"So the wage increase may, in the long run, be slightly lower in certain jobs. But that's a long way away from the wage actually being lowered - no union would ever agree to that."
Actually, that's what happened in Finland. Our lovely cabinet threatened the unions with legislation if they couldn't reach an agreement with the business representatives (theoretically they threatened both parties, but the legislation would have basically been everything the organisation representing the businesses wanted). So the unions had to do some concessions to avoid an even worse outcome (lägre semesterpeng, något längre arbetstid för samma lön, kostnaderna för vissa sociala förmåner flyttades från arbetsgivaren till arbetstagaren, ...), nor could they continue to close the paygap between "female jobs" and "male jobs" these latest negotiations as they had done during several previous ones.
That was a few years ago, now some contracts come up for negotiation again, will be interesting to see what happens next.
Of course, this all had noting to do with immigration, but rather with a fear that the Finnish economy isn't growing fast enough, and that our wages aren't competitive (which considering we mostly compete with Sweden and Germany isn't even completely true - though because of differing regulation it's difficult to compare all costs per employee - but it's not like we could ever compete with e.g. Asian wages).
So Finland doesn't need any help from immigrants to destroy our welfare state, the cabinet (the last and especially the current) is managing it all on their own.
(latest example the health care reform which all experts say isn't going to bring any of the benefits it was meant to do; it's the worst possible system where the market is supposed to provide the services but the state pays, which means there is nothing keeping the costs from escalating; the whole thing is a prime example of horse-trading if there ever was one)
0
@Nisse_Hult #9605275
"So the wage increase may, in the long run, be slightly lower in certain jobs. But that's a long way away from the wage actually being lowered - no union would ever agree to that."
Actually, that's what happened in Finland. Our lovely cabinet threatened the unions with legislation if they couldn't reach an agreement with the business representatives (theoretically they threatened both parties, but the legislation would have basically been everything the organisation representing the businesses wanted). So the unions had to do some concessions to avoid an even worse outcome (lägre semesterpeng, något längre arbetstid för samma lön, kostnaderna för vissa sociala förmåner flyttades från arbetsgivaren till arbetstagaren, ...), nor could they continue to close the paygap between "female jobs" and "male jobs" these latest negotiations as they had done during several previous ones.
That was a few years ago, now some contracts come up for negotiation again, will be interesting to see what happens next.
Of course, this all had noting to do with immigration, but rather with a fear that the Finnish economy isn't growing fast enough, and that our wages aren't competitive (which considering we mostly compete with Sweden and Germany isn't even completely true - though because of differing regulation it's difficult to compare all costs per employee - but it's not like we could ever compete with e.g. Asian wages).
So Finland doesn't need any help from immigrants to destroy our welfare state, the cabinet (the last and especially the current) is managing it all on their own.
(latest example the health care reform which all experts say isn't going to bring any of the benefits it was meant to do; it's the worst possible system where the market is supposed to provide the services but the state pays, which means there is nothing keeping the costs from escalating; the whole thing is a prime example of horse-trading if there ever was one)