BY: W. Shadid, 27-5-2008

Unemployment of immigrants in the Netherlands shows a capricious picture. According to the ‘Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek’ {Central Bureau for Statistics} (CBS) 4% of the native Dutch were unemployed in 1999, compared to 13% of the immigrants. The ‘Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau {Social Cultural Planning Office} (SCP) showed in 2005 figures of 9 and 20% respectively, and even 40% of unemployment under immigrant youngsters.

For 2007, the Note ‘Concretisering plan van aanpak discriminatie op de arbeidsmarkt’ {Concretisation Action Plan against Discrimination on the Labour Market} of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment that was sent to Parliament on 23 April 2008, mentions figures of 3.7% for the native Dutch and 10.1% for those of immigrant origin. This indicates that unemployment under immigrants is almost three times as high as under the native Dutch.

However, unemployment under immigrant groups is frequently explained from the perspective of ‘blaming the victim’, which says that ‘they are too lazy, lack the necessary education and attache little value to education’, whereas the cause of the phenomena must mainly be sought in other factors such as prejudice and discrimination.
Nevertheless, in the past three decades the government has taken many measures in order to reduce unemployment under immigrants. Measures that should be mentioned are among others the Law on the ‘Proportional Labour Participation of Ethnic Minorities’ of 1994, its successor the Law SAMEN, the MKB-convenant {convenant Middel and Small Campanies)}, the convenant ‘Large Enterprises’ and the many other measures taken by municipalities. These mentioned Laws imposed only a reporting obligation for companies which have more than 35 employees about the ethnic composition of their employee files. Because of the lack of sanctions in case of non-compliance, one could easily predict that the undertaken Laws will not be effective, and will mainly lead to more bureaucracy. Six years later the ‘Task Force Minorities and the Labour Market’ concluded that 80 per cent of the Dutch companies still had no immigrants employees.
Attitude of the government towards direct and indirect forms of discrimination was however mainly passive, whereas the impact of discrimination on unemployment was continuously confirmed. Among these direct and indirect forms of discrimination are prejudice, nepotism, unnecessary requirements for employment and the language and representativeness pretext (some ingredients of the so-called glass ceiling) are considered to be the most important barriers for immigrants’ employment. Research of the Ministry of Social Affairs in 2005 showed that one third of the immigrants experienced discrimination at work. The Discrimination Monitor of the SCP indicated in 2007 that graduated HBO- and WO-immigrant students, thus those with higher professional and scientific education certificate, remained considerably more often unemployed than their native Dutch colleagues and that these unemployment differences could not be explained by differences in graduation marks, trainings levels, age and gender. Other research has also shown that youngsters of ethnic minorities have two and even three times less chance to find a training job during their study.
Policy measures that have been taken against discrimination usually did not reach further than the announcement of more research, establishing research committees, providing information on prejudice and pointing to existing measures. The same holds true for the above mentioned Note of the Ministry. Restrain from taken effective measures is not only caused by the fact that discrimination is hard be prove, but is rather due to the lack of political courage by responsible politicians. Particularly in a time where discrimination is considered by employers as risk avoiding behaviour; where politicians classify stigmatisation as ‘Freedom of expression’, and where the condemnable ethnocentrism is qualified as national pride. Effective policy to combat discrimination and exclusion in the labour market requires more powerful instruments such as ‘contract compliance’, a measure which has been successfully implemented by the American government and which was recommended in 1989 by the Dutch WRR, (The Scientific Council for Government Policy). ‘Contract Compliance’ implies that labour contracts issued by the (local) governments are especially granted to companies which can show effectively that their employee files reflect the proportional ethnic composition of the population.
However, politicians in general and responsible Ministers in the present coalition in the Netherlands know that nowadays no social basis can be found for such measures, but have at the same time to deal with a dilemma. On the one hand they are aware of the fact that taking painful measures in favour of immigrants labour position means political suicide, but at the same time they know that maintaining the present situation will result in the continuation of immigrant exclusion and the development of an ethnically defined underclass in society. Unfortunately, these are the ideal ingredients for increased polarisation and sharpening of social tensions, especially in a time where political parties abuse ethnic bipartition in society for demagogic purposes. Continuation of the present situation can not be justified neither politically nor morally.

Prof.dr. W. Shadid is professor of intercultural communication. For more info: see page “About”