Work Permit Fee Schedule Survey: Findings Report

Work Permit Fee Schedule Survey

Findings Report April 2018

CONTENTS Introduction & Background of Paper........................................ 3 Findings.............................................................................. 4 Healthcare Industry………………………………………………………………………………….….4 Retail Industry………………………………………………………………………….…………………..5 Construction Industry…………………………………………………………………………………..6 Tourism Industry........................... ..................................................8 Financial Services Industry………………………………………………………………………….10

Conclusion…………………..……………………………….…………………………………13 Contacts………………………………………………………………………………………….15

2

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND OF PAPER The Cayman Islands Chamber of Commerce established an ‘Immigration Working Group’ in March 2018 to provide a recommendations report to the Immigration Department regarding the current work permit fee schedule.

Group member Nicholas Joseph (Partner, HSM Chambers) presented the group with a proposal for a new permit fee schedule which would determine permit fees by category, rather than job title/role.

This proposal was the topic of discussion of the group for two meetings, with the group deciding that feedback from the Chamber membership would be useful in determining whether or not the system would be an improvement.

The group developed a survey which was then distributed to businesses from five key industry sectors, including: •Financial Services •Tourism & Hospitality •Retail & Wholesalers •Healthcare •Construction The survey primarily focused on the categories put forward by Mr. Joseph’s permit fee proposal, and included: •Executives (job title includes chief, executive, partners, etc.)

•Management/Professional (job title includes manager, department head, or role requires a professional qualification •Supervisory (employees supervising at least one member of staff, job title includes ‘senior’) •Skilled (requiring qualifications or experience) •Unskilled (requiring no previous qualifications or experience) The respondents of the survey were representatives of Chamber members, all of whom were contacted by Communications Coordinator, Ross Taylor, via a mass e-mail system.

Respondents were given one week to complete the survey, and were sent reminders throughout the course of the week.

FINDINGS Healthcare Industry The healthcare industry yielded the least results, thus there was only a small amount of data to organise. This is partly due to the lack of healthcare related members with the Chamber of Commerce. The survey was ultimately sent to 79 individuals, 6 of whom responded.

When asked how satisfied they were with the current work permit fee schedule, over 50% of respondents said they dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, with the two remaining respondents claiming they were satisfied or felt neutral about the current system.

Although the majority of respondents felt negatively towards the current work permit fee schedule, the responses to the proposed system put forward by the Immigration Working

Group received a mixed reaction.

When asked whether the proposed categories would make sense for their industry sector, two-thirds said that they would be appropriate, whilst a third felt they would not be applicable. One respondent noted that the “skilled� category needed clarification.

Moreover, when asked whether a work permit fee schedule focused on the proposed categories would be an improvement over the current system in place, 50% of the respondents said yes, whilst the other 50% said they were unsure.

Ultimately, more responses from this industry would have been preferable, especially as the opinions of 6 people is not a lot to go on.

Retail Industry Responses for the retail and wholesalers industry were much better, with 18 respondents submitting their opinions.

As is apparent in the table above, none of the respondents from the retail industry were satisfied with the current work permit fee schedule, and over 70% of those who took the survey were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the current system.

When explaining their response, one individual noted that: “There are some job titles that carry a higher fee under one section than it does under another section. Our fees seem to change from time to time depending of the interpretation of the role by the immigration officer.�

Other respondents complained at permit fees simply being too expensive for small businesses to reasonably afford, noting that menial jobs often carried hefty permit fees.

When asked whether the proposed categories would make sense for the retail industry, the response was overwhelmingly positive, with only 2 of the 18 respondents saying no. Those who expressed a concern over these categories noted that they were “not broad enough� and that they would want to know the permit fee for each category before making a concrete decision.

Another respondent did not see the need for different categories, instead stating that the permit fee should be determined by the advertised salary range.

Similarly, the response in regards to whether the proposed categories would be an improvement over the current system was mostly positive, with just under 70% of respondents saying yes. Only one individual said no, and the remaining five said they were unsure.

One respondent said: “Almost ANYTHING would be an improvement! At present the exact same job is listed in three quite separate categories each with its own different fee! Utter nonsense!”

Other respondents commented with their concerns, with some saying further information is needed before making a decision. One individual, however, expressed their concern more vocally, stating:

“The natural tendency will be for employers to say that they have lower skilled/experienced employees if it will save the business money. Just make the fee based on what the employer has advertised as the salary range. It will save time for Immigration as well as the employer.”

Whilst there were some concerns with how the proposed categories would work, the majority of respondents from the retail industry felt that they would be an improvement.

Construction Industry The Chamber recently held an ‘Industry Roundtable’ with leaders from the construction industry during which Immigration was discussed. The survey was disseminated among this group for their opinions.

As the table above shows, only one respondent was satisfied with the current work permit fee schedule, whilst the remaining individuals were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the system. One respondent noted their frustrations with the current system by saying: “They don't consistently charge the same fee for the same position and you have to apply

to CIO for the adjustment the the fee. Sometimes that takes several years to achieve.”

The majority of respondents also noted that the proposed categories would make sense for the construction industry, with only one person saying no. Whilst the proposed categories resonated with the majority of those who took the survey, one individual did express some concern, saying: “I think it is limiting - There should maybe be one in between Management and Executive -

Small companies have individuals that wear many hats.”

Unsurprisingly (given that over 90% were dissatisfied with the current system), over 70%

of respondents felt that the proposed categories would be an improvement, and just under 30% responded by saying they were unsure.

One respondent noted that they were unsure whether a category system would be more beneficial, and that it was ‘cost dependent.’ Another said that there are far too many job titles to sift through, and that a simpler system would be more efficient.

Tourism Industry A total of 14 respondents from the tourism sector responded to the survey, which was perhaps a little disappointing considering tourism is one of the Cayman Islands’ leading industries.

As expected (when comparing the data to the other industry sectors), the majority of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current system, while a handful of individuals provided a neutral stance. What is unsurprising, however, is that one individual said they were very satisfied with the current work permit fee schedule.

When explaining why they were dissatisfied, one respondent said: “The structure for hotels is not fair or equitable -a small hotel (100 rooms) pays the same as a large one (Over 400 rooms plus additional revenue streams) Not a level playing field.”

When asked whether the proposed categories would make sense for the tourism industry, just under 90% of the 14 respondents said yes, with two individuals saying no. One respondent who said no cited their reasoning in regards to revenue generated, saying: “Until the disparity between hotels making potentially 600% more revenues is addressed

this structure still ensures an unfair advantage and limited incentive to these larger companies to hire locally. It should be based on $$$s generated.”

When asked whether the proposed categories would feel like an improvement, the results were far more mixed than some of the other industry responses. Just over 50% of respondents felt that the categories would be an improvement over the current system, and just under 40% expressing uncertainty.

One respondent felt that the variation between ‘skilled’ and ‘unskilled’ was too unclear at this time, and that a better definition of each category is needed.

Financial Services Industry As the largest industry in the Cayman Islands, it is unsurprising that businesses from the financial services sector were the most responsive to the survey. 36 individuals from the financial services sector took part in the survey.

As the table below shows, the majority of respondents were dissatisfied with the current work permit fee schedule, with under 10% being satisfied or very satisfied.

When expressing their dissatisfaction with the current system, one respondent said that the “existing system is archaic, and proves that leaders in Immigration are unable or unwilling to make decisions.” Another respondent noted that “Anything would be better than the current title specific system.”

Others took issue with the way the immigration department determines fees, noting: “Basing a fee on a job title and not the service they provide is ludicrous. Job titles are generally not standardized amongst the industries. This disparity leads to a compensative advantage for employers with titles that simply appear to be less senior than others.”

Several respondents simply noted that work permit fees were too high, and that they are often too expensive for smaller businesses to afford.

When asked whether the proposed categories would make sense for the financial services industry, over 70% of respondents said yes. However, the majority of comments expressed concern with them.

“I see issues at it relates to the job titles which would fit in those categories - some companies refer to "Chiefs" as "Heads of" - blurring the lines between which categories they fall into,” said one respondent.

This opinion was shared by another respondent who said: “Senior accountants are not in a supervisory role and I am concerned with misclassification. They are skilled professionals

and should either be classified as skilled or another category be added between skilled and supervisory.”

The majority of concern came from the classifications of each category, and that they could perhaps be misinterpreted by some employers, or that some roles may fit into multiple categories. One respondent explained this concern in detail by commenting: “We have the position 'director' in our firm which is below partner and much higher level than the manager level. In the management / professional level again, we have managers but lower than heads of department. The 'skilled' we have Senior administrators who have professional qualifications per the job's requirement, therefore again, this will not work for us. It would be my suggestion to include the following pending responses from other organizations in the financial industry categories: Executive (CEO, partner, Director etc) Senior management - (Heads of Department, Chief Officers-- Chief Compliance Officer, Chief Operations Officer, CHRO, senior managers etc) Middle Management (HR Manager, Compliance manager, marketing manager, manager within a given dept. e.g. funds, trust or Insolvency etc) Professional staff (positions that requires a professional qualification-senior trust or fund administrators, senior accountants, audit seniors etc) Administrator (requiring the minimum Associate or BSc) Assistant Administrator / Administrative Assistant (requiring no qualifications or experience).”

Finally, when asked whether or not the proposed categories would be an improvement when compared with the current work permit fee schedule, over two thirds of respondents said yes, and just under a third said they were unsure (as the chart on page 12 illustrates).

The majority of those who commented said that the categories needed to be better defined to avoid ambiguity or confusion, whereas others said that improvement would have to be determined by the end cost.

CONCLUSION Overall satisfaction with current system (all industries)

19.77%

2.33% 5.81% 17.44%

54.65% Very Satisfied

Satisfied

Neither/Neutral

Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

When combining all of the responses, across all industries, well over two-thirds of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the current work permit fee schedule. Less than 10% were satisfied, whilst the remaining 17% maintained a neutral stance.

Suitability of proposed categories (all industries)

18.18%

81.82%

Yes

No

This level of dissatisfaction was expected, and the figures in the chart above appear to correlate with the views held by the members of the Immigration Working Group.

The group also expected the majority of respondents to find the proposed

categories useful for each industry sector. As the bottom of page 13 illustrates, over 80% of the respondents stated that the proposed categories would be suitable for their respective industry.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents also believed that the proposed categories would be an improvement over the current work permit fee schedule.

Just under two-thirds of those who completed the survey expressed this opinion.

Proposed categories leading to improvement (all industires)

3.45% 32.18%

64.37%

Yes

Unsure

No

However, a third of respondents expressed uncertainty. When analysing the comments, it is apparent that those who were uncertain often cited costs as their reasoning, stating that the permit cost would determine whether or not the proposed categories were an improvement or not.

Ultimately, the surveys provided us with some interesting information, whilst also confirming our beliefs that the proposed categories would make the permit fee system more efficient for most. However, the sample size was still small (especially in the healthcare industry), so must be taken with a pinch of salt.

CONTACTS The following individuals from each industry sector left their contact details so that the Immigration Working Group could reach out to them for further involvement if necessary.

Financial Services Industry Name Lisa Franklin

Company

Carmen McField

Phone No. Email 938-5472 synmoie.franklin@gmail.com 925-7844 alyschadcarm@live.com

Kayla Shibli

Rawlinson & Hunter 814-8795 kayla.shibli@rawlinson-hunter.com.ky

Angela Mele

RiskPass AML+Compliance Ltd. Grant Thornton

Dara Keogh

925-2724 angela.mele@riskpass.com

516-4362 dara.keogh@ky.gt.com

Krystal Ebanks

Harneys Westwood 815-2972 krystal.ebanks@harneys.com & Riegels

Mike Gibbs

Kensington 814-7000 mgibbs@kensington.ky Management Group

Ariana Seales

Singh’s Roti Shop

926-7855 arian.seales@gmail.com

Arthur Bogle

Bogle Insurance

516-5874 abogle@bogleins.com

Retail Industry Name

Company

Phone No.

Email

Gregory Merren

Divers Supply

916-1760

gregory.merren@diverssupply.ky

Laura Johnston

Cayman Business 546-8773 Machines

laura.johnston@grouppbs.com

Malcolm Eden

The Audiophile

m.eden@theaudiophilegroup.ky

Tim BahadurUpstone Doris De La Cruz Eden

Creative Tech Ltd. 946-8324

tupstone@creativetechltd.net

Active Capital Ltd. 640-3790

doris.delacruz@activecapitalltd.com

Robert Wood

916-8076

916-7279

ulbrw@hotmail.com

946-8622 ext. 6226 Stephanie Wight Foster’s Food Fair 815-1029

hr@althompson.com

Geoffrey Cuff

Kirk Office

526-2254

gcuff@kirkoffice.ky

Nelson Dilbert

Cayman Spirits Company

926-8186

nelson@rum.ky

Caron Murphy

A.L. Thompson’s

stephanie.wight@fosters-iga.com

Healthcare Industry Name Company

Phone No. Email

Christine Mathews

Seven Mile Medical 916-2572 cmathews@sevenmileclinic.ky Clinic

Roz Griffiths

Chatterbox

Deanna Smith

Liquid Life Ltd.

926-1693 chatterbox@candw.ky

deanna@liquidlifecayman.com

Construction Industry Name Amanda Wilson

Company GreenTech

Phone No. Email 326-1921 awilson@greentech.ky

Barbara Anley

Phoenix Ltd.

945-8001

banley@phoenix.com.ky

Denny Tomsu

Island Paving

323-0420

denny.tomsu@islandpaving.net

Lyle Frederick

Frederick McRae 945-3601 Ltd.

lrfrederick@frederickmcrae.com

Ken Moore Steve McFadin

LED Specialists Transocean Inc.

ken@leds.ky steve.mcfadin@deepwater.com

Stanley Hill

Hill Construction 916-6333 Co.

916-4114 745-4501

build@hillconstruction.ky

Name Paul Pearson

Company Davenport Development

Phone No. Email 916-7821 paul@davenport.ky

Tourism Industry Name Company

Phone No. Email

Vicki Calvert-Das

National Gallery 945-8111

hr@nationalgallery.org.ky

Janette Goodman

Ritz Carlton

815-6088

janette.goodman@ritzcarlton.com

CJ Thomas Mason

CIBR Comfort Suites

916-5572 916-5277

comfort@candw.ky

547-4231

trisha@irg.ky

Trisha

Unit 4-107 107 Governors Square 23 Lime Treey Bay Avenue West Bay Road P.O. Box 1000 Grand Cayman KY1-1102 T: 345 949 8090 E: info@caymanchamber.ky www.caymanchamber.ky