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