A new webpage issued today gives lots of detail .... click here.

A penalty up to £10000 for employers employing illegal workers ..... and that increases to an unlimited fine and prison if they knowingly employ illegal workers. Which surely means that the penalties of up to £10000 are for when the employer happens to employ illegal workers, but is not aware, because they failed to check, that the workers are illegal. Ouch!

Gonna cost the tax payers a lot of money if they investigate the home office
ash

quote:

Originally posted by ash:
Gonna cost the tax payers a lot of money if they investigate the home office
ash

Richard

Ash, interesting thing that, I think .... actually no! The Home Office did not employ those cleaners or security guards. It hired them from an agency, the agency being the body that is classed as their employer.

So following the logic of that, from February if an agency still supplies an illegal worker to the Home Office, it is the Home Office that will benefit, to an extent probably exceeding the cost of the charges payable to the agency for the worker supplied.

Of course the point here is that employers will now ensure that they all the necessary documentation to prove that they have checked that their workers are actually legal. So expect lots of anguish from the illegals being dismissed, thanks to the checks that should have been done ages ago.

When you say illegal workers does that include those people who work cash in hand in restaurants etc??

I guess it's just the immigrants Andy

Indeed, the method of payment is totally irrelevant. Being paid in cash is not illegal.

Andy, as regards your wife, it would be very easy to prove that she can legally work in the UK, but she should not be surprised if she is asked to produce her passport together with her ILR visa. And indeed for the employer to take a photocopy of the name/pic page and the visa page, and retain those photocopies as proof that the check has been done.

Normally very simple for an employer to check if all their workers are legal or not.

The civil penalties form part of the biggest immigration shake-up for forty years, sitting alongside a programme of changes that will ensure the system is fit for the future. Other the next 12 months the Agency will also introduce:


'Compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals allowing us to know who is here and what they are entitled to.'

Does this apply to all Thai passport holders with an ILR stamp?

John,

quote
" she should not be surprised if she is asked to produce her passport together with her ILR visa."
I assume the same goes for passports containing FLR visa's

Ian

I think I would be more impressed with the Labour pratty if they did something about the people who are already here. Not that they know where most of them are.

I became disillusioned with this Labour lot when I started having to pay for my wife's UK test just for the privelage of her staying in the country permanently. And then having to battle to bring her children over. It doesn't seem fair when I know many illegal immigrants who work in pizza and restaurant businesses. Maybe I am supposed to sympathise that they have had to hike across Europe just to get here.

ID cards my arse!!!!! That will work about as well as a chocolate fireguard. They will just run out the exit at the back once the law turn up, just like the poor t shirt sellers have to do in Pattaya once the Bangkok copyright police turn up.

quote:

Originally posted by John:
Indeed, the method of payment is totally irrelevant. Being paid in cash is not illegal.

Andy, as regards your wife, it would be very easy to prove that she can legally work in the UK, but she should not be surprised if she is asked to produce her passport together with her ILR visa. And indeed for the employer to take a photocopy of the name/pic page and the visa page, and retain those photocopies as proof that the check has been done.

Normally very simple for an employer to check if all their workers are legal or not.

Yes all that you said above was done over 3 years ago when Panee started work.

It just that you hear of people workin in Thai Restarants for cash in hand and wondered how things stood.

quote:

quote
" she should not be surprised if she is asked to produce her passport together with her ILR visa."
I assume the same goes for passports containing FLR visa's

Indeed yes, a 2-year spouse visa confirms the ability to work.

But if someone in the UK on a fiancé(e) visa, then that does not allow work.

Is it such a bad thing to be an illegal worker? Many are in similar positions to the partners of members here - they have come to join family members, or to make a better life for children and family back home. Something I hope I would try to do too. What separates them is a marriage or civil partnership certificate.
Too easy a target, I say.

Robert, I don't get your post?

Are you talking about those legally here that are working illegally, whoever is at fault i.e. cash in hand, no NiNo/tax deducted, whatever.

Or those here illegally doing the same?

Is there a right and wrong?

Such a complex issue!

Those illegally here doing the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert W:
Is it such a bad thing to be an illegal worker? Many are in similar positions to the partners of members here - they have come to join family members, or to make a better life for children and family back home. Something I hope I would try to do too. What separates them is a marriage or civil partnership certificate.
Too easy a target, I say.

Yes.
Maybe they are but the certificate means our partners are legal.
Breaking the law, hmmm personally I would rather avoid that.
Easy target? Let's hope so and that the new legislation makes an impact.

It would be interesting to know if these illegal workers are also claiming benefits because I guess that the costs of feeding and housing them will be paid by the taxpayer even if they are eventually deported.

Maybe an amnesty would have been a better idea followed by a fast track repatriation scheme ?

I think that the benefit fraud by UK citizens working on the black is probably more costly to the country but of course immigrants are just a politically expedient target.

ash

quote:

I think that the benefit fraud by UK citizens working on the black is probably more costly to the country but of course immigrants are just a politically expedient target.

Have to agree with that Ash, the "black" is getting ridiculous now
I guess I'm a bit of on optimist really and just hoping that the "illegals" would be a starting point
No doubt it will all fizzle out like a damp firework after the soundbites are done and HMG get back to what they do best, bleeding the easy targets

I think "soundbites" sums it up until we learn (if ever) what resources are actually going to be devoted to this? I don't believe for one minute that they will recruit extra staff to manage this work (most Govt. dept's have targets to reduce expenditure), so it will simply be a case of shifting people around, if at all.

In any case, none of this is rocket science. The people they are after are easy targets, if they want to be serious about this they can be. The only reason I can think that there might be some genuine effort, at least initially, is, er, the soundbites - the Govt. desperately needs some positive spin and this one can be achieved blindfold.

Hi Caller,
I think your above post makes the point I was trying for in a much better way. We are after all discussing illegal workers who by definition must be adding something to the economy. Even if every penny they earn is remitted home - unlikely in London at least - their existence helps to reduce cost-push inflation, which is a far greater and so rarely mentioned bogey man for the government at the moment. I doubt whether much of the work they are doing is coveted by too many UK citizens.
And yes, of far greater concern must be the hordes of legal citizens/people settled in one way or another who fill the streets around me, driving and shopping as if it were the run up to christmas every day. Don't think they would readily swap lifestyles with the illegal workers. Where does the money come from?
Anyway, having a pop at such groups has always proved a useful diversionary tactic in times of political difficulty. The government will take whichever line Mr Murdoch has decided is best.
Time for me to go and have the best and cheapest late breakfast in the area and watch the hordes of those eligible to work stream by the window. A quick raid on the kitchens of this place would probably mean I'd have to pay a lot more for brekkie tomorrow, maybe in Starbucks?

Hi Robert,

Picking people up once they are here should be easy, but the problems behind it are harder to deal with, involving organised crime here and abroad. So by not dealing with it, the crime thrives, so to speak.

I don't buy into everyone here is being exploited, either. There are rich pickings to be made and systems and identities to tap into to rob the hand that is feeding it.

Your view of the economics behind it is interesting, and was certainly shared by the Thatcher Govt. (initially). Businesses, particularly in the service industry, were told it was perfectly okay when recruiting, to not ask too many questions about who the applicant was or their entitlement to be in, let alone work in the Country. Once they got their pittance, sorry, salary, the view being that the money was recycled into the economy. As you say, part naivety on their part and unemployment went up and up.

In view of the fact we now have a Labour Govt. introducing such new laws, doesn't that strike you as odd?

Illegal workers are exploited workers. They have no sick pay, no holiday pay, and no insurance if they get injured. Therefore anything that clamps down on the black economy is a good thing. The only thing I object to is singling out immigrants when the largest portion of the black economy is likely to be UK citizens. And, of course, the biggest cheats of all are large corporations and rich individuals who avoid paying tax.

The clamp down is not new. Six years ago our local Thai restaurant was raided several times and various chefs deported. I suppose the difference now will be painful fines for the owners. Result might be higher prices for Thai meals, but better pay and conditions for our Thai partners working, legally, in Thai restaurants.


Ian

quote:

Originally posted by IanB:
Illegal workers are exploited workers. They have no sick pay, no holiday pay, and no insurance if they get injured.
Ian

They do when working under an assumed identity or the correct, lawful checks aren't made at the time of appointment. There's been some news about that recently!

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but you shouldn't assume that they all work under the conditions you describe.