Stepping up to strike: a union mobilization case study of Polish migrant workers in the Netherlands

Introduction

As a result of European integration, persistent wage differences within the EU and the increase in flexible and precarious forms of employment, a considerable share of the workforce in western European countries consists of temporary migrant workers. Many of these workers are in low-paid, insecure jobs in sectors with weak or non-existent union presence (Wills et al., 2010; Milkman, 2006; Alberti et al., 2013). Working segregated from native workers, they are often subject to less favourable employment conditions than their native counterparts. Still, the share of migrant workers holding union membership remains low due to short job tenures at particular workplaces, unfamiliarity with local institutional structures and collective actors, language barriers and the fear of being dismissed for union activities (Schmidt, 2006; Berntsen and Lillie, 2014). Unions have had successes representing, organizing and including immigrants in their ranks (see Milkman, 2006; Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010; Eldring et al., 2012; Connolly et al., 2011), but the increasing share of flexible workers from abroad, who have neither the intention nor the possibility (yet) of settling in the country or job where they work, remains a group that trade unions regularly fail to reach.

Against this background, this article discusses the case of a union mobilization of Polish migrants working on temporary agency contracts in Dutch supermarket distribution centres (hereafter ‘DCs’). In this sector the share of agency workers increased in some workplaces to 50 per cent over the last 10 years. These workers are often considered difficult to organize due to their precarious contractual status, a type of zero-hours contract that provides no job security. The mobilization discussed here consists of a small protest action by Polish workers that later developed into a collective strike action by Polish and Dutch ¹ workers and is embedded within a union organizing campaign in the distribution sector. The case shows the possibilities and limitations for unions to organize within contractually fragmented workforces through building solidarities within and between these groups. Especially challenging in this regard is establishing common interests between contractually different groups and finding ways to represent differential interests within existing union structures.

Where many studies on migrant organizing focus on union efforts to frame collective issues, this study adds a micro-level account of the dynamics of mobilizing, from the point of view of the experiences of migrants and organizers involved (Alberti, 2014: 5). Even though mobilizing efforts cannot be directly transposed to other institutional contexts, as they are always tailored to specific characteristics of a group of workers, and the national and sectoral context (Keune, 2013; Gumbrell-McCormick, 2011; Krings, 2009), this case has relevance as an example of a migrant mobilization within fragmented workplaces. As such, this study provides insights into the factors that may facilitate and limit the mobilization process and contributes to the extension of the theoretical and empirical literature (Snow and Trom, 2002) on organizing migrants (Milkman, 2006; Alberti et al., 2013) and contingent workers (Jenkins, 2013; Simms and Dean, 2014). More specifically, it shows the importance of key actors in building up solidarities within a group and between contractually different groups of workers. The case discussed here is of particular relevance as the share of (migrant) workers temporarily employed in precarious conditions continues to rise and work patterns and workforces become increasingly fragmented (Kalleberg, 2009). This study has wider implications for unions seeking new responses to changes in employment practices to represent the interests of workers that otherwise tend to remain outside established union structures.

Mobilizing temporary migrant workers

Trade unions have responded in a variety of ways to the presence of insecure, temporary migrant workers (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000; Eldring et al., 2012; Milkman, 2006; Heery, 2009; Gumbrell-McCormick, 2011; Keune, 2013). Heery (2009) distinguishes four different trade union approaches to contingent workers, ranging from exclusion to acceptance in a subordinate position, acceptance on the basis of equal treatment with workers in permanent employment and acceptance through ‘engagement’ (Heery, 2009: 430). The latter approaches entail union policies or initiatives to represent the specific and differentiated needs of contingent workers. Similar union responses have been identified with regard to migrant labour (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000). When trade unions represent migrant interests, they may do so on an inclusive basis of equal treatment or through a ‘particularistic’ approach (Alberti et al., 2013: 4139). Particularistic approaches are similar to Heery’s engagement responses, only particularistic responses address the differentiated interests of migrants. Examples of the latter are the establishment of special union branches for migrant or contingent workers (Greer et al., 2013; James and Karmowska, 2012; Simms and Dean, 2014). Studies show that by adjusting organizing efforts to match the interests and life worlds of non-organized contingent and/or migrant workers, unions are more effective in engaging them in union activities (Jenkins, 2013; Alberti et al., 2013; Milkman, 2006). In the case discussed here, the union first approached the Polish agency workers in a worker-centred and flexible manner, to engage with their interests and guide them into collective action. After this, the union approach became more inclusive when Polish and Dutch workers went on a joint strike.

Contingent workers generally have, due to the short-term nature of their employment contracts, low commitment to a particular workplace. Therefore, unions have scaled up interest representation of this group beyond the workplace level by moving from enterprise unionism to industrial and occupational unionism (Milkman, 2006; Heery, 2009; Simms and Dean, 2014; Benassi and Dorrigatti, 2014). In the cleaning sector, in different national contexts, organizing drives succeeded in building up solidarity among predominantly (im)migrant workers on subcontracted and agency contracts to fight for improved employment conditions (Milkman, 2006; Connolly et al., 2011). Not only have unions extended the scale of organizing, some have also extended the scope of organizing via coalition-building with community organizations, social movements, etc., and by campaigning for non-work related issues such as human rights, for instance (Milkman, 2006; Alberti et al., 2013; Holgate, 2011). The mobilization discussed here was embedded in a sector-wide organizing campaign in the Dutch supermarket distribution sector, and in order to engage Polish workers in union activities, the union considered and addressed non-workplace issues too.

An obstacle to unionization in workplaces with a contractually fragmented workforce is that divergent terms and conditions of employment create differences in interests between contingent and non-contingent workers. This complicates building up solidarities, especially when workers perform similar jobs in a particular workplace. Leadership and appeals to solidarity from the union side are frequently important to convince members and union officials of the need to include contingent workers (MacKenzie, 2010; Gumbrell-McCormick, 2011; Simms and Dean, 2014). In addition, workplace leaders are often essential as well in setting a mobilization process in motion (see Milkman and Wong, 2000; Simms and Dean, 2014), and for shaping people’s definitions of interests and promoting a generally felt sense of injustice (see Fantasia, 1988; Batstone et al., 1978).

The case discussed in this article provides insights into a mobilization process of migrant agency workers. It is argued that building up solidarities within this group as well as between this and another group was important for the mobilization to develop (see also the mobilization analysis of contingent workers by Simms and Dean (2014)). Kelly (1998) distinguishes different processes involved in workers’ mobilization. An important element is a collective sense of injustice: workers need to perceive their interests as collective and as opposed to the interest of a specific actor, usually management. When workers frame problems as an injustice, it detaches (groups of) workers from loyalty to their employer, creating opportunities for collective action (Kelly, 1998: 29; Blyton and Jenkins, 2012). ² The process of social identification and collective interest formation is central to solidarity-building. Solidarity is something that is ‘created and expressed by the process of mutual association’ (Fantasia, 1988: 11, emphasis in original), and thus not something that simply exists (Simms and Dean, 2014: 3). Solidarity-building is enhanced when workers share a commonality of experience, for instance when they perform a similar job, share a common social position, or live in the same geographical area (Blyton and Jenkins, 2012: 27). A shared experience of marginalization at work may also enhance feelings of solidarity among migrants (Milkman, 2006). Though solidarity-building within groups is important, workers may also form alliances with other groups in their fight against management (Simms and Dean, 2014: 4). In this article’s case, solidarity was first built up among a group of Polish agency workers and this was later extended between Polish and Dutch workers. Furthermore, alliances were formed with distribution workers from other supermarket chains.

Research methods

This article is based on qualitative research conducted between 2012 and 2013. The main data originate from interviews with workers, union officials and management at three different DCs of the two largest Dutch supermarket chains. This article focuses on the mobilization of Polish workers from one of the DCs of the largest Dutch supermarket chain by the trade union FNV Bondgenoten. ³

Most of the workers subject to this study were accommodated by their employer in a bungalow park and some had arranged private housing. Contact with the workers was made after their first mobilization effort, a protest action in January 2013, during a victory celebration in the beginning of February. In March, Polish and Dutch workers went on strike and several workers involved were interviewed about these collective efforts. Most conversations were conducted in Polish with the assistance of a translator and some in English or Dutch. In this article, pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the workers. This material was supplemented with union interviews as well as media documentation from, among others, a website where the union reported campaign activities. The data were coded and analysed thematically using qualitative data analysis software.

Dutch industrial relations

The Netherlands is considered a corporatist model of industrial relations, with a strong tradition of social partnership. Dutch trade unions have a firm institutional position, even though the organizational density is around 20 per cent. Collective agreement coverage on the other hand is high, at around 85 per cent, due to the practice of legal extension of collective agreements. In general, strike activity is low. If strikes occur, it is usually when a collective agreement has expired and efforts to negotiate a new one have failed (Visser, 1998: 276). ⁴ This was also the case with the strike discussed here.

The main trade union confederation is the social democratic Dutch Federation of Trade Unions (FNV, Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging) with almost 1.4 million members among its affiliates. FNV Bondgenoten, a multi-industrial union, is its largest affiliate. ⁵ Dutch trade unionism is known for its servicing character, but initiatives to organize have increased over the last decade. FNV Bondgenoten has, for instance, completed successful campaigns organizing (immigrant) cleaners (Connolly et al., 2011). Union representation has, however, traditionally been weak at the workplace level. Union policy is to include and organize temporary and immigrant workers, especially in the low-wage service sectors (Kloosterboer, 2007; Boonstra et al., 2010). The idea is that actively organizing solidarity between different groups of workers on the basis of shared interest avoids the undermining of union power (Kloosterboer, 2007: 27).

In sectors where union presence is weak, firms’ use of flexible labour expanded during the 2000s (Boonstra et al., 2010). Though Dutch union policy is to regulate temporary employment by collective agreements and law, unions have seen collective agreements increasingly ‘turned into instruments of flexibilization instead of reduction of flexibility’ (Keune, 2013: 71). In particular, the temporary agency sector, which is the primary employer of eastern European migrant workers in the Netherlands (Gijsberts and Lubbers, 2013), has experienced an increase in law-evading agencies that offer workers lower pay, long working hours and poor working conditions.

The regulation and organization of Polish agency workers in the supermarket distribution centres

The share of flexible employment in the Dutch supermarket DCs increased from 20 per cent in 2004/2005 to around 50 per cent in 2013 (FNV, 2013b). From the 5000 workers employed at the DCs of the largest Dutch supermarket, around 2200 are agency workers and 1000 work on temporary (part-time) contracts. More than two-thirds of the agency workers are Polish (FNV, 2013a; 2013b). In the previous 10 years, according to a shop steward, no (or hardly any) new permanent workers were hired, while the percentage of flexible workers increased steadily (interview February 2013). According to the union, ‘agency and temporary employment are used by [these] companies … to exert downward pressure on Dutch wage and security standards’ (FNV, 2013b: 21).

The DCs work with ‘in-house’ services of agency firms, where the agency supplies and manages the flexible workforce for a period of one or two years. Every one or two years, the supermarket selects one or more agencies through a bidding procedure to supply the flexible workforce. Not all Polish workers find employment in the Netherlands; many are recruited via subsidiary branches of the agencies in Poland and then sent to work in the Netherlands. Some work on a ‘posted’ basis when they have a formal contract with the Polish subsidiary branch; others are employed on Dutch-based agency contracts.

Agency workers work in the DCs as order pickers, whereas direct (Dutch) employees perform a variety of tasks as warehouse workers. As order pickers, their job is solely to retrieve products from the warehouse, a standardized and individualized job. Order pickers wear a headset that informs them which products to retrieve. This system is available in Polish. Some of the workers jokingly refer to the female Polish voice in their headset as ‘Kasia’. ⁶ Not only is there a division of labour between the agency and direct workforce at the DCs, the Polish workers also spent their breaks in separate canteens, limiting the interactions between the different groups of workers to a minimum. This may be an employer strategy to divide and rule, separating the workforce deliberately to keep them from developing common interests.

The agency sector is regulated by a sectoral collective agreement with a periodical system, ranging from phase A to C. ⁷ Polish workers tend to remain employed in phase A, the most precarious, for many years, because employers use a clause in the collective agreement to continuously reset the length of employment. The collective agreement specifies that phase A may last a maximum of 78 weeks, unless a worker does not work for a client firm for 26 weeks, in which case the length of employment resets. When Polish workers have reached the maximum number of weeks in phase A, employers send them away for half a year until they can be rehired on another phase A contract. Phase A contracts provide no guarantee on the number of working hours per week, are of short duration and can be dissolved easily, whereas in phase B employment security increases. Some Polish workers circulate between different supermarket DCs when they have reached the maximum period, others claim three months’ unemployment benefit in the Netherlands during the ‘reset period’ and try to get through the other three months on their savings or by finding a short-term job. The trade union dubbed this practice the ‘Pole-carousel’, as it keeps the Polish working under the most precarious terms and conditions.

The precarious nature of the employment conditions of phase A agency workers complicates union efforts to represent this particular group:

‘It is challenging, let me put it like that. It is a very difficult group, because they have no protection at all. Normally, people have their contracts, even if these are temporary, to protect them from being fired like that. These people can be let go every day. That makes our work more challenging.’ (interview union organizer, June 2013)

‘I think the unions are only for people with permanent contracts. They have more rights and these are written down in their contracts. We also have contracts, but these are contracts with which they [the employer] can dump us at any moment in time. So no, I don’t think the unions can do much for agency workers.’ (Tomek, January 2013)

Many of the Polish DC workers are indecisive about their length of stay in the Netherlands. The FNV estimates that around one-third of them will stay in the Netherlands on a more permanent basis, one-third will return to Poland in the near future and one-third are undecided and could choose either option. In organizing them, the union aims to focus on the first and latter categories of workers (interviews union officials, 2013). On a more general level, Engbersen and colleagues (2011) estimate that amongst contemporary migrants from Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, almost 80 per cent reside in the Netherlands on a more or less temporary basis. ⁸

The campaign in the distribution centres: a short overview

The organizing campaign in the DCs (2009–2013) targeted the two largest supermarkets. It campaigned against the increased flexibility of employment contracts and for more respect for workers. Though the union intended to include Polish workers in the organizing drive, they experienced little interest among Polish workers to join; they appeared not to trust the union and feared employer retaliation and dismissal. In 2010, the union tried to reach out to this group by focusing on non-work-related issues and forced an agency firm to improve the substandard conditions at one of the accommodation sites for Polish workers, but without further engaging Polish workers in the campaign. The remainder of the campaign then focused on building up stronger shop-floor collectives among the Dutch workforce. Through several smaller-scale, workplace-level actions (‘issue-fights’) during the period 2010–2012, the FNV built up worker strength. Issue-fights were petitions or small actions to change work pressure, payment problems, respect issues, etc. The idea was to reach different groups of workers, such as the Polish workers, by having a well-organized core (interviews union officials, 2012).

In 2013, during the negotiations for a new company collective agreement between the largest Dutch supermarket and the unions FNV and CNV, the FNV campaign entered a different phase. In January, a group of Polish agency workers from one of the DCs protested together with the FNV in front of their workplace for better working and living conditions. In February, the collective bargaining negotiations hit an impasse. ⁹ In March, Dutch and Polish workers went on strike for more employment security and against subcontracting, work pressure and the ‘Pole-carousel’. The strike took place a few weeks before Easter, during one of the peak times for supermarkets. All workers who went on strike were, or had become, union members and received compensation from the union’s strike fund. After one week of striking, the negotiations were back on and a new agreement was concluded. The results were a four-year extension of the severance pay for the Dutch workers, a stop to the Pole-carousel and the opportunity for 200 agency workers to receive direct employment contracts at the supermarket. ¹⁰ Also, the agency firm promised to solve all the problems that the Polish workers faced.

The next two sections analyse in more detail the mobilization process of the Polish agency workers, paying specific attention to the process of solidarity-building within and between groups and the role of leadership.

A small protest action to build within-group solidarity

The mobilization process commenced with Polish workers discussing among themselves the problems they faced related to incorrect payslips and payments. When they addressed these problems at the agency office, many encountered a Polish representative who they felt treated them unfairly and disrespectfully. When they were unable to solve these issues with the agency firm themselves, they approached one of their Polish colleagues who they knew was a union member. They told him about their problems, that many other Polish workers faced the same issues, and that it was not the first time such problems had occurred.

‘A few people came to me knowing that I belong to the trade union. They informed me that the agency firm is cheating Poles in terms of payment. It was about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Then I called [name union organizer] and he told me that they could organize a meeting.’ (Tadek, February 2013)

Tadek, the Polish union member, was an important informal leader in bringing the mobilization attempt forward. He had connections with the shop steward network at the DC and they helped approach the union. Tadek had been a union member when he worked and lived in Poland and joined the Dutch union in 2010. When his colleagues approached him, Tadek contacted the union organizer he knew from when he signed up and they organized a meeting at the bungalow park (where the Polish workers lived) to talk about the grievances. Around 60 Polish workers attended this first meeting. Some were actively persuading other workers to attend this meeting, saying it might help change their situation as well. Tomasz, a worker with a fair knowledge of English, was one of the people persuading others to join the meeting and later became an important go-between for the union and the workers because of his English language skills.

When the union came into the picture, the formation of collective interest and solidarity-building had already started. For the union organizers, the fact that they were approached by Polish workers themselves was unexpected, because their insecure contractual status had prevented most from joining union activities in the past.

‘At this DC there was an acute problem and that’s why so many came to the first meeting. That is actually very special, that doesn’t happen often. Normally, you first need to talk with people, go on home visits and talk with them about the union, what they can do, and try to get the workers ‘action prone’ by inviting them to a meeting when there are some problems. That is how we try to build a group normally.’ (interview union organizer, June 2013)

Although the workers may have had different motivations for joining the collective actions, the commonality of experience from living on the same bungalow park, sharing accommodations and facilities, and suffering from marginalization at work with repeated payment irregularities created feelings of solidarity and convinced them to stand up as a group:

‘No, I didn’t have problems, but I supported them. You have to be in a group, it’s the basics abroad. If everyone’d isolate himself, then everyone could be destroyed.’ (Bartosz, February 2012)

Protesting together built up solidarity within the group of migrant workers and introduced the ones that had no previous union experience to Dutch unionism and the possibilities of collective action. Polish workplace leaders, such as Tadek and Tomasz, were key to constructing solidarity within the group and to establishing and maintaining contact with union organizers. In addition, Dutch shop stewards not only supported the Polish, but also explained to their Dutch colleagues the importance of supporting the Polish workers and pressed matters forward with the union (interviews shop stewards, February and November 2013). In the time leading up to the protest, the union considered the interests of the migrants and involved them in determining the pace of collective action, and thus took a particularistic approach (Alberti et al., 2013). This changed to a more inclusive response in the following phase, when the Polish joined their fight against the agency firm with their Dutch colleagues’ fight for a better collective agreement.

Between group solidarity and a united strike action

Two months after the protest action, the Polish agency workers and Dutch employees went on strike against rising insecurity and work pressure and for a wage increase. Though the objectives for joining the strike activity differed between the agency and direct employees, the union mobilized both groups on the basis of their shared interest to improve the insecure employment position of DC workers. The direct employees campaigned against the supermarket for a better collective agreement and a stop to the increasing use of flexible labour. The Polish workers, on the other hand, mobilized again because of the continuing problems they experienced with the agency firm. Most Polish workers blamed the agency firm for this, not the supermarket. Despite union efforts to convince them of the need to address the supermarket as well in order to achieve more structural changes in their conditions, the majority maintained a loyal attitude towards the supermarket. That the Polish decided to join their fight against the agency with their colleagues’ fight against the supermarket was out of solidarity considerations and because it would strengthen their message. An additional motivation was the possibility of gaining a direct position at the supermarket with more employment security and better working conditions.

‘We [Polish workers] also wanted their [the Dutch workers’] help. We helped them and they helped us. We had our goals, they had their goals. Since we are in one trade union, we need to support each other.’ (Tadek, March 2013)

‘We did it for everyone … Someone could say that I fought only for myself, but really everyone got something from it, so not only people from [this DC] but the whole company.’ (Tomasz, March 2013)

By uniting both groups of workers in industrial action the collective negotiations moved forward, as it allowed the FNV to send out a united message of solidarity towards the supermarket, the agency firm and the media. Although the strike officially targeted both the agency and the supermarket, the supermarket was the one that was more prominently addressed by the union as well as in the media.

During the strike, Polish leadership was again important. When new activities were planned, the union called Tomasz, a worker with English language skills, to spread the word among his Polish colleagues who lived like him at the bungalow park. Tadek and other Polish workers went to several DCs during the strike activities to talk with Polish workers about what they were fighting for and to try to persuade them to join:

‘I was a supporter, I was some sort of person who helped and supported to explain to Poles more directly what we are fighting for exactly. As DC worker, I knew what’s going on so I could explain it more clearly to them. Of course, Pole to Pole, we have a better communication than a Dutch person who says something.’ (Tadek, May 2013)

Shared and conflicting interests

The Dutch and Polish workers mobilized to fight jointly for a more secure position of DC workers in general. However, reflecting back on the mobilization, some Polish workers expressed doubts about their own participation in the strike. They were afraid the union had used them as leverage to bring back the use of flexible labour, which is more in the interests of Dutch workers than theirs. For Polish workers that have the intention of settling in the Netherlands and are able to move into more stable and rewarding employment at the agency or supermarket, the newly concluded collective agreement may work to their favour. The workers that landed a direct contract with the supermarket received a fixed-term contract for one year. A shop steward uttered concerns that these contracts might not be extended after that year and that the more secure employment position would thus only be short-lived (interview November 2013). For workers who intend to work in temporary jobs for some years, who according to union estimates may comprise 30 to 65 per cent of the workers, the changed regulations may limit their possibilities. With the new collective agreement, the time someone can be employed at the supermarket with an insecure phase A agency contract has been set to a maximum of one year. Chances are that agencies will only hire workers for a maximum of one year to avoid having to offer more secure (and expensive) employment conditions.

Within the group of Polish migrants there thus exist different interests and expectations with regards to (temporary) employment in the Netherlands. Also, not all Dutch union members were in favour of ‘their union’ supporting the interests of the Polish. A shop steward mentioned that after the strike, some members resigned from the FNV and instead joined the other union CNV, because the CNV had not participated in the strike (interview November 2013). Dealing with differential interests and opinions within the existing membership base is a general challenge unions face. It is, as one union official called it, the ‘burden of democracy’ (interview October 2013). This challenge, however, becomes more complicated when unions seek to represent the interests of workers with increasingly diverse employment relations.

Conclusion

In the case discussed here, the Dutch union engaged Polish migrants in union activities via a flexible and worker-centred approach, allowing the pace of mobilization to be driven by the workers themselves. This corroborates findings from the UK context, where Alberti and colleagues found that union approaches that consider the specific situation and interests of migrant workers are more likely to actively engage them in union activities (Alberti et al., 2013). The initial build-up of within-group solidarity through a small protest action was also essential for the Polish workers to step up and strike together with their Dutch colleagues. Through exploring the mobilization process from the point of view of the experiences of migrants and union organizers involved, this article shows, in line with Fantasia (1988) and Simms and Dean (2014), the importance of key actors for building within-group solidarity and solidarity between different groups of workers. To the literature on migrant organizing this adds insights on solidarity-building processes among fragmented workforces. The example discussed here shows the possibilities, but also highlights some of the difficulties and limits to mobilizing jointly a fragmented workforce. Especially challenging for unions in this regard is establishing shared interests among workers employed on very different terms and conditions while still finding ways to represent the differentiated interests of migrants within existing union structures.

How unions can represent both established (core-membership) interests and the interests of more mobile workers is a fundamental question unions need to address, as workforces and workplaces are becoming increasingly fragmented and transient. In this case through a worker-centred approach, through key actors that helped build up solidarity and access union structures, and through effective framing during the mobilization process, the union was able to find commonalities of interest between a contractually fragmented workforce. However, it remains to be seen whether Dutch unions will be able to include migrants and their interests in union structures on a more permanent level to make union representation more accessible for this group of workers and improve their position on the Dutch labour market more structurally.