or all, of the powers attaching the right of ownership are exercised. In essence, characteristics of ownership and indoctrination need to be present for a state of slavery to exist.

Servitude is linked to slavery but is much broader than slavery. In Siliadin-v-France- 2006-43-EHRR-16. the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reaffirmed that servitude is a particularly serious form of denial of freedom. It includes, in addition to the obligation to provide certain services to another, the obligation on the serf to live on the others property and the perceived impossibility of changing his or her status. Domestic servitude can be characterised as a form of forced labour within a residential setting.

Section 1 of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No.29) defined forced or compulsory labour as being all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily. Case law suggests that indicators of forced or compulsory labour include recruitment by deception, coercion and/or abuse, exploitation at work, and coercion at destination.

This is defined in Article 3 of the United Nations Palermo Protocol (applicable to 117 signatories of the Protocol) and in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and, for the purposes of the provisions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (applicable to England and Wales).

Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 states that a person commits an offence if they arrange or facilitate the travel of another person, with a view to that other person being exploited.

Human smuggling (also called people smuggling) is not human trafficking or a form of modern slavery.

Human smuggling occurs when an individual seeks the help of a facilitator to enter a country illegally, and the relationship between both parties ends once the transaction ends. Many of those who enter the UK illegally do so by this route. Human smuggling is not a form of modern slavery.

The purpose of human smuggling is to move a person across a border illegally, and it is regarded as a violation of state sovereignty.

The purpose of human trafficking is to exploit the victim for financial gain or other benefit and is regarded as a violation of that persons freedom and integrity.

Human smuggling occurs when a person seeks the help of a facilitator to enter the UK illegally, and the relationship between both parties ends when the transaction is complete. It is a consensual agreement.

A smuggled person is, however, a potential victim who may be vulnerable to being trafficked at any point in their journey, and the distinction can be blurred.

Perpetrators may smuggle people with the intention of exploiting them, or with the intention of facilitating exploitation. Alternatively, the smuggled can become vulnerable to traffickers upon arrival at their destination and subsequently be exploited and/or harmed.

Perpetrators of human smuggling can be charged under Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 for assisting unlawful immigration to the UK or under Section 25A for knowingly helping asylum seekers to enter or arrive in the UK depending on the circumstances of the attempted facilitation.

For more information on the above see:

This section tells Home Office staff about how to identify the suspected perpetrators of modern slavery related offences, as outlined in the College of Policing guidance for Modern Slavery (risk and identification).

For information regarding the identification of victims and exploitation indicators, see the College of Policing guidance for Modern Slavery (risk and identification - Victim profile and Exploitation indicators)

Perpetrators use the control methods shown below to engage or coerce vulnerable individuals, who often fit the victim profile, in exploitative work or into becoming perpetrators:

abducting or kidnapping victims

committing verbal, physical, sexual and/or psychological abuse against the victim, their family or someone they know, in private or in public

charging unreasonable fines (fees)

using threats and intimidation

withdrawing basic provisions, for example, food, accommodation, sanitation, mobility

increasing workload

plying vulnerable victims with free alcohol and/or drugs

being the only source for free food and accommodation

guarding victim identities and legal documentation so that their mobility and access to state services is controlled, for example, hospitals; they are unable to leave and seek work elsewhere; and they are at risk of trouble with the police in other countries if they report an offence without presenting legal identification

through a relationship

presenting a false scenario in which the potential victim is convinced that they can improve the quality of their life and that of their family

recruiting for non-existent jobs and education placements

misrepresenting the job and work conditions, for example, women going abroad and believing they will be employed as domestic workers but ending up in prostitution

offering refuge with the intent to exploit

threatening to harm or intimidate the victim, the victims family or someone they know in the UK or in the victims home country unless they comply with the perpetrators demands

making victims believe they are colluding in illegal activities with perpetrators and are complicit in the offence

reinforcing to victims that they will not be believed if they approach the UK authorities to make a report, engendering fear and suspicion - victims may have been deceived previously by corrupt authorities in their home country - those who have no experience of the UK police may have been convinced that a similar or worse culture prevails in the UK

instilling in victims a fear of possible deportation or imprisonment in the UK

developing a romantic or intimate relationship with a victim in order to exert more control over them and, in some cases the victim can become pregnant, creating a greater emotional hold between the victim and the offender - this is known as the loverboy model and is often found in cases of sexual exploitation

making victims feel attached to the family of perpetrators and adopting them as a member of the family, so that they feel unable to make a complaint against the family (victims may call the mother and father figures Ma and Pa to reinforce familial attachment)

indoctrination

false claims over victim earnings

removal of basic human rights including sanitation, food, freedom to choose

faced with debt claims from perpetrators, victims feel morally bound to work until debts are paid off

perpetrators may marry brides from their home countries and transport them to the UK - on arrival, husbands and their families may threaten the brides with divorce and deportation if they do not comply with demands, making them victims of exploitation

perpetrators may perform spiritual practices, for example, witchcraft, to coerce victims into exploitation

perpetrators may threaten to disclose information about the victim engaging in pre-marital sexual activity unless they comply with the perpetrators demands, leading to sexual exploitation and/or prostitution - the victim may have been raped

managing victims into debt by charging them excessive fines (fees) for visas and other travel documents, food, accommodation, tools and transport

giving victims a loan that is hard to pay back because the amount of the loan and the interest on it are inflated

controlling access to victims bank accounts

managing wages so that victims are not sure what they are being paid and what fees are being deducted

claiming hereditary debt bondage

developing inappropriate friendships or intimate relationships with victims

offering gifts

praising victims by affirming what a good worker they are and that they are working longer hours than any other person

reassuring victims that they will be paid a lump sum wage in the future

locking victims into rooms

forcing victims to work and live in the same accommodation

allowing very limited or no contact at all with victims families, other victims, the local community or those in the locality from the same nationality

frequently changing the victims location

removing privacy

denying victims access to a telephone, mobile phone or the internet

This section tells Home Office staff about some of the possible scenarios where suspected perpetrators of modern slavery related offences could be present.

There will be a number of scenarios and potential indicators which could identify a suspected perpetrator, either in action or close to their potential victim or victims.

Whether at the border, in a residential or commercial address, in a vehicle or on a vessel, often perpetrators will go unnoticed and undetected whilst victims can often be unaware of their exploitation and being under duress and control.

A perpetrator will try to submerge themselves amongst the natural environment and do their best to be hidden, discreet and inconspicuous.

One trait which can often be detected and linked to a suspected perpetrator is their determination to control and coach their victim, either by speaking on their behalf, providing their victim with a rehearsed script or using digital or other concealed methods to direct and control their victim to act and say what is instructed of them.

Conversely, potential victims will often appear subdued, silent, withdrawn and disengaged.

View original post here:

Modern slavery and human trafficking: identifying and reporting ... - GOV.UK

The racial wealth and equity gaps show no signs of subsiding in America, according to a new Economic Policy Institute report. We spoke to its author.

A new report shows 60 years after theMarch on Washingtonfor Jobs and Freedom, economic disparities continue to plague Black America due to a lack of legislation in the post-civil rights era.

The Economic Policy Institute, in its report, notes that gaps in home ownership, wealth and wages continue to keep one of the marchs goals economic justice out of reach for many Black people.

The barriers to economic equity include occupational segregation, discrimination, hiring and pay inequity, equitable pathways to promotion, a stagnant minimum wage and falling union coverage, Adewale A. Maye, policy analyst in the institutes program on race, ethnicity and the economy, told theGrio.

Some of the things that were advocated for in 1963, were still asking for in 2023, Maye maintained.

Maye authoredthe reporttitled Chasing the Dream of Equity: How policy has shaped racial, economic disparities. His report found:

Black unemployment remains persistently high.Over the last 50 years, the jobless rate of Black workers often exceeded 10%, while the white unemployment rate has never reached those heights.

The racial wealth gap remains stubbornly disproportionate, as white families have, on average, eight times more wealth than Black families.

Federal legislation hasnt addressed areas that could help improve the financial standing of Black Americans, including raising the federal minimum wage, protecting unions and collective bargaining, and job training assistance.

Racial economic inequalities will persist without legislation explicitly targeting and remedying the injustices left unresolved by race-neutral policies, which disregard the challenges that specific racial or ethnic groups face, Maye wrote in his report.

Other reports have also found that Black Americans have made little financial progress. For example, a MarchPew Research reportshows the racial wealth gap isnt closing anytime soon since Black households have a median income of $46,400, which amounts to 42% less than the overall populations $70,784.

The March on Washington, which was held on Aug. 28, 1963, became synonymous with Martin Luther King Jr.sI Have a Dreamspeech, but the march was much more than that. Itsorganizing manuallisted 10 demands, including adopting Fair Labor Standards and Fair Employment Practices Acts and a jobs training program for all unemployed workers.

As the EPI report notes, the promises after the march did little to close the equity gap.

Maye points to a minimum wage policy that exempts certain classes of workers, likeseasonal workersand babysitters. The federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour has remained unchangedsince 2009.

If we have wages that are stagnant at $7.25, but things are going to be more expensive, even the workers who are most likely to be paid the minimum wage, which happens to be Black workers, might be underemployed, Maye said.

Theyre getting paid, they have a job, but theyre not getting the amount of money thats able to sustain their economic security or provide for themselves and their families, he continued. Because of these contributing factors, the Black-white wage gap has persisted and sustained over time.

But efforts to help Black people achieve equity have lately hit several legal roadblocks.One law firmhas been sued over its fellowship program that promotes diversity. A venture capital fundhas been suedfor its Black women entrepreneurs program. Five employees filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit against alarge newspaper chain.

Maye believes society shouldnt pretend inequities dont exist, and theres no need for programs to help close the financial gap.

When looking at numbers, we can see that disparities are quite wide, he said. Were noticing these disparities, so we cant act as if everything is equal. We cannot act as if these structural barriers dont exist. We have to redress and recognize the long shadow of Jim Crow, slavery and, for sure, of discriminatory policies, such as housing discrimination and redlining.

His report draws a straight line between structural racism and the economic and social disparities that plague Black America. From reconstruction to Jim Crow laws and the failed attempts at passing legislation to help create a level playing field, America has yet to address the promise of the March on Washington.

Maye believes America needs to come together as it did during the pandemic. Then, the government staved off financial disaster and kept people from dying. It will take that same sort of effort to make a dent in inequity, Maye believes.

Sixty years later, its important that we face a similar moment, where we recognize that this list of demands can be used as a playbook for where we want to go from here, he said. How do we achieve genuine racial equity? How do we measure racial equity, and how can we make scalable strides to achieve that? Thats the most salient takeaway for me.

TheGrio is FREE on your TV via Apple TV, Amazon Fire, Roku and Android TV. Also,please download theGrio mobile appstoday!

The post Report: Government needs better policies to help narrow economic equity gap appeared first on TheGrio.

Read more here:

Report: Government needs better policies to help narrow economic equity gap - Yahoo News

A New Zealand criminal investigation and government inquiry have been forced after dozens of migrant workers were discovered crowded inside a squalid three-bedroom home in south Auckland earlier this month.

Newshub reported on August 14 that the workers paid thousands of dollars for employment agreements with local recruitment contractors, but since arriving three months ago they had received no work or pay. The men called police after their food ran out and they had to resort to begging.

Forty men were crammed into the filthy, overcrowded three-bedroom home in Auckland for months on end, sharing a single shower and cooking over one stove, the report stated. Three days, we dont have nothing to eat, only just drinking water. No food, nothing, Indian migrant Prasad Babu said.

The men paid tens of thousands of dollars each for job offers and signed contracts with New Zealand recruitment contractors. [They] took $20,000 from us to get a job. Why did [they] promise us you can give a better life here? There is no better life here, Babu said. Like beggars, we are going to the temple and eating the food there, he explained.

Following the initial report, several similarly horrific stories emerged. Immigration officials began investigating four more Auckland properties housing dozens more victims. In Papakura, Newshub reported, at least 20 more migrants were shoved into a grotty, run-down three-bedroom property. There was an overflowing rubbish bin, one toilet, and one shower.

A total of 115 migrants from India and Bangladesh have so far been found living in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions in six houses across Auckland. In one case, a business couple have been usingtheirformer home to house up to 30 migrant workers. The tenants, who rent beds at $160 each per week, said there were no smoke alarmsand sometimes no electricity. The wealthy owners of the $2.97 million property are reportedly major donors to the conservative opposition National Party.

Elsewhere, Karen Gibney, president of the Latin American Community in Tauranga, told the New Zealand Herald on August 22 that about 200 people from Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia had paid between $4,000 and $10,000 for visas and employment agreements to work with construction company Buildhub. Many have received hardly any work or pay since arriving and some said they are living like strays and begging for food.

Two Chinese building workers interviewed by TVNZ last week said they had paid $16,000 to an agent to be employed on the redevelopment of Waikeria Prison near Hamilton, with promises they could eventually qualify for residency and bring their families. The pair were paid just $25 an hour and after eight weeks were suddenly sacked by the subcontractor via text message while still owed pay.

The migrants all entered the country through the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) scheme, introduced under pressure from big business last May, following the abandonment of COVID public health measures, to boost the labour supply. The Labour government boasted that its immigration reset would help build a high wage, high skill economy.

AEWV was, officially, meant to streamline the work visa system by inviting employers to apply for accreditation to hire overseas workers. Immigration NZ (INZ) then issues visas for workers who are linked with an approved employer. INZ has approved nearly 81,000 visas among about 27,900 accredited employers.

Under the scheme, migrants are tied to particular employers, creating the conditions for mistreatment and even slave-labour conditions. Unable to quit for fear of invalidating their visas and often with no avenue of complaint, they are frequently forced to work and live in illegal and subhuman conditions.

Immigration lawyer Alastair McClymont told Radio NZ that employers only had to self-declare they were financially sustainable and operating proper wage and time records. So you can make one dollars profit, and then bring in $600,000 worth of migrants, who are then dumped on the street with no jobs and no income, he said.

According to a Stuff article on August 23, concerned INZ staff said employers were being allowed to bring in migrants without any paperwork or financial checks, even when immigration officers feared jobs may be fake, paid for with illegal premiums, or the migrants were at risk of exploitation.

Stuff was told only two employers have been declined accreditation. One INZ worker said: Now what we have is thousands of migrants exploited and potentially thousands of businesses that shouldnt have got accreditation.

Donate to the WSWS 25 Year Fund

Watch the video of workers internationally explain why you should donate to the WSWS.

INZ currently has 164 active investigations underway. After initially denying any links between the Auckland cases and increased migrant exploitation, following serious concerns raised by an INZ whistleblower, Immigration Minister Andrew Little ordered a review of the scheme. Public Service Commissioner Peter Hughes promptly declared the assurance review would only check the policy was working as intended, rather than assessing the policy itself.

Migrant exploitation is an entrenched feature of New Zealand capitalism. Economics commentator Bernard Hickey has called the proliferation of scams a sign of the countrys churn and burn economy, describing it as the Dubai of the South Pacific for allowing fraudulent agents and fly-by-night firms to bring in desperate and poor workers with suggestions of high-paid jobs and residency, only to pull the rug out from under their feet and leaving them indebted and even more desperate.

Workers in the Recognised Seasonal Employer program, introduced by the then Labour government in 2007, which brings Pacific Islanders in on temporary visas to work in the horticulture industry, were subjected to conditions akin to modern slavery, according to a Human Rights Commission report last December. The report cites numerous instances of basic human rights breaches, including in workers dire accommodation and authoritarian employer supervision.

At the same time, politicians continually scapegoat migrants for social problems including the housing crisis, inequality and pressure on public services. Labour assumed office in 2017, in coalition with the anti-Asian NZ First, promising to halve immigration numbers, then around 70,000 a year.

Labour has continued a cruel policy of deportations, including for people who overstay the term of their visa or who commit trivial breaches of their visa conditions. In early 2021, thousands of migrants and their supporters held a series of protests, including in India, over the governments inhumane policies.

The systemic exploitation of immigrant workers is a vast global enterprise under capitalism, carried out by ruthless employers and unscrupulous agents, imposed by accommodating governments of all stripes. In the interests of profits, low pay, temporary work, summary sackings, ditching of basic rights and miserable living conditions are all on the agenda of every ruling elite as the economic crisis intensifies.

The international working class needs to come to the defence of immigrant workers. Workers must take a warning that these conditions are being imposed everywhere to set a precedent to be used as a battering ram against all workers in the coming period. The unification of struggles of workers globally, whatever their national origins or ethnicity, across all borders is an urgent necessity.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Follow this link:

New Zealand criminal investigation into systemic migrant worker ... - WSWS

FILE - Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signs the Parental Rights in Education bill, also known as the "Don't say gay," bill, at Classical Preparatory School, on March 28, 2022, in Shady Hills, Fla. DeSantis' divisive education policies have faced wide criticism from civil rights leaders and professional educators, among others, but they also have paid off politically. (Douglas R. Clifford/Tampa Bay Times via AP, File) (Douglas R. Clifford/AP)

After Hurricane Ian hit the west coast of Florida in Sept. 2022, it damaged five schools and destroyed three, displacing 2.5 million children from their normal routines. More than 168,000 kids were kept out of the classroom for weeks in the aftermath following the category 4 storm, with some kids missing as many as 100 school days.

For the Reckon Report in September, were focusing on education. Public education has long been a flashpoint for debate in America. But in the last few years, school board meetings, school libraries and curricula at all levels of education have faced attacks, especially at the state and local levels. Most recently, that challenged curricula have included climate change denial and numerous other controversial issues related to race, gender and evolution.

As Hurricane Idalia rapidly strengthens on its path toward Northwest Florida and school kids settle into the beginning of their academic year, theres no better time to transition from climate change to education and take a hard look at PragerU the conservative education and media group that was recently permitted to show climate denial and other controversial videos to K-5 kids in the Sunshine State.

The group has controversial takes on a wide range of topics, including claiming the gender wage gap doesnt exist, fascism is an idea of the left, and numerous videos criticizing African-American history and the detrimental effects of slavery.

While some counties in Florida have already said they will not show the videos, many will allow them in class. The move, which received the blessing of Gov. Ron DeSantis, is the culmination of decades of lobbying from right-wing education groups and parents who have traditionally targeted evolution and called for a greater emphasis on creationism.

Those battles are usually fought behind closed doors by the elected board of education members in any given state. In recent years, however, the topics up for debate have extended from African-American history to basic interpretations of the Constitution.

Now, climate change is firmly part of the alternative education debate and is spreading nationwide.

FILE - Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks during a news conference to sign several bills related to public education and increases in teacher pay, in Miami, on May 9, 2023. DeSantis' divisive education policies have faced wide criticism from civil rights leaders and professional educators, among others, but they also have paid off politically. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File) (Rebecca Blackwell/AP)

PragerUs ascent from a fringe media group to the conservative mainstream has partially taken these debates out of school board meeting rooms and dropped them directly into the public domain.

Just last week, a Republican member of the State Board of Education in Texas announced that all of PragerUs resources would be rolled out to public school children in the state. Julie Pickren made the announcement with PragerUs CEO, Marissa Streit. In the joint video, Pickren, present at the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building, said, We are definitely ready to welcome PragerU into the great state of Texas.

A blurb beside the video said the group was now an approved education vendor in the state.

A protester holds up a "thumbs down" sign as Houston Independent School District Superintendent Mike Miles presented a slideshow to the board during the HISD board meeting at Hattie Mae White Educational Support Center on Thursday, June 22, 2023, in Houston. (Karen Warren/Houston Chronicle via AP) (Karen Warren/AP)

Well, turns out it was a lie. The states Board of Education said PragerU hadnt presented its plans to the board and was not an approved vendor. Education advocates believe Pickren is attempting to politicize this weeks school board meetings, where textbook adoption on climate change and evolution issues will be discussed.

It is pretty unique and new for a member to blatantly lie and then have an organization also lie on their behalf, Emily Witt, a spokesperson for the Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based nonpartisan, grassroots organization that supports religious freedom, individual liberties, and public education, told Reckon.

The organization claims its supplemental curriculum will be announced in other states soon. But advocates in Texas are fighting back.

On Tuesday morning, several members of the Texas State Board of Education and education advocacy groups will attend a press conference at the state Capitol building in Austin to express concern over attempts to bring PragerU into classrooms.

PragerUs endeavor to introduce their misguided and contentious curriculum into Texas public schools raises significant concerns for students, families, and educators in the state, said Aicha Davis, a Member of the State Board of Education, in a press release. The recent well-documented endeavors of the Florida Governor, seeking to impose his political objectives through PragerU in Floridas schools, will be met with apprehension across Texas. We are committed to working with students and families throughout Texas to prevent the infiltration of radical political ideologies into our public education system.

While a range of opinions is undoubtedly a sign of a robust education system, PragerUs videos introduce themes, ideas, and facts that have been widely discredited and, in the opinion of some, are only designed to create cultural divisiveness.

I think that this move in this narrative is quite frankly hyperpolarizing and is being done on purpose, said Ameshia Cross, the assistant director of Higher Education Communication at The Education Trust. The problem here is Texas has become a battleground for equity for minority students. Were watching the Houston Independent School District, one of the largest minority school districts in the country, be taken over by a state that doesnt care about facts or the students.

View post:

What back to school means in the era of PragerU - Reckon

On August 26, Ryan Palmeter, a white man, attempted to enter Edward Waters University while wielding a gun. The school a historically Black university (HBCU) was placed on lockdown and so, unable to enter campus, Palmeter instead went to a nearby Dollar General store where he shot and killed Angela Michelle Carr, 52; Anolt Joseph A.J. Laguerre, Jr., 29, who worked at the store; and Jerrald DeShaun Gallion, 19.

Palmeter was specifically targeting Black shoppers before he turned the gun on himself, ending his life. Prior to his rampage, Palmeter wrote a manifesto describing his hatred and desire for violence against Black people. He had swastikas carved into his gun. He wore a Rhodesian patch, the international symbol of violent white supremacy, a beachhead on the African continent. In short, another far-right, anti-Black reactionary took up arms against the Black community and murdered three people while they were shopping. This is reminiscent of the Buffalo shooting, where a white supremacist specifically targeted Black people in a shooting at a grocery store.

The Jacksonville mass shooting is an expression of Floridas right-wing policies, as well as an expression of the decay of the U.S. capitalist system.

Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been attacking Black history in schools by either banning the subject or attempting to revise it to paint white supremacy in a more favorable light and justify numerous crimes against the Black community including acts of white supremacist terrorism like the Tulsa Massacre. DeSantis has stopped AP Black History from being taught at high schools and wants the new curriculum to state that slavery could benefit enslaved people.

Attacks on Black people, trans people, and unions especially the teachers and University unions create an atmosphere of hate pushed by the Republican Party. The so-called War on Wokeness is a thinly disguised war against Black people, immigrants, the trans and queer community, and the working classs ability to organize and unionize. Even the word wokeness carries a racialized connotation as it was developed within Black communities and popularized through the Black Lives Matter movement.

We should be clear: The blood of these murderers is on DeSantis hands. And activists in Florida know it. DeSantis was booed and shouted down at a Jacksonville vigil to remember the victims of this hateful shooting.

Black people are the primary targets of hate crimes around the country, representing more than one-fifth of all hate crimes reported in major U.S. cities last year, the highest share of any group. As Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism explained:

We expect this killing cycle to continue, especially as we enter a volatile election season. These atrocities are often carried out by angry young adult males who made recent weapon acquisitions, act within their home state, and who reference the replacement doctrine statements of previous killers.

Replacement theory asserts that non-white immigrants are being brought into the U.S. to replace white people inspiring hateful violence against Black people, as well as against immigrants. Its the same violent ideology that inspired the Buffalo shooting.

We are also witnessing violence against other communities. In Arrowhead, California Laura Ann Carlson was murdered for posting a pride flag at her storefront. That same weekend, there was a shooting at a queer and trans friendly punk club in Minneapolis. There have been over 350 incidents of anti-LGBT hate from April of 2022 to June of 2023.

The escalation of attacks on people of color and queer people in the streets is a direct consequence of increasing anti-Black, anti-immigrant and anti-trans politics and rhetoric being advanced by the political parties and institutions of the state and its not just the Republican party perpetrating this hate.

The Supreme Court ruled against Affirmative Action, Roe v. Wade and LGBTQ legal protections. Both the Republicans and the Democrats complain about wokeness and Republicans have made stripping rights away from the specially oppressed the heart of their political profiles. The Democrats have increased police budgets all over the country based on false claims of an uncontrollable crime wave. This has created a climate that is escalating right-wing attacks.

Further, this shooting comes when mass shootings are at an all time high. There have been 400 mass shootings so far this year, a record-breaking number. These shootings are the result of the right-wing backlash against Black Lives Matter and against queer people. But they are also a product of a capitalist system in crisis, in which work is increasingly low paid and precarious, and the ability to own a home and have a dignified life and wage are being eroded. While the Democrats deceptively claim the economy is doing well, the Republicans blame Black, Brown, and queer people, sowing the seeds for the kind of racist, violent, and hateful act that we saw in Jacksonville. Further, as social services are cut and as the pandemic takes a toll on the mental health of the whole country, these violent acts are likely to be more common as they are at the intersection of a racism, patriarchy, a capitalist system in decline, and a totally unaddressed mental health epidemic.

Ron DeSantis has blood on his hands, and the kind of curriculum that he wants Florida schools to teach gives students no historical context to understand the anti-Black violence enacted at the Dollar Store. There can be no doubt that the far right in politics, from Ron to Donald Trump, are emboldening a sector of the Right who will continue to take these figures hateful rhetoric and laws into their own hands and commit acts of violence against Black people. As we head into the 2024 election cycle, we can only expect both the hateful rhetoric and right-wing polarization to continue, and more people like Ryan Palmeter to emboldened.

And as the last two years have made clear, voting Democrat does not get rid of the far right. With Joe Biden in the presidency, we have seen the rise of DeSantis, the emergence of Vivek Ramaswamy, the re-emergence of Donald Trump. Further, weve also seen the erosion of basic rights by the Supreme Court and by the Biden administration itself. For all their tears, the Democrats refuse to codify Roe v. Wade, they call for more money for police many of whom are literally members of white supremacist organizations and they, too, limit trans rights in schools.

Voting Democrat will not stop the Far Right. We must take the fight to the streets and to our workplaces, and organize a political force against the Right.

The Jacksonville shooting marked the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his I Have A Dream speech. On that day, unions, civil rights groups, students, and activists came together against racism and for civil rights for Black people.

To mobilize against the right-wing attacks, the Left will need to organize along these lines.

We must take the streets to highlight that we stand against racist violence and to say that the DeSantiss policies and rhetoric are responsible. We must organize against the anti-woke and anti-trans legislation that sows the seeds of this violence, and demand that schools teach history real history to students. We must demand more counselors and mental health professionals and also demand that they be trained in anti-racist practices so that they can help identify and address the white-supremacist and patriarchal perspectives that lead to these mass shootings.

We must also organize in our unions with this perspective, including strikes and walkouts, following the example of Starbucks workers who went on strike during Pride month and the solidarity strike by Los Angeles teachers. The Los Angeles Teachers union (UTLA) organizes in support of trans kids as right wing anti trans bigots have stormed school board meetings to attack trans youth.

But its not enough to fight in the streets. An organization, a party of our own without the capitalists, a party based on workers struggle, community and left organizations with a socialist program is essential to fight the Right. Capitalism itself fosters exploitation, bigotry, and violence and therefore we must fight not just the far right, but the entire capitalist system and the parties that represent it and open the door to the Far Right. We need a party to organize against capitalism, imperialism, and its attack dogs like the police and murderous bigots who are committing mass shootings around the country.

The victims of Jacksonville were murdered simply for existing while Black. While these murderous bigots continue to target oppressed people, we have the power to shut down the capitalist system through strikes as well political organization outside of the capitalist parties, for a class-independent strategy which can take on these right-wing attacks.

Read the original post:

The Jacksonville Shooting and the Far Right - Left Voice

The following statement was issued May 24 by Joanne Kuniansky, Socialist Workers Party candidate for New Jersey State Senate.

Around the country Writers Guild members are striking against bosses drive to slash wages and residual payments, and worsen working conditions. I had the great pleasure to join hundreds of Guild members in a spirited New York City rally yesterday.

Teamsters at UPS nationwide are fighting for a contract that ends two-tier wages and for substantial pay raises for part-time workers.

In the last two weeks, United Auto Workers members at the Clarios battery plant near Toledo, Ohio, walked out for better wages and conditions; nurses in Belleville, New Jersey, rallied for safer staff/patient ratios and higher pay; and meatpackers at two Iowa plants have begun union-organizing drives.

Working people in East Palestine are fighting for greater control over medical care and the cleanup of the area after a toxic train derailment there. Theyre winning growing support from the unions.

Bosses count on help from the big-business press to maintain a wall of silence around these fights. My campaign and the Militant strive to build working-class solidarity. All these battles deserve wide support.

Help spread the word! Help involve your union in sending messages of support, visiting picket lines and organizing contributions for these strikes.

Millions are learning from their own experience that politics today is class vs. class. They sense that new winds are starting to blow, and theyre increasingly open to getting involved. Victorious labor struggles set an example.

More workers are also learning they cant look to the bosses political parties the Democrats and Republicans in these class struggles. The employers count on workers believing the only choice they have is to hold their nose and choose the lesser evil between parties that govern for them at home and abroad. But evil is evil. Millions have given up and no longer bother to vote.

Working people need our own party, a labor party based on the unions, that can speak for and mobilize all those exploited and oppressed by capital small farmers and shopkeepers, immigrant workers and more.

A labor party can fight to put in power a workers and farmers government to rebuild society in our class interests. With power in our own hands, we can end the system of wage slavery and join in the worldwide fight for socialism.

The rest is here:

Build support for today's union struggles The Militant - The Militant

Where did work requirements come from?

The idea that people should have to work to receive benefits has been around since the Middle Ages. In the U.S., modern work requirements have roots in racist ideas about what counts as work, who should work and who deserves to be supported when they are unable to work.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mothers pensions were small cash payments designed to help single mothers mostly widows take care of their children. There were no work requirements. In fact, the whole point of these payments was to allow women to stay home to take care of their children. But these payments were overwhelmingly given to White mothers. A 1931 survey found that 96% of participants in the program were White while Black mothers were required to work.

Requiring Black people to work is rooted in slavery. White enslavers consistently portrayed Black people as lazy and unwilling to work even though enslaved people worked almost constantly, which further perpetuated the institution of slavery.

To get the New Deal passed during the Great Depression, a compromise between liberals and conservatives gave states the power to control who received new benefits. Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was a cash assistance program that replaced the mothers pensions and was designed to help mothers support their children. The program still didnt have official work requirements; instead, local officials decided who deserved assistance. In southern states, where most Black people still lived, those officials regularly gave Black women lower payments or withheld support altogether.

A federal welfare administrator who traveled to the South to understand why so few Black families were enrolled in ADC discovered an intense desire not to interfere with local labor conditions. That worker noted people saw no reason why the employable Negro mother should not continue her usually sketchy seasonal labor or indefinite domestic service rather than receive a public assistance grant.

In other words, this new social safety net simply wasnt available to Black people. They were required to work because the local economy depended on White people benefitting from the enforced low-wage labor of Black people who worked as cooks, laundresses and childcare providers.

In time, states lost the ability to exclude Black people from public assistance based on their own biases. Thats when formal work requirements came into the picture.

As Black families migrated north and started to gain access to public assistance programs like ADC and unemployment insurance, local officials relied on racist narratives to institute work requirements.

For instance, in 1961 amid the Great Migration, unsubstantiated rumors said Black families were moving to Newburgh, N.Y. with the sole intention of receiving public assistance. Newburgh was undergoing an economic decline that had nothing to do with the arrival of new Black residents, but City Manager Joseph Mitchell leaned into racist narratives about Black workers to propose a set of welfare rules that required new residents provide evidence that they had job offers. George McKneally, a Newburgh City Council member, stated his support for the measure, saying, Theres hardly an incentive to a naturally lazy people to work if they can exist without working.

In the decades since the Newburgh proposal, work requirements and accompanying racist framing have become commonplace. Former President Ronald Reagan, who long sought to restrict access to welfare as Californias governor in the 1960s, repeatedly invoked the infamous welfare queen trope in his 1976 presidential campaign and passed strict, punitive work requirements when he became president. By the 1990s, both policy discussion and popular discourse were intertwined with racist narratives and imagery that depicted Black people as the main beneficiaries of the social safety net.

In a word, no. Theres no evidence work requirements help people get and keep good jobs that allow them to support their families. However, theres plenty of evidence that work requirements harm people and take away needed health care and other support systems.

If work requirements are added to Medicaid through the new debt limit bill, thousands of people could lose access to health insurance. Since 1997, adding work requirements to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (cash welfare) has resulted in millions of people losing benefits. And in states like Wisconsin, where the administration of work requirements has been privatized, work requirements are enriching private companies and trapping low income workers in a cycle of poorly paid jobs that dont provide either a living wage or the training to achieve real economic mobility.

So why do Republican legislators continue to insist on these provisions? Work requirements are like many aspects of U.S. social policy: They have little to do with reducing poverty or supporting people in need and everything to do with perpetuating racist narratives.

Nomi Sofer specializes in storytelling for social justice and developing and disseminating antiracist narratives. She is the Project Director for Voices of Reentry and the Associate Director of the Narrative Office at the Boston University Center for Antiracist Research.

Go here to read the rest:

Work requirements wont affect the debt ceiling but they will stir up ... - The Boston Globe