Better than privately owned, they are owned by a foundation and are known to not only think long term, but also short term for their workers.

In France, some years ago, they closed a plant producing automotive parts, but they kept all the employees, retrained them and started producing solar panel components. It was pretty incredible as at the same time, French companies were just laying off brutally.

It's emphasizing that employees are their primary resource, and retaining that resource is more important than anything. Contrast this with the US' approach to employees that sees them as expendable and replaceable - showing now in the crisis / memes that restaurants can't get enough staff because they don't pay enough / people aren't desperate enough.

-In all fairness, though, the latter approach isn't unique to the US; Norwegian papers have run a lot of stories lately about business X or Y being up in arms about the labour shortage, amplified by COVID because of travel restrictions limiting access to cheap labour from abroad.

However the issue isn't really that they cannot find labour - it is that they cannot find labour at a cost which makes their current business model sustainable. (Mostly an issue in labour intensive, seasonal sectors relying on unskilled labour - agriculture, aquaculture, restaurants...)

Essentially, the gripe is 'If we paid our employees a decent wage, we'd be out of business.'

Sigh.

To those migrant workers, what they're getting might well be a decent wage. Meanwhile the jobs of "real" Norwegians such as the farmers you mention and their supply chain depend on that business model too.

It's funny how depriving foreigners of their livelihood is so often pitched as being for their own good.

Seasonal migrant workers in UK agricultural sector often make next to nothing and are seriously misled and exploited, to the point where I think it should be considered fraud.

We recruit folks from Romania promising them a decent wage, say $10 and hour, and they are typically naive folks straight out of school. Part of the contract is that they are provided with lodging, food, etc. Then they realise that after getting charged $50 for living in a tent and other "charges" they actually make like $10 a day.

The sceme basically provided a steady supply of serfs to pick fruit, and noone in britain would sign up for this.

Other cases are less egrigeous, but even in skilled work, the employee may realise the opportunity is not great, but depends on the job for visa and so decide to put up with it untill they can get permanent right to stay. Its not a terrible deal, but it wouldnt work for 'natives'

Oh I understand there are abuses, but what we need to do is crack down on those abuses. Address the actual problem. Too often they're used as an excuse to justify much broader action.

I have skin in this game because I'm married to a former migrant worker who started off over here working in restaurants and coffee shops, and have a niece who's currently here in the UK as a student. She completes her studies this summer and is taking up her 2 year work visa for graduates.

Most migrant workers, especially those from outside the EU, consider seasonal/migrant work and studying as a stepping stone to residence and later citizenship.

They all know that once they are inside the borders, its harder for the authorities to deport them.

Its basically the price to pay for a shot at first world lifestyle.

The last thing most of them want is a crackdown.

"They all know that once they are inside the borders, its harder for the authorities to deport them"

Deportation doesn't come into this, that's only relevant once you've broken the law or overstayed your visa.

The game is about meeting criteria for a visa route, and doing seasonal work does not help in any way. Having a UK degree enables you to get a job here easier, but thats about it.

In UK, if you are switching from a short-term to long-term visa you have to leave the country and apply for a visa again from outside the country.

Even if you are applying from inside the country, the home office does not hesitate to reject applications for the tiniest reasons. Once that happens, some people might go to court if they have the money and ground to dispute the decision, if your lot in your home country is really bad you might stay illegally, but for the vast majority neither option is worth it and they move on.

Whether you are pro or against immigration, it's unclear why unscurpulous employer should be the ones to benefit from this arrangement

>> if [you perceive] your lot in your home country is really bad you might stay illegally.

Yes, that is precisely the route.

The billions (like moi) in the third world have realised that the longer they violate the immigration laws, the better their chances of having some activist argue their right to stay.

Their is no other law/regulation that I know of where the longer you violate the law, the more rights your have.

Which is exactly why the boat arrivals to Australia dried up once the processing was moved outside the jurisdiction of Australian law.

They were on to us.

> Their is no other law/regulation that I know of where the longer you violate the law, the more rights your have.

I suggest you research “adverse possession”, and “easement by prescription”; if you view nation-states and their territory as analogous to persons and their real property, they are quite similar concepts to what you seem to view as unique.

Can we please stop lumping together refugees and immigrants? This is borderline vulgar, students in uk paid 60K for a degree, noone pays that kind of money to become an illegal without rights to work or healthcare. Becoming illegal immigrant is certanly not a ticket to "first world lifestyle"

It very much depends on what you're cracking down on. Extortion, deceptive practices, human trafficking, modern slavery sure. Students working in coffee shops? Not so much, but these issues are often deliberately conflated.

Yeah, I guess they've changed this recently, but a bunch of years back they were recruiting even university students.

I imagine that backfired since those are, you know, educated, motivated and the vast majority speak English, so at least a bunch of them figured out how to contact authorities.

I wouldn't be surprised if recent batches are from less educated segments.

-Fair point (matter of fact, I considered including a paragraph about that) - but the situation now is that for reasons outside their control, the migrant labour is not available, and the system as is cannot handle either paying the going rate for 'normal' work to fresh hires in that sector OR find enough 'real' (for lack of a better term) Norwegians willing -or even able to- to accept work at the wage offered.

For instance, with wages being as they are, many unemployed people would get less payout working full time in the agricultural sector than they would just sitting at home receiving unemployment benefits (at slightly less than 2/3 of their former wage).

The result being, of course, that whatever labour does show up tends to be less than fully motivated, adding to the employers' woes and reluctance to hire them in the first place.

I don't mind migrant labour at all; what I do mind is the idea that when the labour pool shrinks drastically, employers still try to avoid the obvious solution to attract labour - by increasing wages, if only temporarily.

These are extraordinary times (one can but hope), and extraordinary short-term measures to counter that doesn't seem unreasonable.

And they were laid off because Bosch closed their solar panel business a few years later

Doesn't change the fact they tried. More then most other companies usually do.

Bosch is NOT strictly a privately owned company. It's a so called steward company majority owned by a non-profit trust so you could say they are nobody's. Profits never leave the company and that's why they can plan long-term and are generally pretty stable and resilient.

Amazon has taken pretty long term decisions, despite being public

I think it’s just a question of leadership

While Amazon is technically a public company, more than 50 % of shares are owned by the founder and consequently the control isn't split across a larger group of people.

Where do you got your 'more than 50%' from?

The Internet says Jeff Bezos has a bit more than 10%.

That is a good question. If I think about it, I have no idea :). Somehow I got the impression that Bezos as the founder still holds a controlling amount of shares, but if he owned 50% of all Amazon shares, he would be the richest person by a large margin. Anyway, it seems that Bezos basically did not have anyone to answer to while leading Amazon - amazon reportet losses for many years for the sake of growth. That means he had a free hand to implement strategies, which are long term profitable. And I attribute the success of Amazon to no small amount to this.

Well, despite reporting losses, the stock kept climbing up. So the other shareholders were apparently happy.

20 years is not very long term. Kepp in mind that Bosch was founded in 1886. If Amazon keeps up like this for the next one hundred years, I will fully agree with you.

-But management takes their cues from stockholders, and it would be a very hard sell indeed to convince stockholders that a decision resulting in lower profit in the short term but improve it long term should be made.

Hence companies which are either not publicly traded (like Bosch) or is majority owned by someone or other (like Amazon) is much more likely to be able to make long term decisions - as they are not always geared towards getting the most impressive earnings during the current quarter to satisfy stockholders.