Residence permits

[sammy]

So what then if this woman "looks like Mata Hari, speaks only Romany and cannot find Finland on a map of northern Europe" is from an EU country. They can still move in with even less hassle? In other words, go sue EU for racism first before you start calling Finland "racist".

Hank, I think technically there is a difference; the EU mobility regulations etc. are based on agreements in which the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is a different matter than "racial" distinctions (that they oppose, I believe).

But yes, at the bottom of it I can also see that the Nordic / EU agreements are at least a part of, if not always directly contributing to, a kind of institutional discrimination of non-EU citizens that come from poor countries and who, due to economical etc. reasons are quite unlikely to be able to receive EU citizenship. Even if such arrangements have been ratified by way of "official agreements", I would suspect that many's the third world citizen that despite that considers them racistic and discriminating.

However, it is an ideal world indeed that is completely devoid of all discrimination / priviledges towards one group or another, be it for national, citizenship, ethnic or "racial" reasons. Not that it isn't a good goal to strive towards.

[daryl]

So what then if this woman "looks like Mata Hari, speaks only Romany and cannot find Finland on a map of northern Europe" is from an EU country. They can still move in with even less hassle? "Free movement in the EU" depends on nationality. Oh horror. In other words, go sue EU for racism *first* before you start calling Finland "racist". We follow the EU conventions and all.

Have you bought your plane ticket to Pjongyang yet? You know, it must be a paradise compared to "racist" Finland? After all they have perfect socialism and really effective trade unions.

Sorry - this one is asked and answered. I refer you to my response of Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:18 am - a response to YOUR posting, I might add:

It is important not to confuse the returnee policy with bilateral and multilateral arrangements based on the principles of reciprocity and citizenship. The mobility privileges granted to citizens of Nordic and European Economic Area countries are explicitly reciprocal arrangements between States that apply to all of the citizens of those States. Indeed it is specifically illegal to withold those privileges on the basis of ethnic origin.

You have mistranslated my signature quote from Monty Python. However, this is not the first time I have heard the "if you don't like it here, then get out" line. Aside from reducing the average IQ substantially in Finland and increasing it by an infinitessimal amount in China, I cannot see how this would rectify the racism in the returnee policy.

Sweetly,

daryl

[Hank W.]

Am I to understand that you do not benefit from the pay rises negotiated by the unions?

Oh, the 1% everyone gets as an inflation check? I'd get more if I didn't belong to the church nor the union. I rather look forward in getting bonuses. Not that theres been much of those around lately. But thats global business.

Are you sure that your employer does not treat non-union staff as "fair game"? When there is extra work to do, it's far easier to load it onto the non-union staff without pay.

Where does my employer know I belong and to what union. Besides the shop stewards are in the "house union" which is STTK and I'm in AKAVA so much help.

If you were an employer trying to decide who to make redundant, would you choose to fire the union member and invite a costly and difficult lawsuit (or even a strike) or the non-union employee who will just go away and say nothing (perhaps living on his private income)?

Like they care when liquidating businesses. its cheaper to fire some union member in Finland (even with a lawsuit) than in Germany. Bye bye jobs.

After all, employers never lie to their foreign employees do they? They never tell us that "this is how it's done in Finland."

So one more reason not to hire foreigners - they're too difficult

And when the employment office tells you that you cannot register as a jobseeker for this or that technical reason, who will you turn to for FREE advice and help?

Oh, but the union won't help if you are not a member. And you cannot be a member if you aren't employed. So nobody helps the poor foreigner that comes in and tries to register as a jobseeker. Unless he's a refugee or belongs to some ethnic minority who have a society. But if he's looking for a job the union will tell him its members only. Been there, done that. So what does the foreigner do... these days asks silly questions in FinlandForum BBS.

I hope that private income is big enough.

Yeah, I do work for a living and don't leech off the workers, like union bosses do.

[Hank W.]

Hank, I think technically there is a difference; the EU mobility regulations etc. are based on agreements in which the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is a different matter than "racial" distinctions (that they oppose, I believe)..

Well having a Finnish passport since birth has nothing to do with race either, now does it? It is a distinction between "Finnish citizen" and "non-Finnish citizen". I agree that the ex-USSR clause is more of a racial thing, but it is for historical reasons.

So someone has "won the lottery" and been born in Finland. So what? Then they see the light and move away. So what? Then their dimbulb offspring wants to move back. And Daryl screams racism. Fine, lets impose the DDR system. If you leave, theres no coming back.

[Rahela-Hanna]

Man, it might sound crazy to some people, but I think that if I ever won the lottery of any country or state, I'd donate more than half of it away to some charity-type thing. I'd like to actually sponser some little kid in a third-world country far away somewhere. I have to help people. So many people need helping!

[Hank W.]

I'd take all the money in front of my ex-mrs and burn it

[Rahela-Hanna]

Yes, maybe so!

[sammy]

Hank, I think technically there is a difference; the EU mobility regulations etc. are based on agreements in which the distinction between citizen and non-citizen is a different matter than "racial" distinctions (that they oppose, I believe)..

Well having a Finnish passport since birth has nothing to do with race either, now does it? It is a distinction between "Finnish citizen" and "non-Finnish citizen".

Erm... no, the passport since birth obviously does not have anything to do with "race" (sorry I didn't quite catch your drift there )

Anyway, I'd still be interested of knowing how may people from the US, Canada etc (ie excluding the Ingrian returnees) actually do "take advantage" of the Finnish returnee policy in question.

I couldn't find the stats from the UVI pages, nor did the Suomen Paluumuuttajat page help http://www.palmut.fi/ (what an url by the way ) so if anyone knows...?

[Hank W.]

Well, I do need to admit I am a bruiser, and today I am tasting blood.

- Say some foreign student dude had moved to Helsinki for this one job from say Oulu, gone sign the contract on Monday and been cold-sholdered "we got no job, the project got cancelled"...and the ex-boss had told him he's already been replaced, he's said off his flat etc. as they wanted him to start ASAP.

- How about the 3 months unemployment quarantine?
- How about verbal contracts being binding?
- Whom to ask for information, as the unions won't help? And the unions won't help if you are not a member, and you're not some bogtrotter who just flew over from Oulu, but say you flew from Frankfurt and don't even speak Finnish.

I'll bet Daryl a pint of Guinness, my man's union will not help (student member).
I'll bet another one, if the job is still open a week its a discrimination case, a white man cannot get help for that.

So Daryl, want to take the challenge?

[Rahela-Hanna]

[daryl]

Well, Hank, your last couple of posts seem to show the effect of Guinness in inducing toxic schizophrenia. Perhaps you should decide whether you favour unions or not.

Am I to understand that you do not benefit from the pay rises negotiated by the unions?

Oh, the 1% everyone gets as an inflation check? I'd get more if I didn't belong to the church nor the union. I rather look forward in getting bonuses. Not that theres been much of those around lately. But thats global business.

For someone who regularly gives advice in this forum, you really can be spectacularly ignorant at times. There is no "inflation check", nor are the pay rises given to "everyone". They have also generally been a bit more than 1 per cent.

These pay rises are the result of increases in the legally enforceable minimum pay scales that form part of collective agreements negotiated by your union and the employers federation representing the sector in which you work. Most of these agreements are covered by the general incomes policy settlement (tupo). About 4/5 of employees in Finland work in industries that have signed up to tupo in this way.

There is no legal obligation for an employer to pay these wage increases when there is no collective agreement for the industry in question. Negotiating collective agreements on pay and other conditions of employment is one of the most important services that trade unions provide.

In other words, you owe those pay rises and most of your other employment-related benefits to the collective bargaining process. The earnings-related unemployment benefit that you seem so keen on retaining was also orighinally the outcome of collective bargaining.

Are you sure that your employer does not treat non-union staff as "fair game"? When there is extra work to do, it's far easier to load it onto the non-union staff without pay.

Where does my employer know I belong and to what union. Besides the shop stewards are in the "house union" which is STTK and I'm in AKAVA so much help.

Your employer is definitely aware that your colleagues belong to a union, as most of them have agreed with the employer to deduct their union dues at source. If you have made no such agreement, then your employer may assume that you are not in a union. In that case the first hint that the employer gets is when the shop steward requests discussion of some problem that you have raised with the union.

I get a handful of cases every year in which a member of my union branch asks for my help following some act of stupidity by the employer. In some of these cases the problem melts away after I write a sharply-worded note to the employer explaining that the union will not sit idly by and do nothing about the matter. This has happened so many times that the pattern has become clear: some employers regard their non-union staff as fair game. They back off quickly when they find out that the employee is a union member after all.

If you were an employer trying to decide who to make redundant, would you choose to fire the union member and invite a costly and difficult lawsuit (or even a strike) or the non-union employee who will just go away and say nothing (perhaps living on his private income)?

Like they care when liquidating businesses. its cheaper to fire some union member in Finland (even with a lawsuit) than in Germany. Bye bye jobs.

In point of fact, they do care, especially when it comes to avoiding hefty fines for failing to consult the workforce (meaning the unions in particular) about such measures. Your general point is correct, however, and you can thank an SAK researcher for proving it in a study published a few years ago. The relative cheapness (to the employer) of redundancies in Finland is one of the hot issues in the incomes policy bargaining process.

After all, employers never lie to their foreign employees do they? They never tell us that "this is how it's done in Finland."

So one more reason not to hire foreigners - they're too difficult

Almost quoting a remark in my speech to the general assembly of my union a few years ago: "There is nothing to suggest that an organised foreign employee is any cheaper or less "difficult" than a Finnish employee."

And when the employment office tells you that you cannot register as a jobseeker for this or that technical reason, who will you turn to for FREE advice and help?

Oh, but the union won't help if you are not a member.

Make your mind up! I asked who, after leaving your union and joining YTK, you would turn to for help in these situations.

And you cannot be a member if you aren't employed.

But if you didn't quit your union, then you are still a member when you become unemployed.

So nobody helps the poor foreigner that comes in and tries to register as a jobseeker. Unless he's a refugee or belongs to some ethnic minority who have a society. But if he's looking for a job the union will tell him its members only. Been there, done that. So what does the foreigner do... these days asks silly questions in FinlandForum BBS.

Well, we began by talking about YOU, but that's become uncomfortable now and the Guiness-fuelled schizophrenia is kicking in. Now you want to discuss newly-arrived foreigners who never had the luxury of quitting their union membership in the first place.

The situation of a newly-arrived foreigner is similar to that of any other newcomer to the job market in this respect.

Just in passing, I arrived in Finland to stay on 24 August 1986 and I joined the union on 25 August 1986. I started working a week later.

I hope that private income is big enough.

Yeah, I do work for a living and don't leech off the workers, like union bosses do.

These union bosses are either elected by their membership or they are appointed by people who have been so elected, so I guess your observation insults your own intelligence as a union member for choosing bad leadership.

To be continued in a response to your other new posting...

daryl

[Hank W.]

Guinness doesn't induce schizophrenia, Daryl, Jameson does

I just wanted to point out, that I am less likely to have problems than a newcomer to the market, or a new foreigner coming into town. Those new guys, who need their "first job" get the most exploited. I was 6 months listening the same old same old "you need job experience"... how the **** do I get experience nobody gives me a job?

I went to work on a "convenience flag"; damn I was 2 weeks short of getting my Liberian Book. I didn't bitch of my salary nor conditions. Better climate than sitting in Finland hearing the same old same old. Then again going to work for Viking and telling I was a "wildliner" the rolls of the eyes was pretty grand... I still object of paying the Merimiesunioni; I wasn't asked if I wanted to join.

Well, my business is getting yt all the time. I just show the boss all the headhunters' offers and tell him "tempt me"...

[Hank W.]

These union bosses are either elected by their membership or they are appointed by people who have been so elected, so I guess your observation insults your own intelligence as a union member for choosing bad leadership.

Well, in principle I don't vote. Or if I vote I always vote the candidate that, if elected, will cause the most annoyment in the "establishment". One sparrow does not make the summer. Council and small local government, like housing association elections, yes you have a say. In the big ones - its the establishment money that speaks. Surely I'd like to be a candidate, I promise I'd do exactly the same as everyone else - do jack and exploit the benefits to the max

[daryl]

Continuing from my previous posting in response to your second rejoinder:

Well, I do need to admit I am a bruiser, and today I am tasting blood.

I hope it's not your own.

You then ask an interesting question. (I'm not sure that this belongs in the "Moving to Finland" category anymore, but anyway...)

- Say some foreign student dude had moved to Helsinki for this one job from say Oulu, gone sign the contract on Monday and been cold-sholdered "we got no job, the project got cancelled"...and the ex-boss had told him he's already been replaced, he's said off his flat etc. as they wanted him to start ASAP.

- How about the 3 months unemployment quarantine?
- How about verbal contracts being binding?
- Whom to ask for information, as the unions won't help? And the unions won't help if you are not a member, and you're not some bogtrotter who just flew over from Oulu, but say you flew from Frankfurt and don't even speak Finnish.

I'll bet Daryl a pint of Guinness, my man's union will not help (student member).
I'll bet another one, if the job is still open a week its a discrimination case, a white man cannot get help for that.

So Daryl, want to take the challenge?

The question (if I have understood it correctly) includes various issues in labour law and the immigration system. These situations are not unprecedented. I have helped to tackle one or two problems of this kind.

My labour law analysis may be slightly dated, as the new Employment Contracts Act does not approach this matter in quite the same way as the previous law. However, the classical approach draws a distinction between a contract of employment (työsopimus) and an employment relationship (työsuhde). The contract of employment comes into being when a definite offer of employment has been firmly accepted. The employment relationship, on the other hand, begins when the work begins. If the arrangement is broken off after the contract of employment has been made, but before the employment relationship begins, then we have breach of contract, but we do not have dismissal.

The Employment Contracts Act is mainly about employment relationships, and its dismissal provisions, normalised damages etc. will not apply where no employment relationship existed. Instead, the case that you describe is purely a matter of tort law (i.e. the law of contracts).

The employer's side of the employment contract was a promise of work and, especially, of remuneration for that work. When the work and remuneration did not materialise, the employer broke that promise. The other party to the relationship, the employee, was entitled to rely on the promise that had been made. In expectation of that promise, and in order to perform his own side of the bargain, the employee gave up his job and moved to a new location.

The employee was specifically damaged by the employer's failure to keep his promise. This damage can also be quantified in terms of lost earnings, removal expenses etc.

This provides the elements for a civil lawsuit against the employer for recovery of these damages. This is not an action for unlawful dismissal per se.

Here endeth my general analysis.

Now to your specific points:

1. The waiting period for unemployment benefit applies to workers who become unemployed wilfully or through intentional default. It clearly does not apply in this case.

2. The contract of employment was binding. There are no requirements of form in contracts of employment, and an oral contract (I think that's what you really meant by "verbal") is just as binding as a written contract.

To the extent that issues arise here, they are issues of evidence, i.e. of what can be proved. These issues will be settled by examining the evidence indicating that a promise of employment was made, and indicating the details of that promise. The collective agreement covering the work in question is a relevant document at this point, as it establishes the legal minimum benefits that were promised to the employee.

In an extreme case the employer might try to pretend that no job offer was ever made. The court would then have to examine the details of the behaviour of both parties (communications between them, etc.) and seek the most plausible view of the situation as a whole.

In the case of a foreigner accepting an offer of work, there may also (depending on the circumstances) be a document submitted by the employer to the employment authorities specifying the terms and conditions of service. This document would have to exist if a special labour market assessment was requested (an application for a worker's residence permit or for an opinion that no such permit is required for the work in question). It should also exist if the employee falls into other, especially recently arrived, employee categories (particularly 3rd country nationals), even when no special labour market assessment was requested.

3. A union member would have an automatic right to free advice and assistance in a case of this kind. A non-union member would probably end up paying for this kind of help and bearing the financial risk of any ensuing lawsuit. This boils down to a type of insurance against the hazards of working life. It helps to be insured when things go wrong. Union membership provides this kind of insurance.

The uninsured non-member would have to find a competent legal advisor. This competence goes beyond mere legal skills - the advisor also needs to understand the industry in question and have the inside track on the employer (e.g. from the shop steward). Non-union legal advisors need to get up to speed, which takes time and inflates the legal bill.

Newly-arrived foreigners are in an especially difficult position when things go wrong at the start of the employment. My own union is (or at least it used to be) broadly aware of this, and will generally offer free advice, if not outright support to a foreigner working in an industry in which we are active. Part of the rationale for this is that we cannot tolerate this kind of misbehaviour from employers in our industry.

The problem is the same for all newcomers to the job market, but it is particularly difficult for foreigners. The immigration system includes some elements to protect certain classes of migrant worker from the worst excesses of the job market.

Interestingly, it offers no protective mechanism whatsoever for "returnees". This means that the "easier" immigration process (owing to racist regulations) may seriously backfire when some poor Canadian great great great grandson of a sonofabitch from Czarist Finland decides to drop everything and accept that dodgy job offer in the "old country". At least the prospective employer of M. Ahmad Aqbar from Muukalaistan has to jump through a few bureaucratic hoops in order to get his man. Hard to deny that there was any job offer when you've spent 3 months trying to persuade the authorities that you really need someone...

Your pint of Guinness is safe enough - I don't touch the stuff.

daryl

[sammy]

...poor Canadian great great great grandson of a sonofabitch from Czarist Finland decides to drop everything and accept that dodgy job offer in the "old country"

I'm beginning to sound like a broken gramophone record... but as this discussion is going round in circles anyway - would anyone know how many such returnees from Canada / US there are annually to Finland? My interest lies in finding out whether it is actually realistic to assume that any such great-great-grandsons (or daughters) would be aching to come here only on the grounds that it's allowed by the returnee policy? (unless they're abusive ba$tards like the guy you told us about )

I mean, what would be their motive...? If their parents and parents' parents (and their parents' parents' parents) have already lived in Canada / US all their lives, isn't that "home" so to speak? Erm... welcome, if you ask me, but... why? And that's the reason I'l like to know a bit about the annual returnee figures.