Employers, labour and trade unions

Today more than ever, the European Union needs a comprehensive albeit differentiated approach towards legal labour migration, which responds to the varied needs of domestic labour markets and at the same time discourages effectively irregular migration. The segmented structure of domestic labour markets and the demographic deficit of Europe lead to increasing demand for a migrant labour force. This labour force is concentrated in specific sectors, such as cleaning, catering and care jobs for women; and construction, agricultural and semi-skilled manufacturing jobs for men. Such labour shortages are better catered to by a demand-led approach that takes into account the different economic cycles of Member States, their different economies and labour markets, while at the same time responds to long-term sociodemographic processes, including: a. The ageing of European societies; b. The configuration of nuclear families without extended support networks to cover needs for care of children or elderly/disabled people; c. The participation of women in paid work outside the home; d. These trends are irreversible and persist even in periods of economic downturn or weak growth. A flexible albeit proactive regulatory framework that would allow for demand and shortages to drive recruitment of migrant workers, while also being adaptable to territorial and sectorial variations, would be optimal. Of course, the thorny issue also needs to be addressed of how to match flexibility with worker protection from exploitation, setting up a clear and realistic set of rights and duties for both employer and employee. A framework sectorial approach can be tested in niche sectors such as domestic work or agriculture, complementing existing directives regulating training, research, students, intracompany transferees, highskill migrants and seasonal employment.

'This project aims to develop and test an analytical framework for the understanding of the changing relations between national trade unions and migrant workers in host European countries, looking at a national context particularly affected by recent intra-European immigration (UK) and expanding on a previous comparative study on Italy and the Netherlands carried out by the applicant in her doctoral research. The proposed research consists of a two-level analysis: a “between-sectors” level (metalworking, construction and care industries within the UK) and a “between-nations” level (comparison of the UK with the previously studied Italy and the Netherlands). The analysis addresses three main aspects: factors influencing union stances towards labour immigration and migrants; effects of union attitude on migration policies and migrant workers; processes of union interaction with migrant workers. The proposed methodology combines quantitative and qualitative methods. Being situated at the intersection between migration studies and employment relations, this study will contribute to the scholarly debate in the following fields: comparative employment relations (revitalization and varieties of capitalism approaches), migration studies (integration of migrants in host European countries in face of the current economic decline and increase of social hostility), sociology of labour and labour market studies (analysis of labour market dynamics in presence of increasing flexibilization and migration). The proposed mobility will allow the applicant to be trained by outstanding European scholars in industrial relations, to receive extensive support on migration by a sister multidisciplinary research institute and, especially, to acquire new methodological instruments and insights on gender studies. Such elements, together with the manifold opportunities offered by the host institution, will prepare the applicant for a position of academic independence.'

It is now two years since the enactment of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia concerning the readmission of persons residing without authorization. In this context, it may be interesting to discover whether the expectations regarding the threat of mass deportation of irregular Georgian migrants which arose during the negotiation period have been justified. According to one segment of the society and political groups in Georgia1 , the en masse forcible return of migrants to a country with an estimated unemployment rate of 32%2 (as assessed by experts) would generate economic challenges for these people and their families; moreover, it would also place a heavy burden on the country as a whole. Nor is the assumption, which holds that the EU-Georgia Agreement would serve to further impair the poor conditions in which irregular labor migrants residing in the EU countries live and work, groundless. This can be explained by the fact that the attitude of a foreign employer towards such persons might become stricter, and that he/she could be expected to increase pressure upon them3 . The other part of the aforementioned society and political groups is well aware that the coming into effect of the agreement concerning visa facilitation procedures between the European Union and Georgia was dependent upon the signing and introduction of the readmission agreement. Both treaties can be regarded as a transition step to a new phase of the relationship between Georgia and the EU.

In the latest issue of ELIAMEP Thesis Anna Triandafyllidou states that the European Commission has recently issued a proposal for a Directive regulating the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of seasonal employment (COM (2010) 379 final). This Directive proposal is part of the Commission’s strategy to regulate labour migration through a piecemeal approach; notably through regulating specific categories of migrant workers. This paper discusses what seasonal migration is and how it differs from circular, temporary, or shuttle migration. It argues that seasonal migration is a form of temporary migration that has a seasonal character and hence concerns employment sectors which are characterised by seasons of high and low employment, including thus not only agriculture but also tourism and catering but normally excluding construction or domestic work for instance.The essay in hand reviews critically the Directive Proposal and argues that although it may be seen as a step forward in transparency and in bringing closer Member State provisions in the area of seasonal migration, it needs a boost as regards the protection of seasonal migrants’ labour conditions and employment rights. In view of regulating seasonal labour migration at the EU level, the Directive should also consider whether seasonal labour migrants should be allowed to move also between Member States. On the other hand, the proposal is evaluated positively for a number of features such as: not tying the worker to her/his employer, allowing for the right to join trade unions, and proposing a simplified bureaucratic procedure for multiple entry visas.

India and the European Union (EU) are major exporters of information technology (IT) and Itenabled services (ITeS) and both have high domestic demand for such services.The paper found that movement of professionals has benefitted both Indian and EU companies and, in future, bilateral trade in the IT/ITeS sector and labour mobility is likely to increase. However, there are a number of barriers affecting movement of professionals in this sector. The paper suggests that while some of these can be addressed through domestic reforms in India and the EU, others can be addressed under the on-going India-EU Broadbased Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA) and through inter-governmental cooperation between India and EU member states.

Illegal employment by third country nationals is a reality in Luxembourg. However, as well as in the case of grey and informal economy, it is rather hard to grasp or quantify to which extent. Nevertheless, the problem is not as significant as the one of the posted workers which is more relevant and worrisome and needs to be situated in the context of a labour market of the Greater Region. In the past, several labour related regularisation measures have been implemented in Luxembourg in order to provide both employers and employees the possibility to regularise situations of illegal employment. The last labour related regularisation measure was implemented in early 2013 in the context of the transposition of the Employers' Sanctions Directive 2009/52 by law of 21 December 2012. During this regularisation, the Directorate of Immigration received 664 applications. These regularisations give a partial indication of the extent of the phenomenon, even though these numbers do not provide a real picture of the problem because the conditions of this regularisation were very strict and in a very short time frame (less than two months) and a certain number of irregular migrants’ workers were not willing to expose themselves by applying and preferred to remain undetected. This regularisation also provided information on the main sectors were the phenomenon is found in order of importance: HORECA, cleaning, crafts, industry and construction. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social and Solidary Economy at the end of the regularisation has insisted in the need to increase the number of controls to employers. The law of 21 December 2012 established administrative as well as criminal sanctions for employers who illegally employ irregularly staying third country nationals, particularly in relation to offenses to the Labour Code in aggravating circumstances. This law amended also article 89 of the Immigration Law abrogating the possibility of making labour related regularisations. The Inspectorate of Labour (‘Inspection de Travail et des Mines’, hereafter called ITM), which is in charge of labour inspections and the control of illegal employment of TCNs in Luxembourg, is currently going through a restructuring phase following the latest audit of this administration from January 2015. Particularly the current insufficient number of staff of the ITM, which is in need of a significant short term increase of staff, represents a main challenge in the field of illegal employment in Luxembourg. It is also in the context of this restructuring phase of the responsible administration that the drafting of this study presented a number of challenges, especially in relation to the operational and statistical part of the template. The information regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by both the employers and the employees in the context of an employment relationship are available on the website of the concerned authorities. Furthermore, they are disseminated by the NGOs working in the field, even though there are no specific campaigns targeted to prevent illegal employment of TCNs. The matter was raised in the context of the ‘social identification badge’, which was introduced in 2013 in order to fight against social dumping in particular in the construction sector. One national stakeholder suggested that the ‘social identification badge’ could be revised and adapted to other economic sectors in order to better monitor and prevent illegal employment. In regards to access to justice and enforcement of rights of illegally employed TCNs, Luxembourg foresees the right for illegally employed TCNs to make a claim against their employer, including in cases in which they have, or have been, returned. This claim falls under the general provisions concerning the right to bring a case before civil courts. The Labour Code establishes that the employer who has employed an irregular staying third-country national must pay to the third-country national the following amounts: 1) salaries and any other emoluments, which a similar employee would have benefited for the same employment; 2) the total amount of outstanding remuneration as well as the cost of the transfer of these amounts to the third-country national to the country to which s/he is returned; 3) the total amount of unpaid social contributions and taxes, including administrative fines, as well as, court and legal fees. In addition, the Labour Code establishes that the third-country national who has been illegally employed before the execution of any return decision has to be systematically and objectively informed by the control agents of his/her rights to recover the outstanding remunerations and back payments, as well as the right to benefit from free of charge legal aid in order to attempt a recovery action against the employer, even if the third-country national has already been returned. Labour unions can support and assist TCNs in legal proceedings related to social and labour law, provided that they have been given a mandate to do so. Eventual costs of administrative and civil proceedings can be taken in charge by the labour unions if the TCN is a member of the respective labour union. The Law does not establish fines against TCN’s who were illegally employed. The TCN may be issued a return decision and lose his/her residence rights; however, the Directorate of immigration processes these situations on a case-by-case basis and inform the persons concerned to terminate the illegal employment situation.

Domestic work has been of particular significance in the Cypriot labour market and in particular its migrant workforce. Over the past two decades, thousands of migrant women have flown into the country to work as domestic workers for private households. Most of them stay in the country for several years, on a so-called “domestic worker’s” visa, a rather restrictive kind of permit that ties them to specific employers. A standard employment contract, prepared by the Migration Department lays down their wages, duties and rights; one of these being the prohibition to join trade unions. Throughout this process, potential domestic workers are normally aided by private employment agencies that act as intermediates with the employer – often at a very high fee. The overall setting aims to balance diverse and sometimes conflicting interests within a small economy and society, bound by its international commitments. To the external observer, however, Cyprus seems to be contradicting its own efforts. Its migration scheme appears in multiple ways susceptible to misuse. Stories about exploitation and abuse are indeed not uncommon. In many respects however, Cyprus’ case brings to the fore existing gaps and loopholes when the EU common standards are transposed into the national order.

Research on trade unions has identified the crises and challenges trade unions face, not only in relation to employers and the state, but also regarding how to keep the trade union and workers together. One particular challenge is how to build solidarity in a context in which the number of migrant workers is increasing and working class support for anti-immigrant extreme right parties is growing. The research question framing this proposal is how an important organisation for Swedish industrial relations negotiate what seems to be a fundamental contradiction among its members. The aim is to analyse the strategies and actions taken by trade unions in relation to migrant workers, ethnic diversity and members and activists displaying support for extreme right parties. The theoretical framework is drawn from labour studies and industrial relations research along with migration and ethnic studies, supplemented with gender studies.. Methodologically, the project is an ethnographic study of five blue collar trade unions and Landsorganisationen, employing semi-structured interviews and participant observation, complemented with document analysis.

Cerna’s index measures openness and restrictiveness of migration policies targeting high-skilled migrants. The index covers 2007 and 2012 and provides information on 20 countries. Countries are selected on the basis of different migration histories and experiences and levels of (economic) interest groups’ involvement in policy-making. The index is disaggregated into admissions mechanism and work permit rights (made up of six indicators: numerical caps, labour market test, labour protection, employer portability, spouse’s work rights and permanent residency rights). Scores are assigned to each of the six categories from 3 (=highly restrictive), 2 (=moderately restrictive), 1 (=minimally restrictive) to 0 (=highly open). All policies are ranked on the same criteria. The individual points for the six categories are then added and converted into an index, where the most restrictive country receives a value of 100.