Abstract
This article examines trade union responses to migration in the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. We explore how national regulatory structures and industrial relations traditions shape these responses, reflected in different ways of working with the state, employers, union members and the migrant worker community. We identify three main logics that inform trade union action: class, race/ethnicity and social rights; these are used implicitly or explicitly in building representative action. Our analysis shows how trade unions in each country tend to give priority to certain specific logics rather than others. Our findings also show how, in each country, trade union renewal in relation to migration implies engaging with new logics of actions which have not been part of the historical trade union approach. Hence the question of migration brings specific challenges for union identity and strategy. We argue for an approach that goes beyond assumptions of path dependency, and stress the complexity of representation and the challenge of balancing different interests and strategies in the process of social inclusion.
Introduction
This article explores trade union responses to the challenge of the inclusion of migrant and ethnic minority workers in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. We recognize that it is problematic to conflate the two categories of migrant, since not all migrants are from ethnic minorities, not are all ethnic minorities themselves migrants; however, both groups raise analogous issues. How these issues differ cross-nationally is a key theme for our analysis. We draw on data from a three-year comparative project of union responses in the UK, the Netherlands and Spain, countries which represent three different varieties of capitalism: a liberal market economy, a coordinated market economy and a ‘mixed’ or ‘Mediterranean’ model.
There is a growing literature on trade union responses to migration, representing a significant reorientation of the research agenda in industrial relations (Holgate, 2005; Krings, 2009; Marino, 2012; Martínez Lucio and Perret, 2009; Meardi, 2011; Milkman, 2006), but our distinctive contribution here is to link this discussion to broader issues of regulatory context and strategy.
We build on the insights of two sets of work in comparative industrial relations. The first focuses on the interplay of regulatory context and internal union structures in the development of union policies in general (Frege and Kelly, 2003; Hyman, 2001; Locke and Thelen, 1995). The second involves specific frameworks for understanding union responses to migration (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000; Wrench, 2004). However, we add a third perspective: the ways that ‘class’, ‘social rights’ and ‘race’ are understood and referenced within each country. This brings a more sensitive aspect to the debate and raises issues of union identity. It also requires an understanding of internal debates and tensions in the different ways in which a union evolves, perceives gaps in its traditional forms of action and considers processes of renewal.
Our main original contribution is an exploratory analytical model, using research-based cases primarily for illustrative purposes. We show that union responses are stretched between different logics of action and meaning. We focus on strategies which have a specific effect on migrants, although no clear line can be drawn between initiatives for workers generally and for migrants in particular; thus we discuss policies where enhancing migrant worker rights has been a deliberate and enunciated objective. This forces us to think in terms of the tensions between representing workers through approaches directly related to class or social rights and those explicitly oriented to race and ethnicity.
Comparative industrial relations has evolved in ways that allow us to understand how employment relations and institutions vary across contexts (Locke and Thelen, 1995). Flexibility, pay and working time are mediated and constructed in various ways according to national systems of regulation and traditions of struggle and meaning. Increasingly we also see a concern with the way varieties of trade union structures and strategies emerge historically. In terms of the study of immigration, comparative research is a vital step for understanding broader historical complexity and how unions vary, and why, over questions of immigration and ethnicity.
Frege and Kelly (2003) map different union approaches to the representation of new constituencies of labour and citizens. Their revitalization model reconciles structural or institutional explanations with those focusing on identity as determinants of union strategies. In particular, they draw on Hyman’s idea (1994, 2001) of identities as inherited traditions which shape current choices, which in normal circumstances in turn reinforce and confirm identities. Their model outlines how social and economic change, the role of industrial relations institutions, the state and employers along with union structure affect the framing of issues, giving rise to particular organizational choices. Hence we need to appreciate internal union politics and how traditional identities and narratives influence the way choices are made.
In respect of immigration, Penninx and Roosblad (2000: 12–16) have developed a similar approach. They point to four main influences on trade union responses: their position within society in terms of power and politics; socio-economic and labour market characteristics; societal factors such as religion, class and social movements; finally the characteristics of immigrants themselves and their relations with trade unions. Their model pays considerable attention to factors related to immigrants themselves, but less to internal union dynamics. These include the framing processes which shape how problems are understood. This point is raised by Wrench (2004), who cautions against a tendency to read too much from structural factors such as union strength or systems of regulation. Instead, the impact of political discourse and social struggles can configure union orientations; and what is more; we need to be alert to critical incident and moments when trade union strategies and views begin to shift.
Comparing trade union responses to migration: An analytical framework
In the discussion of trade union responses to migrant workers we can identify two dimensions that comprise an exploratory analytical framework. The first involves logics of actions, which shape union discourse and policies and are linked to union identities and established forms of action. There are three main logics implicitly or explicitly used by unions in building representative action. The logic of class leads unions to consider migrants as part of the wider working class: common interests between migrant and local workers entail general solidarity among workers. The second logic, of race or ethnicity, insists that migrant workers’ distinctive situation and interests mean that more general policies are insufficient to promote effective representation. This logic can also apply to other groups, such as women. The third logic, of social rights, engages unions with issues that are not directly workplace-related (housing, health, welfare or general labour market rights). This logic is often applied to migrants not just as workers but as (potential) citizens.
These three logics are in continuous tension. For instance, the class logic based on the common identity of migrants as workers clashes both with a logic of race and ethnicity (which stresses the distinctive position of migrants within the labour force) and with the logic of social rights (which considers migrants as citizens, not just as workers). However, full representation of migrant workers rights would require trade union engagement with all three logics.
Our framework parallels that of Hyman, who defines ‘a triple tension at the heart of union identity and purpose’ between market, class and society (2001: 3–4). He argues that trade unions have tended towards a contradictory mix between two of three ideal types, which can be conceived as a triangle in which ‘each point. . . connects with a distinctive model of trade unionism’. He argues that in any country, unions tend to be oriented to one face of the triangle, giving priority to two of the three elements of market, class and society; but that in certain circumstances they can be drawn towards the ‘missing’ third point. We use a similar instrument to analyse the findings from our comparative analysis, as illustrated in Figure 1.
National contexts and strategic renewal.
The second dimension concerns the specific strategies (or modes of action) unions may use to represent and defend migrant workers. Each of the logics of action is usually associated with a specific strategy. In the first, unions engage in activities directly involving workers themselves; these are linked to a class logic that emphasizes workers’ direct participation. The second involves engaging with communities, and is linked to the logic of action based on race or ethnicity; this encourages coalitions, greater sensitivity to the role of migrant activists and a better engagement with equality. The third, linked to social rights, entails unions engaging in regulation through concertation with social partners at central and regional levels and direct involvement with government in the formulation of policies and laws.
Migration and trade union responses in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK
The history of immigration and the composition of migrant populations differ considerably across our three countries. The UK and the Netherlands have a long history of colonial immigration, resulting in the formation of substantial minority ethnic communities. Spain, on the other hand, has only recently become a country of immigration, which started to grow in the early 2000s following the Spanish economic boom and the rise in importance of the tourist industry. EU enlargement in 2004 resulted in a significant influx of migrants from Central and Eastern Europe in all three counties.
According to Eurostat data (2013), in 2009 there were around 1.3 million ‘immigrants’ in the Netherlands, around 20 percent of the total population; 29 percent of these had Dutch nationality, 37 percent were from other EU countries and 27 percent from outside the EU. The largest minority groups are Turkish, Moroccan and Surinamese (CBS, 2013), roughly half of whom belong to the second generation. In Spain, there were just under 5 million immigrants 2009, around 12 percent of the population; 6 percent have Spanish nationality, 29 percent are from other EU countries and 65 percent from outside the EU. The largest groups are Romanian, Moroccan and Ecuadorian. However, many other nationalities are represented, many of which are EU nationals and Latin American. In the UK, there were around 5.7 million immigrants in 2009, around 12 percent of the population; 17 percent were nationals, 30 percent from other EU countries and 54 percent from outside the EU. India, Poland, Ireland and Pakistan are the top four countries of birth for the foreign-born population. As we will see later, differences in immigration history and composition have an influence on the formulation of trade union strategies.
Our methodology is qualitative, with semi-structured interviews and participant and non-participant observation. The main fieldwork took place in Amsterdam and the surrounding areas; Madrid, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y León and Aragón; and the North-West and South-East of England. In each country we focused on specific unions, selected on the basis of membership size and the attention paid to migrant and ethnic minority workers. We undertook over 150 interviews with trade union officials and activists from various levels, and a number with voluntary sector organizations. In this article, we primarily analyse national union responses to immigration and migrant workers, in terms of formal debate and strategy. The aim is to explore how the unions deal with the representation and inclusion of migrant workers, and the extent to which their strategies correspond to coherent logics of actions. Hence for each national case we primarily underline those strategies that have been the most important among those observed.
The Netherlands: Developing equality and inclusion through social regulation
The Dutch system of industrial relations has been marked by a high degree of consensus, cooperation and coordination among the ‘social partners’ of organized capital, organized labour, and the democratic state (Hemerijck, 1995). There are two main ‘corporatist’ institutions, the bipartite Stichting van de Arbeid and the tripartite Sociaal-Economische Raad. Trade unions thus enjoy stable recognition by counterparties that is ‘not dependent on actual membership, a show of strike power, certification or elections’ (Visser, 2002: 413). This system helped the formation of centralized trade unions that remained important actors despite a certain decline in union membership (from 38 percent in 1975 to 19 percent in 2009) (Visser, 2011). Although data on the unionization of migrant workers are not available, the rate is much lower than among Dutch nationals. This would confirm that ‘by enhancing the institutional security of unions and their leaders, and by establishing a quasi-monopoly of union representation, corporatism intentionally diminishes the need for unions to prove their strength through mobilization and lowers the political and organization incentives for union recruitment’ (Ebbinghaus and Visser, 1999: 145); and that ‘political and institutional supports’ for trade unions diminish the incentive to ‘organize the unorganized, build coalitions with other groups, or give support to grass-roots initiatives’ (Baccaro et al., 2003: 121). In part this could be because the experience of migration – dating from Dutch colonialism – has been more settled and organized by the state, with integration needs dealt with through welfare policy and not direct representation.
Other studies confirm the weakness of past recruitment and organizing initiatives for migrant workers (Marino, 2012; Roosblad, 2000). Until recently, action by the main Dutch union, Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV), towards workers with foreign backgrounds has mainly aimed to improve their conditions in the labour market and within the union itself. Both strategies have a strong top-down nature. The union has negotiated several agreements within bipartite and tripartite bodies, to be implemented at sectoral and company levels, to improve their education and employability, especially for young minority workers, and at promoting their recruitment by firms. The FNV has also supported the campaign ‘Equal Work for Equal Pay’, launched by one of its largest affiliates, the private sector FNV-Bondgenoten.
Diversity has been, and remains, the most important policy framework for initiatives related to migrants and ethnic minorities (as well as towards women and young workers). Special policies have been adopted both to stimulate diversity within the union movement and to encourage employers to support and respect the interests and rights of an increasingly diversified workforce. Several initiatives have been planned to increase the participation of people with foreign backgrounds within the union. FNV-Bondgenoten and the public sector FNV-AbvaKabo, for instance, have produced a brochure designed to increase migrant employees’ involvement in works councils. At central level, two projects have been introduced to increase ethnic minority women in top union positions, resulting in 20 ethnic minority women in middle management positions. FNV has recently been training 25 ethnic minority ‘top women’ for positions on the executive boards of affiliated unions. FNV has also organized 50 information meetings in collaboration with immigrants’ organizations; furthermore, it has successfully lobbied for lifting unnecessary restrictions for elderly immigrants who receive social assistance.
Most of these policies were developed at confederal level by special advisory bodies and departments and then transmitted to affiliates. Other initiatives were developed directly by affiliated unions but, again, within central departments. Although addressed at migrant and ethnic minority workers, such policies did not envision their direct participation in the development and implementation processes. Such actions alone could not increase the participation and unionization of migrant workers.
This became a central issue at the 2005 FNV Congress, when questions of representativeness, union democracy, workplace relations and participation were debated, influencing also the stances taken towards ethnic minority workers. The concept of diversity was challenged by ‘internationalist’ declarations on the need to create more room for ethnic minorities and to recruit them. In April 2005, FNV published the results of a desk study on union innovations in a report entitled De vakbeweging van de toekomst: Lessen uit het buitenland (The Trade Union Movement of the Future: Lessons from Abroad). The declared intent was to help Dutch unions to ‘redefine themselves’, asserting the importance of ‘organizing’ new groups of people, among which were ethnic minorities and immigrant workers.
Such an approach was embraced especially by FNV-Bondgenoten, the most militant affiliate. In 2007 it launched a campaign in the cleaning industry for a wage of €10 an hour and for ‘respectful’ treatment by employers. The campaign was based on the ‘organizing model’ of the American ‘Justice for Janitors’ movement, and was launched at a meeting at Schiphol Airport attended by 500 cleaners. Organizing committees were created in Maastricht, The Hague, Utrecht and at Schiphol Airport, and migrants’ organizations, churches, mosques, social movement groups and others pledged their support. A combination of grassroots organizing, direct action and broad coalitions applied pressure on employers and their contractors. The union concentrated substantial resources in the sector and also encouraged self-organization and the formation of workplace leaders. In early 2008, cleaners reached an agreement on higher wages, vocational training, language courses and a more transparent collective agreement.
The campaign culminated in prolonged strike action in 2010 – the longest Dutch strike since the 1930s – concentrated in key areas, mainly the airports and railways. The campaign resulted in improved working conditions for the cleaning sector and led to the development of a core of union organizers in FNV-Bondgenoten and has inspired follow-up actions in other sectors such as domestic work, agriculture and retail industry. Furthermore, it has inspired other unions, including FNV-AbvaKabo, to adopt an organizing approach in the workplace.
This campaign, though successful, raised tensions within Dutch trade unions. First, more confrontational strategies threatened the traditionally cooperative relations between unions and employers. Second, organizing campaigns have concentrated on low-wage work, and it has been difficult for unions to transfer organizing into more traditional areas, such as nursing or ports. Nevertheless, the organizing approach has become officially accepted, and other FNV affiliates have initiated projects to promote union presence and activism at local level.
How far organizing principles will promote cultural and organizational changes in the Dutch labour movement remains an open question. Traditionally, Dutch unions have built their responses to migrant and ethnic minorities by acting as agent of social regulation and by considering such workers as ‘target groups’ because of their foreign background. Formal and informal agreements reached within corporatist bodies as well as diversity initiatives aimed at promoting inclusion and anti-discrimination are examples of that logic of action. By contrast, the introduction of organizing constitutes a movement from the ‘logic of influence’ to the ‘logic of membership’ (Schmitter and Streeck, 1981), requiring Dutch unions to include ‘class’ in its logic of action.
Spain: Direct and indirect solidarity through class and the state
During the 1990s the Spanish labour market began to change, with an ageing workforce, increasing participation by women and rapid immigration. Unemployment had rarely been below 15 percent in the first 25 years of the new democracy, but female participation remained low (an employment rate of 30% in 1990, compared to an EU average of 50%). In the 1990s, sectors such as construction, agriculture and hospitality turned to immigrant labour. Under the dictatorship, Spain had a relatively closed labour market; indeed the regime prioritized emigration as a means of reducing unemployment. Before 1990 the level of immigration remained one of the lowest in Europe, and trade unions continued to focus on emigration; questions of race and ethnicity rarely arose in union discourse. But thereafter, immigration from North Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe brought a new workforce to key urban areas and agricultural towns. This process was largely disorganized, raising concerns that the new worker constituencies were disconnected from the formal industrial relations structures.
The two main unions, Comisiones Obreros (CCOO) and Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT), encountered a range of exploitative employment practices, health and safety hazards and low pay levels affecting immigrants. The problems were particularly acute in smaller firms, which constitute a significant part of the Spanish economy and often ignore statutory regulations and collective agreements. Spanish unions had developed internal organizational structures for emigrants, and began steadily to develop these into the organizational portal for immigration issues. A new, though small cadre of immigrant trade unionists began to develop within these structures and helped press their unions to build up a strategy to address the situation of migrant workers. Union materials for the four-yearly elections to the comités de empresa began to raise issues of concern to migrant workers, and were published in languages such as Polish, Romanian and Arabic. Formal structural changes include the transformation of the former emigrant sections into immigrant secretariats, though in the main dominated by ‘indigenous’ Spaniards, and the more recent redefinition of union employment departments as employment and immigration departments. Our research showed that many of those involved in these structures are women, previously active in the social and women’s sections of their unions; this suggests that equality politics in one area of the union can help sustain and support initiatives in another.
The unions have become involved in a variety of national and local tripartite bodies. The national bodies, comprising unions, employers and immigrant organizations are involved in a range of discussions with the government on immigration flows, labour market requirements and social policy. These have facilitated dialogue between unions and immigrant organizations, although the latter have varied in their resources and strategic focus. Discussions with the government have resulted in a range of agreements on the subject of immigration, though how effective these have been is disputed. These have been paralleled by increased union involvement in regional and local government forums, particularly in agricultural areas where immigration has become a vital feature of the labour market. Such tripartite bodies exist in regions as diverse as Castilla-La Mancha and Aragon. They engage with social issues such as citizenship, housing and education, and employment policies and institutions. The unions also use such bodies to propagate the role of collective bargaining and national and provincial agreements within these sectors. These tripartite bodies are normally propelled politically by a desire to avoid social exclusion and in particular social conflict, which has taken the form of various xenophobic incidents. Hence these structures allow the trade unions to influence the regulatory control of employers with immigrant workforces and to influence public policy – although the outcomes are not always consistent.
Unions have also developed a network of information offices and centres throughout virtually every major Spanish city. They are normally located in local union offices and act as a first port of call for immigrants, providing a range of information services relating to employment, citizenship, social rights and housing. These are not immigrant-led offices, though trade unionists from an immigrant background may be involved. Though many immigrant centres and law firms focus on similar activity, none can compare to the sheer breadth of the union network, which is far more extensive than in most European nations. One of the features of this new form of engagement with immigrants is that the state provides much the funding, and the unions are expected to keep clear records of their activities. There can be up to half a dozen people working in various capacities in such centres, although numbers vary between offices.
Our research covered a selection of cities in the centre and north of Spain (Madrid, Toledo, Valladolid and Oviedo), with visits to the centres and interviews with their staff and the relevant union officials. These offices were not always located in areas where immigrant communities would reside. A problem with these initiatives – much lauded within the official European trade union movement – is that they tend to be organized as a service provided by a network of professional trade unionists (Martínez Lucio and Connolly, 2012). Hence they do not always play a role in linking immigrants to the main activists of the union and do not really serve as a basis for creating a network of migrant activists – a problem which is increasingly acknowledged.
This raises a challenge for the Spanish labour movement. While both CCOO and UGT work with a class discourse and a state-related approach to social rights in relation to migration, issues of race and ethnicity as a feature of social exclusion have been marginalized; anti-racist initiatives at work and in society were not a priority. Many interviewees argued that the problems facing immigrants are related to the nature of the labour market in general, viewing exploitation in mainly class terms. Immigrants were exploited because of their precarious employment status and inadequate social inclusion mechanisms in society. This perspective has also been reflected in the lack of systematic attempts to create immigrant activist networks, although there is an emerging body of immigrants within the union and also activists who develop their own informal networks. Many interviewees argued that the British model of black workers’ sections would lead to separatism, and was inappropriate given low levels of activism within immigrant communities. Training of a specialist nature for such groups is not deemed necessary, as the objective is to have any individuals engaged into the mainstream of trade union education. Alliances and inclusion are considered to be best arranged around the role of representatives from immigrant communities who can connect with them on a ‘like-for-like’ basis, and formal alliances with organizations within such communities through periodic meetings and mutual exchanges of information.
United Kingdom: Equality and migrant worker engagement without collective rights
In the UK we can identify two main phases of post-war migration. During the post-1945 boom many residents of the former colonies – primarily from the Caribbean, later from India and Pakistan – were encouraged to come to fill jobs that indigenous workers were reluctant to take (Castles and Kosack, 1973), particularly in hospitals and transport. From 1962, increasingly strict immigration controls were imposed, mainly in response to growing racist pressure. During this period, British unions supported (or failed to oppose) racist immigration laws, and often tolerated racist practices by their own officials and representatives. Official policy was that immigrants were workers like any others, and that special arrangements would be divisive. Debates on immigration and trade unions were, initially, concerned with institutional readjustment. That is to say, in the early stages the focus was on whether institutions of regulation and representation such as trade unions could adjust to the needs and demands of immigrants – and whether immigrants could adjust to the organizational and political culture of the labour movement.
From the early 1970s, black and Asian workers led a number of high-profile strikes against discriminatory employment practices, at times against official trade union resistance. Partly in response to these disputes, and reflecting the growth of a cadre of black trade union activists with their own informal structures, many unions began to develop anti-racist policies and practice. In the public sector in particular, high union density and a large number of ethnic minority workers facilitated the growth of self-representation within workplaces and union structures. After 1979, the decline in trade union power and status forced a ‘radicalization’ of policy; as power and involvement in the collective regulation of work has declined, unions have recognized need for a more inclusive strategy. In the early 1980s the Trades Union Congress began to produce educational and training materials on equal opportunities and racism, and also worked with the Commission for Racial Equality in the production of a Code of Practice. However, hostility to ethnic minorities in the 1980s was still very evident: not so much in official discrimination but in the material disadvantage experienced (Grint, 1998).
In the 1980s, increasing numbers of unions established separate committees or structures to deal with race relations and/or equal opportunities issues, and adopted equal opportunities policies and anti-racist statements. Many unions created national officers to take responsibility for issues affecting black members, for encouraging participation and furthering equal opportunities. A survey of 21 unions (Wrench and Virdee, 1996) found that 10 had a national committee dealing with race equality issues and nearly two-thirds had taken positive steps such as targeting workplaces, organizing conferences for black members and producing recruitment literature in minority ethnic languages.
In the second phase of migration, from 1990 to the present day, there has been a strong upward trend in net immigration from Europe, which intensified from 2004 when the UK opened its borders to nationals of the EU accession countries. This period saw the steady evolution of equality strategies (Davis et al., 2006; Wrench, 1996), but also increased emphasis on organizing and learning as a way of engaging new migrant workers, who were located in less unionized sectors and often little understanding of industrial relations and the trade union movement. In 1998 the UK government established the Union Learning Fund, which has funded trade union provision of training and education, creating a channel for talking to migrant workers about union membership. Initiatives have included learning centres to help the most vulnerable groups of workers with basic training. English-language courses have attracted new migrant workers into union membership. However, as one of our interviewees pointed out, participation in the union is usually short-term, often because many work in precarious conditions, often for subcontractors and with unsupportive managers. On the whole, the use of union learning as an organizing device has tended to be fragmented and piecemeal.
There have been many organizing campaigns designed to represent the interests of migrant workers; for example, the main public sector union UNISON established a Migrant Worker Participation Project; and the large general union UNITE, a Migrant Worker Support Unit. Both projects were funded by the Union Modernisation Fund (UMF), a government-funded grant scheme established in 2005 to provide financial assistance to union projects that contribute to a transformational change in the organizational effectiveness of a union. Some unions have made migrant workers a key target of their organizing campaigns, focusing on those sections of the labour market that have seen the largest rise in migrant workers over the last decade. Yet integration into the wider union is as yet only tentative. The GMB general union has faced bitter internal debate over the decision to organize Polish workers in Southampton into a separate sub-branch, on the grounds that a self-organizing space was necessary. UNITE has faced less opposition, perhaps because there has been a long-established ‘international catering branch’ (established in 1972 for migrant workers) and the internal branch structures work differently in this union (Turnbull, 2005).
British unions and community organizations have adopted a variety of policies to encourage diversity and support black and minority ethnic groups. These include anti-racist campaigns and recruitment and representation campaigns aimed at workers confronted by the injustices of racism. Increasingly, workplace representatives are trained to deal with such issues and to broaden the questions they deal with, partly through the development of trade union equality officers. This has been supplemented by greater attention to the organizational strategies of firms and political campaigning against far-right groups. Social inclusion and anti-racist strategies are being steadily developed, which puts trade unions in a new light within communities and workplaces. The Living Wage Campaign in London is a key example of unions and community organizations working together to improve conditions for a mainly migrant group of workers. The campaign was launched in 2001 by London Citizens, an umbrella group of community organizations, voluntary groups and trade unions, and has spread from hospitals to the finance houses of Canary Wharf and the City to universities, art galleries and hotels. It secured living wage agreements covering new jobs at the London Olympics (Wills, 2004).
Despite clear evidence that British trade unions have become much more oriented to working with migrant workers, most activity is still at an early stage and is very piecemeal. Moreover, unions are cautious, indeed wary, of working outside their own structures and have been actively opposed to ‘alternative’ worker organizations for migrants on the lines of the ‘workers’ centers’ in the USA. There have been internal political tensions within unions about whether to support movements such as London Citizens, and what role the union should play in these campaigns. Indeed the Living Wage Campaign reflects weaknesses in the trade union movement in relation to collective rights and regulation. The limited involvement and influence in the collective regulation of the employment relationship compared to other European countries, such as the Netherlands and Spain, have meant that bodies such as community groups have often been the drivers of campaigns for migrant workers’ rights. The London Living Wage Campaign has been an attempt to achieve greater regulation, and employers and the government were forced to listen. However, as Howell (2007) has argued, whilst there is some state support for individual rights in the UK, there is far less support for collective rights.
Our research shows that the trade union movement has had some success engaging with migrant workers in the workplace, through organizing and learning strategies, and has also undertaken campaigns around for the rights and status of black and minority ethnic workers within trade unions and in the workplace. However, much of the activity relies on particular sets of circumstances, such as a strong regional union branch, dedicated union officers or external funding. Without broader coordinated action, long-term strategies towards greater collective regulation and greater support from the state, much of the work done by British unions, which is often more progressive than other countries, remains small-scale, fragmented and rests on precarious foundations.
The geometry of trade union responses to migration
One way of explaining the developments discussed above would be to relate them to the regulatory context of trade union activity. This would allow us to explain why unions in the UK have been more concerned with ‘bottom-up’ initiatives linked to worker representation, self-organization and recruitment. In addition, the lack of extensive engagement with government may reflect an absence of state support for union representation and resources. In the Netherlands there has been a deeper tradition of formal social dialogue at national level. This has encouraged the development of a state-oriented discourse of multicultural policies and welfarism, involving unions more closely than in Britain which has a similar set of policies in relation to ethnicity. In Spain the system of industrial relations has a dual expression with ‘traditional’ class trade unionism, linked to narratives of class solidarity, balanced by a more strategic link to the state; while not as embedded as the Dutch model, this has various neo-corporatist characteristics.
However, our analysis adds a dynamic dimension to this ‘path-dependent’ narrative. Drawing on the evidence presented above, we can place the three union movements within the triangular representation of union strategies and resources, as we illustrate in Figure 1. We have observed that trade unions’ logic of action and strategy have tended to coalesce around two points of the triangle. The missing logic – either relating to class, race or social rights – represents the weak point in each context. Hence we argue that the union’s position along one of the dimension of the triangle implies that the opposite pole is the challenge (the gap) that the union have to face.
In the Netherlands, the empirical data show that trade unions have focused on their traditional role of engaging in tripartite bargaining in order to develop collective and social rights and institutional regulation. At the same time, they have developed strategies around equality and diversity and have developed links with communities. We can therefore place trade unions between race/ethnicity/community and social rights/social and institutional regulation. However, what we also see emerging is that there have been tensions and pressures on the dominant framing logic (social rights and regulation, and race and ethnicity) and instruments of action (institutional social partnership and community engagement). With low membership and participation among migrant workers, unions in some sectors (including cleaning, retail, agriculture and domestic work) have been moving towards class as a framing logic. Rather than focusing on the specific issue of the migrant or ethnic minority status of the predominant groups of workers in this sector, union activists have been framing their action by using a class-based approach, engaging in direct action and mobilizing workers around frames of injustice and exploitation (which also reflects awareness of US-style organizing campaigns).
In Spain, the dominant framing logic has been around class and social rights: unions have viewed the issue of migrant workers as part of a broader class-based approach to representing workers. The dominant mode of action has been the union role as an institutional/social actor through involvement in tripartite bodies, and also developing workplace activity through elections and mobilizing. What begins to emerge is that with the lack of focus on specific questions of race and ethnicity, there is a lack of attention to the distinctive forms of exploitation and racism experienced by migrant workers. Even though there has been engagement with migrant workers through the service-driven information centres, there has not been an integration of race or ethnic minority issues within the broader trade union movement. The missing link in the Spanish approach has been in terms of engaging with the community and focusing on specific issues relating to race and ethnicity.
In the UK, the dominant frame of reference for trade unions has been around class and race/ethnicity, hence we can place the UK between these two points of the triangle. We see that the dominant modes of action have been community engagement and integration of ethnic minorities within the trade union movement (such as black worker self-organizing), alongside an engagement with recruitment and workplace-based representation of migrant workers. Whilst this approach has had some success and has recognized the specific sets of issues experienced by migrant workers and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, the lack of state support for collective rights and regulation has been a major challenge for trade unions. Without the development of social regulation, the unions’ approach remains fragmented. The London Living Wage has emerged as a campaign which reorients the trade union movement towards establishing collective rights and social regulation.
Discussion and conclusion
Different national trade union responses to migration may reflect regulatory structures and industrial relations traditions. These may give rise to different ways in which unions work with the state, employers, their members and the migrant worker community. In consequence, different institutional and political paths may be followed. However, we have tried to think through these differences. In our analysis, we observe that although different responses to migration to a certain extent reflect the specific regulatory contexts and hence involve a certain degree of path-dependency, unions have an active role in building up their own strategies and responding to these external factors. Our proposed model identifies three dominant responses to migration that have emerged from our research, those around ‘class’, ‘race’ and ‘social rights’. We have observed, following Hyman, that the responses of trade unions often shift between two points on a triangle. From our analysis, what emerges is that the weakness or limitation of responses in each context reflects the missing point on the triangle. If we assume that trade unions face in three directions, and that their responses have tended to coalesce around two points of the triangle, the missing response – either relating to class, race or social rights – represents the weak point. This shapes how trade unions frame questions of migration and the underlying logics of their responses towards migrant workers.
We have been able to understand the gaps that exist within trade union perspectives and how these vary across countries: how in some cases the absence of a state role limits union resources, how the absence of a direct representation of migrants minimizes their capacity for voice, and how institutionalized approaches may lead to a disconnection from migrants’ work situations.
In some cases these gaps have configured the way internal differences and debates are shaped. We suggest that trade union renewal strategies have been devised in part to seek a balance between the different faces of union strategy and traditions, filling the gaps in institutional, mobilizing and social terms. The analysis of our research findings through the triangular model has been a useful ‘test’ of its descriptive power. We are aware that our model oversimplifies reality and that many limitations inevitably arise from its use. For instance, the ways in which ‘class’, ‘race and ethnicity’ and ‘social rights’ are understood and defined in each country are different, as well as the ways in which strategies are translated into effective measures and actions. We are also aware that in each country, the strategies of some trade unions are more clearly focused than others on race and ethnicity (and migration); but we argue that the debate on migration and trade unions is, or should be, part of a broader reflection of the link between worker constituencies, employment rights and trade union strategy and action. The strategies highlight or conceal, but still address, questions of migration; but in a variety of forms.
Our model has helped to interpret our findings from a comparative perspective. The analysis of current developments in each country has also confirmed the tendency of trade unions, engaged with the issue of renewal, to move towards the neglected apex of the triangle in an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of existing approaches. The move towards organizing by the Dutch unions, despite their strong corporatist traditions, provides a good example.
The next step for comparative research is to analyse why each case occupies a specific position within the triangle. We have observed that different responses to migration to a certain extent reflect the different regulatory contexts and involve a degree of path-dependency; but that unions retain an active role in developing their strategies. This is particularly the case if we break down the analysis to specific sectors (for example, organizing in the service sector in the Netherlands) or regions (the Living Wage Campaign in London). The explanatory variables underlined by the literature either overlap or complement each other. Contextual variables including social and economic factors, institutional frameworks, the positions of governments and employers’ associations, and political rhetoric certainly influence trade union responses towards migrant workers. However, such influence is mediated by a set of union-internal factors such as organizational resources (the presence of decentralized representative structures or strong institutional power) and historical legacies (also including union identity) that determine the specific framing logic. These arguments need to be developed in future work.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Stefania Marino is currently funded by an ESRC Future Research Leader fellowship.
Funding
The research was funded by the Leverhulme Trust.