Trade Union Inclusion of Migrant and Ethnic Minority Workers. An Italy-Netherlands Comparison
description
Transcript of Trade Union Inclusion of Migrant and Ethnic Minority Workers. An Italy-Netherlands Comparison
Stefania Marino
Trade Union Inclusion of Migrant and Ethnic Minority Workers.
An Italy-Netherlands Comparison
ESRC Migration Seminar Series, WLRI, London,
15 July, 2011
Literature
Trade unions ‘historical dilemmas’ (Castles and Kosack, 1985; Penninx and Roosblad, 2000) and current problems (analysis union debate)
Influent variables on trade union responses (Wrench, 2004; Krings, 2009)
Migration studies: union stances towards migrant workers
Structural dilemmas and interest representation (Regini, 1981; Schmitter and Streeck, 1981)
Explaining union strategic choices (Hyman, 1975; Pizzorno, 1978 + Frege and Kelly, 2003; Turner, 2005)
Labour relations studies: union strategic choices
Heuristic Scheme
Equal versus Special
Treatment
Migrant Workers Self Organization
Class Union
Multiculturalist Union Model
Multiculturalist Associative
Model
Inclusion versus
Exclusion
Unitary versus Pluralist model
Social versus Industrial
rights
Political versus Bargaining
action
Heuristic Scheme
Equal versus Special
Treatment
Class Union
Multiculturalist Union Model
Multiculturalist Associative
Model
Inclusion versus
Exclusion
Unitary versus Pluralist model
Social versus Industrial
rights
Political versus Bargaining
action
formal
informal
legalillegal
New Union
Sabotage
Migrant Workers Self Organization
Research Design
Case studiesTwo dissimilar systems: the Netherlands and Italy Two similar unions: FNV(NL) and CGIL(I)Most comparable sector: metal sector - FNV-Bondgenoten and
FIOM-CGIL
Focus on: Inclusive efforts (measured by the speech-action gap)Main question: Which external factors and internal union variables are
influent in practice in explaining different outcomes?Methodology: Analysis of union documents and interviewsPeriod: Late 1990s - 2008
Central Level
Rhetoric
ActionsSpeech-action gap
Vertical gapBottom-Up Process
Local Level
Rhetoric
ActionsSpeech-action gap
Top-Down Process
Research Design
Union Formal Debatethe Netherlands Italy
Representing
• Improvement of labour condition, Antidiscrimination---------• Central negotiations (FNV) sectoral bargaining (FNVB)
• Defence of social rights (CGIL) and labour rights (FIOM)---------• Negotiations at different levels, political action, service provision (CGIL); sectoral bargaining (FIOM)
Recruiting
• Unionization/incorporation into the union ---------• Recruiting campaigns; quota policies• ‘Organizing’ from 2005
• Participation/incorporation into the executive bodies---------• Training (CGIL), Bottom-up inclusion (FIOM), quota policies
Internal organizing Advisory bodies at central level
Advisory bodies, front offices, representative bodies at central and decentralised levels.
Union Action and Outcomesthe Netherlands Italy
Implementation of special policies
• Generally low • After 2005 anti-discrimination activites on workplaces• Isolation and inefficacy of specific bodies
• Low: social concertation (CGIL)
Bargaining• Claims in bargaining guidelines • Scarce presence in CA (national and firms from 2002 to 2007)
FIOM: Special clauses in firms agreements and NCA (from 2007)
Unionization Between 2 and 5% Around 10%, faster than among nationals
Incorporation at higher levels
Quota policies but scarce numerically outcomes, no specific data
• Good presence in CGIL local structures and on workplaces (FIOM)• Increasing presence in higher levels
Explanatory Variables
Dutch case: Marginality of migrant issues in debate and action (presence of ‘more urgent priorities’)/diminished coordinating activity of the confederation. Increasing hostility towards migrant workers on workplaces affecting policies implementation
Italian case: Increasing formal concern for migrant rights, Increasing servicing and bargaining activities.
Social and economic changes
Common drives: Economic crisis at the beginning of 2000s and worsening of social climate
Explanatory Variables
Dutch case: Corporatist processes ‘bind’ union claim to labour related issues and lower the recourse to political disputes.Rupture of social dialogue in 2004: FNV shift towards the ‘organising’ model in the 2005.
Italian case: Anti-union attitude of centre-right governments lower social bargaining but strengthen union efforts towards migrant workers.CGIL involvement in central policy making increases the differences with FIOM
Institutional embeddedness
Explanatory Variables
Dutch case: Strong centralization, Lack of decentralized structures, Scarce presence on workplaces
Problems in representing and recruiting migrant workers, Lowering implementation of special measures
Italian case: Capillary articulation of union structure (both CGIL and FIOM), autonomy of decentralized structure, Strong presence of trade unions on workplaces
Direct contact with migrant workers, Awareness of migrant workers needs, Implementation of policies locally meaningful
Union structure
Explanatory Variables
Dutch case: Top-down character of internal communications
Low level of discussion and informal exchanges among trade unionists, Isolation of specific bodies, ‘Company-based’ union identity
Italian case: Good top down and bottom-up processes.
Good communication link between FIOM workplace representatives and the organization, Provision of identity goods
Communication processes
Explanatory Variables
Dutch case
Between ‘society and market’. Institutional influence, based on the ‘political dimension’ shaping union general action.
Italian case:
CGIL identity ‘between class and society’: defense of social rights as union tasks , intervention in the social and political sphere as a ‘political subject’.
FIOM between ‘market and class’: emphasis on internal democracy (inclusion of migrant workers as sign of internal coherence). Class identity: (migrant) representatives on workplaces as representatives of all workers independently by their cultural background.
Union identity
Conclusions Wider speech-action gap in the Dutch case than in the Italian one
Higher power of attraction in the Italian case and consideration of social and labour related problems
Inverse relationship between union institutional embeddeness and union inclusive efforts: influence on union’s perception of migrant and ethnic minority inclusion as either ‘threat or opportunity’
Contextual factors: explaining rhetoric and policies; however social and economic changes influential only in one national case due to the different degree of institutional embeddedness
Internal union variable and dynamics: explaining speech-action gap and union outcomes
In both cases no cultural changes: in Italy, assimilation to union culture. However, the democratic space within the union: cultural change promoted from the inside as expression of the internal union democracy