Residence permits

[daryl]

My trade union was involved in lobbying for improvements in the work permit system from 1988 onwards.

I thought the trade unions are lobbying against having foreign workers, as they are "taking the jobs away from the Finns"... Well, all seems always good on paper and in cabinet meetings, but when push comes to shove the international solidarity is always kicking homewards...

Your thinking is at least a decade out of date, Hank. Take a look at SAK's policy on foreign workers. It would be fair to say that 15 years of lobbying by my union has finally paid off in terms of the wave of enlightenment that has begun within the movement.

http://www.sak.fi > tietoa työelämästä > maahanmuuttajat ja monikulttuurisuus

daryl

[daryl]

Daryl come on this is just bs. What's so wrong about the returnee policy . I still fail to see the racism in it. Altough the benefits and drawbacks of it can of course be argued about. I find your opinion as far fetched. How finnish are returnees really , especially after the su. Russian is the word here. Hey what if there is some or even alot of russian dna mixed in there?

I shall not labour the obvious. Please look at my response of Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:39 pm - especially the part after the second quote.

Granting legal privileges solely on the basis of remote ancestry is racial discrimination within the meaning of the UN Convention. Face it and deal with it.

How finnish are returnees really, especially after the su.

You seem to think that they are not very Finnish at all. If so, then what is the underlying logic of the returnee policy (as it used to be in this case)? Why grant legal privileges to people who are not very Finnish at all?

I think you are using the term "Finnish" in two senses: biological and cultural. Ask yourself which of these senses is useful or valuable in immigration policy.

daryl

[Hank W.]

Your thinking is at least a decade out of date, Hank.

Take a look at Merimies-Unioni and the Estonians.

SAK is about a few decades back. The upper crust politicians are all touchy-feeley, but if they ask any of their "man on the street" they'd be ready for a rude welcome - SAK unionist are the most racist yobs there are.

[Hank W.]

Granting legal privileges solely on the basis of remote ancestry is racial discrimination within the meaning of the UN Convention. Face it and deal with it.

4th paragraph. You Face and Deal with it.
http://onego.ru/win/pages/spiski/

[daryl]

Your thinking is at least a decade out of date, Hank.

Take a look at Merimies-Unioni and the Estonians.

SAK is about a few decades back. The upper crust politicians are all touchy-feeley, but if they ask any of their "man on the street" they'd be ready for a rude welcome - SAK unionist are the most racist yobs there are.

I realise that you are a bit of a bruiser after a couple of drinks, but are we on the same wavelength here? My understanding is that SMU are seeking Finnish collective agreement rates for Estonian seafarers aboard Finnish vessels and resisting the outflagging of those vessels where this is motivated solely by a desire to cut labour costs. Where is the racism?

I am the chairperson of a section of Service Unions United, which is one of the largest members of SAK. Over 90 per cent of our members are of foreign origin. We have pretty well completely eliminated the discrimination and exploitation that characterised our industry in the early 1980s. How does your characterisation of SAK unionists apply to us?

What union are you in, just out of interest?

daryl

[daryl]

Granting legal privileges solely on the basis of remote ancestry is racial discrimination within the meaning of the UN Convention. Face it and deal with it.

4th paragraph. You Face and Deal with it.
http://onego.ru/win/pages/spiski/

It is hardly a grand revelation that racial discrimination was among the abhorrent practices of the Stalin administration. Evidently many people were singled out for human rights abuses because of their ethnic origin, but what, precisely, is your point?

My understanding is that the successor State to the USSR no longer issues internal passports bearing an ethnicity stamp. These ethnicity stamps were often the only clue that a person might have as to their remote ancestors. Finland is one of the countries that perpetuate de facto ethnicity stamping of the Russian population, and Finland uniquely regards this ethnicity stamping as a sufficient condition for granting legal privileges (or at least it did until recently, when cultural criteria were introduced).

I should add that these legal privileges would also be granted to the descendants of any of Stalin's henchmen who participated in those crimes if they met the DNA criterion.

In any case, the primary focus of the racist policy now is on returnees from North America, Australia etc. There are no cultural criteria in these cases - the applicant need not even be able to find Finland on a map of northern Europe. The DNA swab provides full prima facie grounds for the application. Thus my good-for-nothing Stateside friend and his dependants will always be welcome in Finland.

daryl

[Hank W.]

resisting the outflagging of those vessels where this is motivated solely by a desire to cut labour costs. Where is the racism?

Well, denying Estonian seamen jobs in the first place. If the shipping lines can't compete, then there are no shipping lines. As we can see - the situation in the Baltic has gone into the pits.

How does your characterisation of SAK unionists apply to us?

I was more leaned towards the hc commies in metal and construction...

What union are you in, just out of interest?

Joined while studying in the polytechnic to tradenomiliitto as they had some free mags back then; but next time they send a bill might just tell them to stuff it and pay the YTK fee and save about 2 years' worth of fees.
I've been in a number of unions, but never gained anything except money docked off my paycheck.

The only lobbying I've seen SAK doing lately is for Halonen's campaign. I hope you are content in how your membership fees were used to forward political careers.

[Hank W.]

The DNA swab provides full prima facie grounds for the application.

Errr... what DNA swab are you talking about? Are you getting some rays through your tin foil hat or something?

Theres two separate categories of "returnees". The ex-USSR that can show the minority in the passport + other requirements, like being served in the Finnish army etc and then the "daddy or gramps was a Finn" category. The ex-USSR category is more or less dwindling out; the second category probably will stay; but it has nothing to do with DNA. Say some couple adopts a kid from china. So she then has a kid who then grows up and moves to USA. There he gets married and has a kid, that kid's child can come to Finland as a "returnee" due to his granddad being "native Finnish citizen". Test the DNA in that.

If you are a Finnish citizen, or your mrs. is, your kid, born in Finland, can move abroad and his grandchildren can move in due to this "racist" policy. Does not compute for you, does it, but the kids of an immigrant aren't immigrants, they're Finns.

[daryl]

resisting the outflagging of those vessels where this is motivated solely by a desire to cut labour costs. Where is the racism?

Well, denying Estonian seamen jobs in the first place. If the shipping lines can't compete, then there are no shipping lines. As we can see - the situation in the Baltic has gone into the pits.

Is it your view that the Estonians should work on Finnish ships for less than the collective agreement rates earned by their Finnish colleagues?

How does your characterisation of SAK unionists apply to us?

I was more leaned towards the hc commies in metal and construction...

So you were generalising and expressing prejudices based on political conviction?

Only asking.

What union are you in, just out of interest?

Joined while studying in the polytechnic to tradenomiliitto as they had some free mags back then; but next time they send a bill might just tell them to stuff it and pay the YTK fee and save about 2 years' worth of fees.
I've been in a number of unions, but never gained anything except money docked off my paycheck.

The only lobbying I've seen SAK doing lately is for Halonen's campaign. I hope you are content in how your membership fees were used to forward political careers.

The Halonen issue isn't likely to bother me, as I voted for her in the SDP candidacy elections about 8 years ago. I also bought my Tarja lottery tickets like the rest of the party faithful.

There was more money behind the Niinistö campaign, most of it from businesses. Are you content to pay more for products and services so that people whom you did not elect and cannot remove can use your money to forward political careers?

Just asking.

Technically, BTW, you are a member of an association until you resign or get thrown out. This means that you will be liable for those two years of arrears whatever you do. The union probably won't sue you for recovery of the bad debt, that's all.

Again technically, if your membership of the benefit fund has lapsed over a two-year period, then you will need to re-qualify for earnings-related unemployment benefit. That means 43 weeks of at least half-time work.

Once again technically, it is highly likely that the membership subscription for your present benefit fund is smaller than the subscription to YTK. This is because the risk of unemployment is lower than the national average in the industry in which you work.

YTK will not bargain with your employer over pay rises. If you get a pay rise then this will be because of union bargaining. YTK will not defend your interests if your employer tries to abuse his position, for example by extending your de facto working hours without extra pay. YTK will not advise you about your rights at work and how to claim them. YTK will not help you to sue your employer for unfair dismissal or any other infringement of labour legislation. YTK will not lobby the government to improve that labour legislation from your point of view. Perhaps most tellingly, YTK will not even help you to challenge the arbitrary views of junior employment officials who decide that you must endure a waiting period for unemployment benefit because your were fired or for some other bogus or byzantine reason. This is not to criticise YTK, but simply to say that it is not a trade union.

But of course, if you have a private income...

daryl

[Hank W.]

This means that you will be liable for those two years of arrears whatever you do.

What are you smoking? I pay 66 euros quarterly. If I switch to YTK next quarter, I pay some 60 odd euros for the rest of the year, thus saving 2 years' worth of fees. If I'd switched at the beginning of the year, I'd saved 3. It is a lot of money for the few benefits. But then again tradenomiliitto is more one of your education-based unions, so they really haven't peeved me off with anything.

YTK will not bargain with your employer over pay rises. If you get a pay rise then this will be because of union bargaining. YTK will not defend your interests if your employer tries to abuse his position, for example by extending your de facto working hours without extra pay. YTK will not advise you about your rights at work and how to claim them. YTK will not help you to sue your employer for unfair dismissal or any other infringement of labour legislation. YTK will not lobby the government to improve that labour legislation from your point of view. Perhaps most tellingly, YTK will not even help you to challenge the arbitrary views of junior employment officials who decide that you must endure a waiting period for unemployment benefit because your were fired or for some other bogus or byzantine reason. This is not to criticise YTK, but simply to say that it is not a trade union.

Oh, and what of these does the union then do that actually would benefit me? Yes, they have a meeting and discuss some insignificant stuff and raise huge salaries - of my money - to lobby in politics. Then they make agreements that ensure the companies uproot themselves and move abroad because of the labour costs. Unions only help their own interests.

[daryl]

The DNA swab provides full prima facie grounds for the application.

Errr... what DNA swab are you talking about? Are you getting some rays through your tin foil hat or something?

I am simply calling a spade a spade and illustrating what the policy really means. Look at how the policy is specifically worded. There is nothing about Finnish character in any recognisable sense - the criterion is purely biological: it depends on who your ancestors were.

Theres two separate categories of "returnees". The ex-USSR that can show the minority in the passport + other requirements, like being served in the Finnish army etc and then the "daddy or gramps was a Finn" category.

Bogus distinction. The ethnicity stamp in the passport is a sufficient condition for satisfying the racist criterion. Other factors become relevant when there is no such stamp. There is also no technical distinction between the ethnicity stamp and recorded ancestors. Both are documentary evidence that could be falsified by methods of geneology or verified by, say, comparison with a sample of mitochondrial DNA extracted from the ancestor and proving a link through the maternal line.

The ex-USSR category is more or less dwindling out; the second category probably will stay; but it has nothing to do with DNA. Say some couple adopts a kid from china. So she then has a kid who then grows up and moves to USA. There he gets married and has a kid, that kid's child can come to Finland as a "returnee" due to his granddad being "native Finnish citizen". Test the DNA in that.

That's an easy one - you are narrowing the Convention definition of racial discrimination to mean, roughly, "colour prejudice". The Convention instead makes it quite clear that legal privileges should not be granted on the basis of ancestry.

In the case that you cite, there is a clear ancestor who is a Finnish citizen: the adopted child who emigrated. The grandchild would be eligible for citizenship by declaration. Move it back another generation and the great grandchild would enjoy the legal privilege that we are discussing. This has nothing to do with physical appearance: it is the biological link that brings the legal privilege.

Rahela-Hanna has told us that she is of Gypsy/Roma extraction. This does not matter. What matters is that she has an ancestor who is or was a Finnish citizen (or the equivalent before Finland became an independent State). If she has such an ancestor, then she enjoys the legal privilege, even if she looks like Mata Hari, speaks only Romany and cannot find Finland on a map of northern Europe. It does not matter how Finland originally got its Roma minority, either.

If you are a Finnish citizen, or your mrs. is, your kid, born in Finland, can move abroad and his grandchildren can move in due to this "racist" policy. Does not compute for you, does it, but the kids of an immigrant aren't immigrants, they're Finns.

It is instructive and not a little amusing to see you still wriggling around trying to get out of a logical bind. What will you think of next? Have another kossu and let us all know.

daryl

[Hank W.]

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.

[sammy]

In any case, the primary focus of the racist policy now is on returnees from North America, Australia etc. There are no cultural criteria in these cases - the applicant need not even be able to find Finland on a map of northern Europe. The DNA swab provides full prima facie grounds for the application. Thus my good-for-nothing Stateside friend and his dependants will always be welcome in Finland.

daryl

Daryl,

Out of interest - do you (or anyone?) know the actual annual amount of such returnees to Finland from the said countries...? Ie how many people per year (approximately) from the US, Canada etc. do take advantage of the policy?

I'm just sort of trying to figure out what the policy amounts to in practice. Would it perhaps be in any way realistic to think that the majority of persons -whatever their annual total number might be- who do come to Finland using this priviledge would automatically be "abusers" like you told your friend is?

[Hank W.]

I have a better suggestion. Why don't we clone Eila Kännö and let nobody in like in the "good old days".

[daryl]

This means that you will be liable for those two years of arrears whatever you do.

What are you smoking? I pay 66 euros quarterly. If I switch to YTK next quarter, I pay some 60 odd euros for the rest of the year, thus saving 2 years' worth of fees. If I'd switched at the beginning of the year, I'd saved 3. It is a lot of money for the few benefits. But then again tradenomiliitto is more one of your education-based unions, so they really haven't peeved me off with anything.

OK - so you are paid up. You just expressed the point a little oddly in the previous post. By "save" you didn't mean "not pay", you meant "not buy". I save a fortune every year by not having a car, not smoking and not drinking alcohol. I could also save money by not having insurance.

YTK will not bargain with your employer over pay rises. If you get a pay rise then this will be because of union bargaining. YTK will not defend your interests if your employer tries to abuse his position, for example by extending your de facto working hours without extra pay. YTK will not advise you about your rights at work and how to claim them. YTK will not help you to sue your employer for unfair dismissal or any other infringement of labour legislation. YTK will not lobby the government to improve that labour legislation from your point of view. Perhaps most tellingly, YTK will not even help you to challenge the arbitrary views of junior employment officials who decide that you must endure a waiting period for unemployment benefit because your were fired or for some other bogus or byzantine reason. This is not to criticise YTK, but simply to say that it is not a trade union.

Oh, and what of these does the union then do that actually would benefit me? Yes, they have a meeting and discuss some insignificant stuff and raise huge salaries - of my money - to lobby in politics. Then they make agreements that ensure the companies uproot themselves and move abroad because of the labour costs. Unions only help their own interests.

Am I to understand that you do not benefit from the pay rises negotiated by the unions? That would put you in a non-Tupo sector (Are there any covered by tradenomiliitto?).

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. The union members tend to ask their shop stewards to tackle the problem and the employer ends up paying for overtime. Much cheaper to get the private income people to do the work for nothing.

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)?

Only asking.

Who do you ask if you need to know whether your employer has calculated your salary-related benefits correctly? OIC, how silly of me, you ask your employer! And if the employer says that the calculation is right, then it must be. After all, employers never lie to their foreign employees do they? They never tell us that "this is how it's done in Finland."

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?

I hope that private income is big enough...

daryl