Work Permit Sponsorship - Gentle Reminder

I was worried because it wasn't at all clear to me that it wasn't retroactive. You've clarified that for me so I'm not worried any more. I see your point about others though and so I do consider myself lucky.

I just want to chime in that this whole thread has been extremely helpful to me.  I also am here on a 5-year work permit, with an intra-company transfer.  I did not realize that the changes to the system affected me until I read something about it just this weekend, which sent me into a panic. 

I have since calmed down, thanks in large part to this thread.  My WP won't have to be renewed since it's for 5 years.  However, I have contacted HR to ensure that my company applies, in case my permit needs to be amended (it is likely my office location will change, which I assume requires an amendment to the permit) and in case their not having a licence would pose a problem with even just amending a WP.  But at least, from what I have read here, I do not have to worry about being kicked out of the country if my employer doesn't have a licence by November.

I also want to mention that I have seen the advert, and it never occurred to me that the changes affected me, for a couple of reasons:
1) It specifically targets the issue of new immigrants entering the country. "They won't get in!"
2) It talks about 'migrant workers'... which to me means temporary, seasonal laborers - farming, landscaping, construction work, workers who will come in for the spring and summer and then leave again.  I realize now that this may be an instance of UK terminology vs US. In fact I've just looked up the term on Wikipedia and that's definitely the case - oops!  newcomer link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker [nonactive]

OMG!  You're an *IMMIGRANT*? 

OMG!  You're an *IMMIGRANT*? 

I'm really not sure what to make of that comment. I'm trying not to be too offended, in case you didn't intend it to come across in such a sarcastic way.

Of course I am an immigrant.  Per the US definition (I'm from there, by the way), I am not a migrant worker.

In the United States, this term is commonly used to describe low-wage workers performing manual labor in the agriculture field; these are often immigrants who are not working on valid work visas. The United States has enacted the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act to remove the restraints on commerce caused by activities detrimental to migrant and seasonal agricultural workers; to require farm labor contractors to register; and to assure necessary protections for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers, agricultural associations, and agricultural employers. Most migrant workers in America are people from Mexico and Central America.

The term migrant worker sometimes may be used to describe any worker who moves from one seasonal job to another or to another one..[2] This use is generally confined to lower-wage fields, perhaps because the term has been indelibly linked with low-wage farmworkers and illegal immigrants.[2] Examples of professions which could be called migrant workers, some of them quite lucrative, include: Electricians in the construction industry; other construction workers who travel from one construction job to another, often in different cities; wildland firefighters in the western United States; temporary/roving consulting work; and possibly even interstate truck drivers.

In America's history, starting at the end of the Civil War, hobos were the migrant workers who performed much of this agricultural work, using freight railroads as their means of transportation to new jobs. During the Great Depression, Okies who fled the dust bowl were a significant source of temporary farm labor.

newcomer link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_worker#United_States [nonactive]

As per my post, I have only just realized that the UK definition differs.

I'm really not sure what to make of that comment. I'm trying not to be too offended, in case you didn't intend it to come across in such a sarcastic way.

Don't take it as a poke, old *bleep*; as long as you are in good shape vis-a-vis what's going on, and you're no longer in panic, then that's as much as this thread can do for you.   

Update on this today.

It seems not all of the reluctance to apply for a license is due to ignorance. 

To qualify for the inter-company transfer license, the ultimate parent company needs to be listed on the LSE or similar FSA regulated exchange.  Additionally the ultimate  parent company needs to send UKBA the share registers. 

Notwithstanding how it works in other countries, disclosure of these two things are WAY bang against accounting/audit practices in the US.  US firms are not even required to disclose this information in their annual report!

So while some of the application shortfall might be due to ignorance, there are other factors inducing reluctance that are not entirely visible at first blush...

Another update.

I attended a meeting this evening on this topic.  On the government side there was the UKBA Director of the PBS, along with the Director of Sponsor Licensing, along with their Sponsor Management Unit Account Director, along with their webmaster.

On our side there were about 100 lawyers who do immigration work. 

It turns out that the reluctance of employers to get their license is partially due to the fact that UKBA will make an inspection when the company applies.  During the inspection, they will take the personnel records of their migrant work force back for analysis.  If the analysis turns up any infractions, the company will be fined and then named and shamed. 

The analysis will also include any business visitors who may have done more than observe meetings.  A company will be fined for that too.

This can be deeply embarrassing to a company.  And it's a known 'secret' that lots of big companies have bent the rules in the past.  This is especially true with big companies who have business visitors come from abroad to work on projects. 

Worse, people on work permits have also gotten raises, received bonuses, and even been promoted whilst on their work permit; and the companies now have to pay fines for doing that.

So there's the reluctance to apply.  My guess is that the companies are waiting around for a concession or for an amnesty, and they aren't going to apply until there is one.  The government side said they don't want to have an amnesty because serious abuse needs to be identified.  So it's a mexican standoff.

So there's not much that you, as an employee, can do.  Except to take note that if your wp expires before you get ILR, your company will need to get a license or else fire you.

In a move which I understand, but cannot yet explain why, they are going to partition some OISC regulated advisers into a 'trusted' category; and leave the others in the 'untrusted' category.  I'm following up on what this is all about.

That's the bigger picture.

On the bright side.  After the meeting there were drinks, snacks, and what-not (which is my favourite part).  I had a nice chat with their webmaster about UKY.  It was all very pleasant, and they are waiting to hear from the Advocacy Team here about issues with their site.

Worse, people on work permits have also gotten raises, received bonuses, and even been promoted whilst on their work permit; and the companies now have to pay fines for doing that.

? really ? 
So I can't get a raise or a bonus? Or is that a change in employment?

It is an area where a lot of rule bending has taken place. 

Work permits are anchored to a job and a salary.  If a company advertises a job at one salary and then pays the wp holder a different one, or increases the salary of the wp holder, the inspector is perfectly entitled to conclude that the company acted illegally.  Same for bonuses.  If the company acted illegally, BAM that's a fine plus reputational damage.

Inflation tracking raises are ok.  Those are in the area of 2 - 3 percent, and nothing to write home about.

Promotions.  Promotions indicate that the terms of the wp are not being followed, and that's breaking the law.

And companies have been doing this for a long time. 

And like I said, there was the government director of the whole shebang and all his direct reports on the panel and they were all wagging their heads that if they turn up systematic violations like that the company is going to get done.

So it's not that companies do not know what's going down, which is what I thought originally; it's that companies do not want to apply because they don't want to get stitched up. 

So it's a mexican standoff. 

And my experience says that no matter whose fault it is, the immigrant ends up getting fcuked.

Wow, I've had plenty of promotions and bonuses since I've been on a work permit.  Surely they would argue this is part of the job?  Why should a work permit holder be punished from the regular benefits of the job simply because they're not from the country?

I do understand the legality of the permit being tied to a particular position. But do they then expect the company to apply for a new work permit if the person gets promoted?

Has your company applied for their license?

Wow, I've had plenty of promotions and bonuses since I've been on a work permit.  Surely they would argue this is part of the job?  Why should a work permit holder be punished from the regular benefits of the job simply because they're not from the country?

I do understand the legality of the permit being tied to a particular position. But do they then expect the company to apply for a new work permit if the person gets promoted?

See that's what I was thinking too.  

Errr...I can see why companies would be leary.  Hrmm... I am maybe sensing I should switch to Tier 1!  I think I'll need to talk to HR.  

Has your company applied for their license?

I really don't know.  I'd have to ask.  But seeing as I'm leaving, it's not really a priority for me right now.  I'm curious for other people in my company, though.

In the new system, pay raises and bonuses to sponsored immigrants (but not to unsponsored immigrants) have to be reported to UKBA, and UKBA will conduct a resident market test on the figures. 

In assessing historical compliance for sponsorship applicants, the yardstick is much more subjective.

Right.  So in the old system, is it that companies were not meant to report these things but were also not meant to do them either?  (promotions and bonuses)  Were they meant to apply for totally new work permits then?

MTA: garry, I've asked my company about whether they've applied so we'll see what they have to say.

Interesting.  I wish I knew who to ask in my company.  I will have to do some searching.