Home | About | Donate

IMF Says Countries Should Pay Refugees Less Than Minimum Wage


IMF Says Countries Should Pay Refugees Less Than Minimum Wage

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Wednesday released a report urging the European countries accepting a majority of refugees to "temporarily" pay them less than minimum wage.

In its report, the IMF recommended implementing a short-term differentiation between asylum seekers and EU citizens, by way of "temporary and limited derogations of the minimum wage for refugees."


Perhaps the rationale behind Madame Merkel's and others' "welcome"?


I cannot in my most depraved dreams conceive of any benefit to a two tiered system of compensation for labor.! Such a system would be ludicrous and divisive in the extreme. Existing workers who are doing the menial and lower paying jobs would be competing with newcomers who would work for what ever the corporate bosses could get away with. The resentment would lead not only to personal attacks but also to riots unseen since the twenties and thirties. There is not a single workforce in the free world that would tolerate such a stupid effort.
If governments are serious about absorbing the refugees then a WPA like system could be instated that would pay a living wage and be open to all workers.This service would also provide language and cultural classes to help the newcomers to assimilate and become independent. Funding would be raised by taxes on the 1% who benefit most from a smoothly running economy.


This is very concerning. Also surely in many countries, paying low wages does not contribute the taxes for that country, you need a decent wage to pay tax.
It means that people, ie refugees will be kept in poverty, and not actually able to contribute much to the economy. Low wages are an insult at best, and immoral and unethical. This decision and advice is very short sighted, and will likely cause problems among communties. Lose lose, but win win for the greedy corporations?


The airlines in the US after deregulation created not just a two-tier but a three-tier system of pay for flight attendants (they may have done the same for other workers excepting pilots but I cannot say as I do not know), which caused unrest, rancor, and outright anger among the flight attendants. Usually the junior F/A's are assigned by the senior F/A to work in the back of the airplane and on wide bodies, the bulk of the F/A's worked in the back where most of the passengers were. At one point, the F/A's on American Airlines (three tier pay system) that were sent to the "back of the bus" simply remained strapped into their jumpseats when it came time to do the beverage and meal services...a work slow down on several wide body airplane flights. There were also sick-ins causing crew shortages. So your assertion about dissension is spot on


The U S wrote the book on paying refugees less than the minimum wage. American history is rife with the abusive labor practices waged against emigres and refugees with the farm laborers (and the bracero program of yore) incurring the worst abuse in the 20th century with the Irish, Chinese, Italians and Eastern Europeans in the 19th century. In our nation's earliest history, look at the practice wherein migrants from England were indentured servants who had to work off their ocean passage from England (esnes of Anglo Saxon origin) with most serving out their lifetimes in bondage in the colonies. And we all know about the brutality of slavery in the U S. Today, too many companies that operate under the oversight radar (meat processors, food processors, fast food chains, hotels, etc) and employ refugees (including undocumented workers) still skirt the labor laws and pay the lowest wages they possibly can without a cent of benefits or scintilla of compassion. Companies have even been known to extort money from workers who may be in the US illegally...hush money is the term...leaving these workers with little to nothing to live on. What is not mentioned is the refugees with the least English proficiency are the ones most exploited and objectified than those who are more English proficient. I won't even go into what American companies do to their laborers outside the U S....


That is also the reason that both the GOP and the Democrats have always allowed illegals to enter the USA without any problems. They supplied cheap labor for many businesses.


Why would anyone expect the IMF to support any other type of policy. The IMF has always served the interests of international corporatism. This includes burdening third world / developing nations with unrealistic debt for projects of questionable value. It also includes the de-industrialization of the United States that's taken place here in our race to the bottom. Using refugees to attack the labor markets of European nations is a perfect strategy - if you happen to be an international banker.


As long as we're fighting each other for menial jobs, we won't have time to kick them out and put true leaders in.


Well, this is what a lot of "nationalists" have been most afraid of--refugees essentially being converted into scab labor, which makes people hate them even more (and this time, with reasonable cause).
It was only a matter of time before Europe got their "Mexico".


That queue of refugees consists of people who came from an oil-rich part of the world where only 25 years ago there were reasonable living conditions, clean water, in places free medical care and good education albeit the political leadership was somewhat brutal. Now these people have nothing. I wonder what caused that............

Perhaps as the song, "It's Good News Week" had it ,"Someone's dropped a bomb somwhere". Thank you USA; now why aren't you paying Europeans to help YOUR victims?


"Spread the Wealth?"

I read an article yesterday that focused largely on the Scandinavian style socialism. That doesn't fit in with neoliberal economic policies. How better to de-stabilize an entire continent that doesn't quite do things the way the USA does?