The Politics of Social Inclusion and Labor Representation: Immigrants and Trade Unions in the European Context 9781501736599

Citation preview

The Politics of Social Inclusion and L ­ abor Repre­sen­ta­tion

The Politics of Social Inclusion and ­Labor Repre­sen­ta­tion Immigrants and Trade Unions in the Eu­ro­pean Context

Heather Connolly, Stefania Marino, and Miguel Martínez Lucio

ILR Press an imprint of Cornell University Press Ithaca and London

Copyright © 2019 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press, Sage House, 512 East State Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. Visit our website at cornellpress​.­cornell​.­edu. First published 2019 by Cornell University Press Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Connolly, Heather, 1978–­author. | Marino, Stefania, 1977–­author. | Martinez-­Lucio, Miguel, 1960–­author. Title: The politics of social inclusion and ­labor repre­sen­ta­tion : immigrants and trade u ­ nions in the Eu­ro­pean context / Heather Connolly, Stefania Marino, and Miguel Martínez Lucio. Description: Ithaca [New York] : ILR Press, an imprint of Cornell University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018045282 (print) | LCCN 2018048024 (ebook) | ISBN 9781501736599 (pdf) | ISBN 9781501736582 (epub/mobi) | ISBN 9781501736575 | ISBN 9781501736575 (cloth ; alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: ­Labor unions—­Netherlands. | L ­ abor unions—­Spain. | ­Labor unions—­Great Britain. | Minority l­ abor ­union members—­ Netherlands—­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Minority ­labor ­union members— ­Spain— ­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Minority ­labor ­union members— ­Great Britain— ­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Foreign workers—­Netherlands—­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Foreign workers—­Spain—­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Foreign workers— ­Great Britain— ­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Immigrants—­Netherlands—­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Immigrants—­Spain—­Social conditions—21st ­century. | Immigrants—­Great Britain—­Social conditions—21st ­century. Classification: LCC HD6660.5 (ebook) | LCC HD6660.5 .C64 2019 (print) | DDC 331.88086/912094—­dc23 LC rec­ord available at https://­lccn​.­loc​.­gov​/­2018045282

Contents

Foreword by Richard Hyman

vii

Preface xi List of Abbreviations

xvii

1. Understanding and Framing the Questions of Trade Union Responses to Immigration and Social Inclusion

1

2. Uncovering the Nature and Tensions of Inclusion and ­Labor Relations: Research Context and Methods

22

3. Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands: Between Race and Social Rights

55

4. Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain: From Class to Social Renewal?

79

v i    Contents

5. Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK: Equality and Immigrant Worker Engagement without Collective Rights

107

6. Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope: Policy, Politics, and the Crafting of Social Inclusion across Borders

134

7. The Geometry of Trade Union Responses to Immigration and the Politics of Inclusion: The Challenge of Solidarity

156

Notes 169 References 173 Index 189

Foreword

The modern nation-­state is usually regarded as the product of the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and asserted the princi­ple of national sovereignty in the po­liti­cal (and specifically religious) realm. Yet economics has never respected national frontiers: cross-­national trade and l­abor migration have existed throughout recorded history. For some scholars, indeed, globalization is not a modern phenomenon but can be traced back at least five millennia. What is distinctive about recent de­ cades is not so much the movement of ­people across national borders as the growth of multinational corporations, the elaboration of global (surplus) value chains, and the liberalization and transnationalization of finance capital. T ­ hese trends receive substantial reinforcement from the Eu­ro­pean Union with its treaty commitment to the freedom of movement of goods, ser­vices, capital, and ­labor. All t­ hese developments have undermined the nation-­specific production regimes (or va­ri­e­ties of capitalism) that ­were consolidated in the ­middle de­ cades of the twentieth ­century, have gravely weakened nationally embedded

v iii    Foreword

l­abor movements, and have disrupted once seemingly stable employment relationships and working-­class communities. Unsurprisingly, ­there has been a po­liti­cal backlash, but in most countries with a perverse imbalance of focus. In the notorious British referendum on Brexit in 2016, a key slogan of the Leave camp was to “take back control.” However, this did not mean taking back control from multinationals, hedge funds, or financial speculators; and certainly not from the nondomiciled millionaire press barons whose editors acted as cheerleaders for the Leave campaign. Rather, controlling our borders meant keeping out foreign workers and their families (even though it has subsequently become clear that much of the British economy and public ser­vices would grind to a halt without them). The po­liti­cal agenda in recent years has been increasingly ­shaped by this one-­sided reaction to globalization, certainly not just in Britain, nor indeed only in Eu­rope. In many countries, xenophobic right-­wing parties draw much of their support from the manual working-­class constituencies that trade ­unions have traditionally sought to represent. This clearly pres­ents an ideological and discursive challenge for ­union policymakers to convince ­those in their own ranks of the relevance of an alternative and progressive narrative. Unions also face broader practical challenges. The growth of a vulnerable and precarious workforce, within which mi­grant l­abor is overrepresented, reinforces other sources of declining membership density and hence erodes ­union power resources. Such a workforce, often u ­ nder the aegis of “posting” or of bogus self-­employment, is widely used by employers as a form of social dumping to drive down l­abor costs and of divide and rule to inhibit worker solidarity. The growth in the number of workers who are in practice—­and often officially, according to national legislation—­second-­ class citizens, undermines the social cohesion that most trade ­unions have pursued throughout their history. In response, ­unions have had to develop new structures and practices of inclusion, repre­sen­ta­tion, and regulation, as part of a broader search for revitalization. How they do so, and with what success, differs substantially within countries, and even more so between them. In part this reflects national differences in opportunity structures (­unions’ institutional power resources, the legislative framework, the mechanisms of industrial relations) and in the degree of economic and l­abor market transformation; but in addition, and crucially, it reflects the distinctive trade ­union identities and ideologies that are the product of long historical evolution.

Foreword   i x

In this impor­tant book, Heather Connolly, Stefania Marino, and Miguel Martínez Lucio compare and contrast trade u ­ nion responses to a more diverse ­labor force in three countries, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom, and they also explore pan-­European initiatives. They demonstrate that it is vital to grasp the very complex dialectic between material and ideational causal forces. Beyond this, their analy­sis stresses the dynamics of union-­migrant relationships: though the patterns in each country are to an impor­tant extent path-­dependent, in some re­spects it has been pos­si­ble to break with the past. Not long ago, it was common in Britain to characterize trade ­unions as “pale, male, and stale”: dominated by middle-­aged white men. An observer at any u ­ nion conference t­oday would see significant differences. A similar story can be told in most other countries. Trade u ­ nions face hard challenges, but trade u ­ nionists are crafting new and imaginative responses. This book, based on an intensive research effort, is a vital resource for anyone wishing to understand the complex interaction between mi­grant l­abor and u ­ nion policy. Richard Hyman

Preface

The question of immigration has always been of fundamental importance in the discussion of work and employment. The mobility of workers and their influence on national ­labor markets, and the manner in which they have been treated and included/excluded in ­those l­abor markets and the wider social dimension, have attracted a ­great deal of po­liti­cal and academic interest. The relationship between so-­called indigenous workers and immigrant workers has raised broader questions of solidarity and mutual support. The role of trade ­unions in this area has, since the early 2000s, become a greater focus of orga­nizational interest within trade ­unions themselves and has also led to greater academic engagement from a range of research-­based institutions. The question of w ­ hether wages and salaries are affected by immigration, the nature of skills and how they change within any given ­labor market, ­matters of integration and mutual support within the workplace, and the general perspectives and views of social and economic actors on the m ­ atter—­not forgetting t­ hose of the state—­are drawing much more attention. In part this is due to the accelerating and changing

x ii    Preface

nature of immigration. Ongoing issues of social exclusion and racism have remained significant in the real­ity of l­abor and employment relations. This book pres­ents an analy­sis of the way trade unions—­particularly more established and institutionalized trade unions—­respond to immigrant workers. We locate the discussion in the period since the 1970s, with a par­tic­u­lar focus on the late 1990s to the early 2010s. To this extent we traverse a period of increasing—­and changing—­immigration patterns, as well as the emergence of a significant crisis in the context of capitalism and new forms of xenophobia. The research we conducted was financed mainly by the Leverhulme Trust (2008–12) and in part by the Economic and Social Research Council (both British-­based national funding bodies). The aim was to look at the dynamics of change in relation to trade ­union responses and their differences across three distinct national contexts in the Eu­ro­pean Union: the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The nature of ­labor and employment relations, the form of the state, and the experiences of immigration vary in the three countries. Our research sought to observe how trade ­unions understood issues related to immigration, such as the needs of immigrant workers, and to map the responses of ­those trade ­unions. The way trade ­unions respond to the question of immigration arguably consists of four variables: the nature of immigration, the structure of the l­abor market, the structure of the social contexts, and the patterns of employment regulation in each country (see Marino, Roosblad, and Penninx 2017a). Furthermore, the way trade u ­ nions have historically developed distinct proj­ects in relation to social inclusion and broader ­matters of equality has also ­shaped the nature of current responses. In this re­spect, we believe it is necessary to understand the competing meanings of solidarity and institutional traditions that frame such responses. The question of social inclusion has been framed and mediated by national structures of regulation and traditions of state intervention. Hence, in this book we study the dif­fer­ent ways that trade ­unions interact with the working class (and the meanings of class to a certain extent), the link with the state and the broader question of social rights, and the engagement with immigrant communities and questions of race and ethnicity—­noting how they develop and interact in each national case. We problematize the question of social inclusion and trade u ­ nion responses by looking at the way trade ­unions have approached immigration and immigrants, focusing on what they perceive to be the impor­tant points of renewal

Preface   x iii

and change that are required for a more integrated and supported immigrant community to emerge. We also engage with the role of cross-­national trade u ­nion relations on the question of immigration and how trade ­unionists have attempted to deal with very dif­fer­ent national configurations of trade ­union action. We start the book with a chapter that looks at issues of trade ­union change and renewal in the context of the debate on immigration. We map how debates have emerged and how sensitive they are becoming to social issues such as immigration and race-­related issues. The chapter establishes a framework for understanding the dif­fer­ent choices and patterns of trade ­union responses and the way they sometimes face competing choices. The second chapter sets out the context for each of the national case studies and the research methods used in the dif­fer­ent national contexts. We outline how we structured our research and went about understanding how trade ­unionists engaged with the issues at hand. In the following three chapters we look closely at the national cases studies, starting with the relatively more coordinated and social partnership–­ based approach of the Netherlands (chapter 3), followed by the aspiring and flexible neocorporatist approach of Spain (chapter 4) with its emergent systems of regulation yet with a decentered economic context. In chapter 5 we pres­ent the United Kingdom, a broadly liberal market economy, but with a strong history of equality politics and direct trade ­union engagement with immigrants. The three cases broadly reflect dif­fer­ent systems of regulation and welfare politics but exhibit dif­fer­ent trade ­union traditions of community or social engagement (as well as immigrant engagement) that are not always reflective of the overarching structures of the state and civil society. In t­ hese chapters we follow how trade ­unions engage with ­matters of class, regulation, and social rights as well as ethnicity and race in each of t­hese countries. We focus on relatively larger established trade u ­ nions as a way of evaluating and critiquing the embedded institutional spaces of t­hese contexts and exploring the tensions in the incumbent and established practices and structures of ­labor and employment relations. We are aware that, more recently, the nature of the research focus and choice would require a study of newly emergent bodies and networks within and around or­ga­nized ­labor and immigrant communities,1 but our intention was to look at the fissures and challenges—as well as changes—in organ­izations that b­ ecause of their resources and legitimacy should have been well-­placed to respond to t­hese

x iv    Preface

social challenges. Our cases build on the development of key aspects of the work of Richard Hyman and his interest in trade ­union politics and identity, and a series of pieces we have developed previously and have expanded into the narrative of the text through in-­depth cases and a concern with the issue of solidarity and inclusion. Hence, while as Fine and Tichenor (2012) have argued we see that most trade u ­ nions in Western Europe—­similar in aspects to the United States—­have started historically from a position of ambivalence and even opposition ­toward mi­grants, for vari­ous social and po­liti­cal reasons, ­there has been a steady move to more pro-­immigration policies. It is our argument though that very dif­fer­ent dimensions and meanings remain in regard to ­these pro-­immigration policies due to the nature of dif­fer­ent national contexts of regulation, histories of social strug­ gle, and the language and practice of solidarity. Chapter 6 is concerned with trade ­unions at the Eu­ro­pean Union (EU) level and how we have seen the emergence of proj­ects to try to create a common framework of responses ­toward immigrant workers. We focus on the Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which has conducted proj­ ects that allow national trade u ­ nions to share the nature and usefulness of their responses to immigration and social inclusion. This chapter demonstrates the fundamental challenges related to this cross-­referencing of practice across dif­fer­ent countries and the limits of this for the development of transnational trade u ­nion strategy. The concluding chapter returns to broader questions of national contexts and the issue of solidarity. T ­ here, we argue that we should appreciate the complexity of trade ­union traditions and their trajectories of solidarity. We point to the need for a greater politics of demo­cratic engagement and participation in relation to immigrant workers. We end with a reflection on how organ­izations remain wedded to specific trajectories and we maintain that trade ­union renewal remains an innovative but at times problematic set of choices and aspirations. The book is based on interviews with a wide range of individuals: 150 interviews in our national case study countries and 12 interviews at the Eu­ro­pean level during 2009–13. The experience of the research was intense. We conducted a range of semistructured and unstructured interviews along with extensive observations of national and local conferences and meetings in each national context and in the ETUC and Eu­ro­pean industry federations. We interviewed workers in local establishments and other informal spaces and collated a wide array of trade u ­ nion materials and policy docu-

Preface   x v

ments. The earlier parts of the book—­especially the opening chapter—­ draw from and develop some previously published work that underpinned the initial stages of the proj­ect. We thank every­one who participated in the research, who are too numerous to mention individually. We would like to thank especially specific individuals who w ­ ere helpful and concerned advisers in the British, Dutch, and Spanish ­labor movements as well as in the European-­level structures: Bill Adams, Valery Alzaga, Jose Antonio Moreno Díaz, Jorge Aragon, John Burgess, Steve Craig, Susan Cueva, Irina de Sancho Alonso, Dirk Kloosterboer, Margriet Kraamwinkel, Mohammed Haidour, Zita Holbourne, Frank Hont, Herrie Hoogenboom, Mustapha Laboui, Ann Lafferty, Alan Manning, Roger Mc­Ken­zie, Manuel Riesco, Lola Santillana Vallejo, Henny Siwabessy, Mohammad Taj and Greg Thompson. Seeing trade u ­ nionists innovate and engage on m ­ atters of equality and social inclusion and following their experiences and strug­gles helped us appreciate that it is the engaged and committed activists at all levels who create the spaces and opportunities for a more socially inclusive society to emerge. We would also like to thank Richard Hyman and Paul Stewart for supporting and commenting on aspects of the book, and to Keith Povey for copyediting an early draft of the book.

Abbreviations

BAME BARAC BNP CAO CBI CCOO CEECs CEEP CEOE CITEs

Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic Black Activists Rising Against Cuts British National Party Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst (Collective L ­ abor Agreements) Confederation of British Industry Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (Workers’ Commissions) Central and Eastern Eu­ro­pean countries Eu­ro­pean Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Ser­vices and Ser­vices of general interest Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales (Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organ­izations) Centros de Información a Trabajadores Extranjeros (Immigrant Workers’ Information Centers)

x v iii   Abbreviations

CNV

Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond (Christian-­National Union Confederation) EMF Eu­ro­pean Metalworkers’ Federation ETUC Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation FNV Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (Confederation of Dutch Unions) INI Instituto Nacional de Industria IRTUCs Interregional Trade Union Councils KKB Kadergroep Kleurrijke Bondgenoten (Trade Union Diversity Advisory Board) LBR Landelijk Bureau ter Bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie (National Bureau against Racial Discrimination) LPF Lijst Pym Fortuyn (Pim Fortuyn List) ÖGB Österreichische Gewerkschaftsbund (Austrian Trade Union Federation) PICUM Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Mi­grants PP Partido Popu­lar (Popu­lar Party) PSOE Partido Socialista Obrero Español (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party) SEIU Ser­vice Employees International Union SERTUC Southern and Eastern Regional Trades Union Congress TEU Treaty of the Eu­ro­pean Union TUC Trades Union Congress UCATT Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians UGT Union General de Trabajadores (General Union of Workers) UKIP United Kingdom In­de­pen­dence Party ULF Union Learning Fund ULR Union learning representative UMF Union Modernisation Fund USDAW Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers VNO-­NCW Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen-­Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond (Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers) VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Demo­cratie (­People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy)

The Politics of Social Inclusion and L ­ abor Repre­sen­ta­tion

Chapter 1

Understanding and Framing the Questions of Trade Union Responses to Immigration and Social Inclusion

Since the early 2000s, l­abor and employment relations researchers have focused increasing attention on the influence of immigration on the ­labor market of the host countries and, more broadly, on the social, economic, and po­liti­cal contexts. This growing interest in the study of immigration, race, and ethnicity is highly welcome given previous tendencies to consider them to be secondary or even irrelevant features—­especially in the Eu­ro­pean context. The ambivalence displayed historically by trade ­unions ­toward immigration and immigrants cannot be ignored as a contributing ­factor in limiting scholarly attention in this area. However, increasing concerns with regard to immigration—­paralleled by the relative weakening of the position of trade ­unions in Eu­rope and North Amer­i­ca—­means that the study of this topic has become increasingly impor­tant and mainstreamed. As Lowell Turner (2014, 13) has stated in relation to the growing importance of this issue: “Union campaigns to join or lead the mobilization of immigrant workers carry the promise of a more integrated, sustainable society.” Hence t­ here is not just a po­liti­cal and intellectual interest in the subject of social inclusion and immigration but

2   Chapter 1

a moral one and, within this, the social movement turn is fundamental, as trade u ­ nions seek to rekindle their origin as a social organ­ization, and not just an economic or industrial one (Fine and Holgate 2014). This chapter provides an overview of the challenges of studying and trying to understand the effect of new forms of immigration on l­abor and employment relations, considering questions of context and the diverse meanings and strategies of solidarity and inclusion. We heed Janice Fine’s (2006) warning of the need not just to focus on established relationships and how they adjust, but to be sensitive to new relationships and politics within t­ hese spaces, to the choices that are made and how gaps are assessed in ­labor and employment relations. The methodological consequences of this are clear: we need broader maps and broader methods based on an ethical understanding of the role of voice. In par­tic­u­lar we need multidimensional approaches that emphasize (a) the social context (the history and context of change in social constituencies); (b) the formal institutional context (the new mechanisms of repre­sen­ta­tion and change within communities); (c) the po­liti­cal context (the role of the po­liti­cal in terms of discourses and resources); and (d) the regulatory and welfare context (the broad play and spaces of regulation and social policy). We argue for a more nuanced approach to the way we understand trade ­union responses to immigration and the way we compare and contrast ­these. Our approach and heuristic framework allow for analy­sis of the more complex choices and contexts that underlie trade ­union renewal. With our framework we are able to map trade ­unions’ response to change in a more dynamic manner that looks at the tensions across responses and the dif­fer­ent questions of regulation and repre­ sen­ta­tion facing trade u ­ nions in relation to immigration and social inclusion.

The Steady Realization of the Limitations of Traditional Forms of Repre­sen­ta­tion and Institutional Adjustment Both in the United Kingdom and the United States, research on issues of immigration and l­abor and employment relations has developed at a rapid pace since the early 2000s (Connolly, Marino and Martinez Lucio, 2017; Krings 2009; Marino, Roosblad, and Penninx 2017b; McGovern 2007; Meardi 2012; Penninx and Roosblad 2000). ­There are vari­ous reasons for this. First, new waves and forms of immigration began to raise levels of interest in ques-

Understanding and Framing the Questions    3

tions of social inclusion and exclusion. This new wave has emerged in part due to the changing nature of capitalism and the way it began to globalize and or­ga­nize production across borders in a more interconnected manner. It has also emerged, in part, due to the failures of capitalism to develop the economic and social infrastructure of developing countries. What is more, ­labor market shortages in developing countries, and the rapid demand for specific jobs with a low level of l­abor supply, have created a basis for new forms of immigration. Second, the debate has been spurred on by institutional ­factors. The declining levels of trade ­union membership in both the UK and the United States, where this debate has been developed more extensively, along with prob­lems of coverage in terms of trade ­union roles in vari­ous parts of the economy, means that the issue of renewal began to take on a central dynamic within the l­abor and employment relations discipline (Frege and Kelly 2003). In po­liti­cal terms trade u ­ nions w ­ ere confronted by the presence of “new” groups of workers, which w ­ ere in many aspects outside the sphere and influence of the l­abor movement. Immigrants in par­tic­ u­lar, who constituted a substantial part of t­hese new groups, w ­ ere finding gaps in their voice and repre­sen­ta­tion, even in contexts where immigration (external and internal) was an established feature of the national contexts. Third, new forms of xenophobia w ­ ere also emerging t­ oward Eastern Eu­ro­ pe­ans and Muslims in the United Kingdom and in socially oriented welfare states such as Denmark (Wrench 2004). This brought forth a new dimension to the antiracist strategies that trade ­unions had—­with varying degrees of success and commitment—­developed in the UK and the United States. ­These developments have required the rethinking of research and activity in relation to immigration. To date, research on such immigrant communities in the context of ­labor and employment relations has been mainly fixated—­one could reasonably argue—on the issue of organ­izing immigrants within trade ­unions (Milkman 2000, 2006). The question became one of how trade ­unions develop strategies capable of sustaining immigrant participation in the l­ abor movement. In the case of Ruth Milkman’s broad work, the issue was the way in which resources and leadership w ­ ere engaging with communities and local strug­gles for trade ­union and worker rights. The combination of leadership and mobilization—of strategic knowledge, local networks, and grassroots action—is fundamental according to Milkman. On their own, ­these two dimensions of trade ­union action can lead to failure and demoralization. Milkman’s approach suggests that the ways in which trade

4   Chapter 1

­ nion democracy, questions of leadership, and local structures combine in u such strategies must be seen as a paramount feature of any discussion. However, existing research suggests this is rarely the case (Martínez Lucio and Perrett 2009). The question should not be solely one of how trade u ­ nions ser­ vice or represent immigrants and their needs as part of the workforce, but how questions such as trade ­union repre­sen­ta­tion, the establishment of good working conditions, and the development of equality strategies are or­ga­nized and led. The US debate has been concerned with the orga­nizational logic of such developments and challenges (see Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998). The relation between trade ­unions and immigrants reflects the broader concern about how trade ­union renewal is torn between two models: it is ­either hierarchically ser­vice driven or based on local mutual aid approaches to organ­izing and trade u ­ nion roles (Bacharach, Bamberger, and Sonnenstuhl 2001; see also Adler, Maite, and Turner 2014). The need to build immigrants and their experience into the pro­cess of renewal is therefore a vital component of discussion. The debate dovetails strongly with the organ­izing debate in both the United States and the UK—­and the leitmotif of that debate concerning the extent of demo­cratic participation within it and the role of ­those being or­ga­nized (see Marino 2015; Simms 2003, 2007), and the traditions of trade ­unions themselves in terms of structure and politics (Nissen and Grenier 2001). In the UK, the debate has focused historically on par­tic­u­lar episodes of conflict and the ability or willingness of trade ­unions to support such developments (see Holgate 2004, 2005; Martínez Lucio and Perrett 2009; W ­ ills 2004). It has also focused on the steady evolution of equality strategies (see Davis, Mc­Ken­zie, and ­Sullivan 2006; Wrench 1996). The debates on immigration and trade ­unions ­were therefore, initially, concerned with institutional readjustment. That is to say, 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 orga­ nizational and po­liti­cal culture of the ­labor movement. That the two had been intertwined for some time—as in the UK cases of the Indian Workers’ Association during the 1970s or the role of black worker sections in trade ­unions since the 1980s, for example—­did not appear to enter the discussion due to the relatively ahistorical nature of this debate in its early stages during the 1990s. In part, this can be explained in terms of the relative absence of interest in such lit­er­a­ture in l­ abor and employment relations historically—­ and in the lack of interest in history itself. In many re­spects, the debate was

Understanding and Framing the Questions    5

still grappling with the prob­lem of realizing the qualitative crisis of l­ abor and employment relations and not just its quantitative one. In other words, the practices of ­labor and employment relations in regard to conflict, modes of repre­sen­ta­tion and negotiation, and forms of organ­ization ­were themselves a focus of concern, rather than ­those who ­were represented in conflicts or negotiations. Furthermore, many of the developments in l­ abor and employment relations research have been more concerned with mea­sur­ing change and effectiveness in established ­labor and employment relations institutions such as collective bargaining, trade u ­ nion membership, and formal systems of repre­sen­ta­tion (Heery 2005). The increasing use of quantitative research methods in the study of ­labor and employment relations means that the observation of what is happening to the trade ­union is prioritized over the purpose, identity, and meaning of trade ­unionism in the context of a changing workforce. This development has meant that questions of trade ­union purpose and politics are often relegated to a more clinical and sterile view of power in l­abor and employment relations—­with power being equated to membership and resources and not alliances and strategies. Yet to an extent, a steady realization has emerged that the question of race and immigration requires a qualitative turn and critical reappraisal of how research is to be done and why.

The New Concern with Voice, Repre­sen­ta­tion, and the Concept of the Stakeholder in the Diverse ­Labor Force and Trade Union Strategies Steadily, we have seen an increasingly nuanced approach to, or at least a concern with, issues such as equality and immigration. Vari­ous researchers have argued that the study of trade union-­and immigration-­related questions requires an open and broader approach to the subject m ­ atter. This has begun to emerge in relation to questions of identity and experience, forms of organ­ization and social repre­sen­ta­tion, and the support that established bodies provide. First, ­there is a concern to understand the multiple identities of black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) groups, and immigrants, in terms of gender, for example. The work of Geraldine Healy, Harriet Bradley, and Nupur Mukherjee (2004), in par­tic­u­lar, has focused on the way gender and

6   Chapter 1

racially motivated exploitation configures the character of politics and activism among black female workers in the public sector in the UK. This links with the increasing interest in intersectionality, which focuses on the way dif­ fer­ent types of in­equality combine in dif­fer­ent constituencies giving rise to a variable set of needs and politics (Verloo 2006). This has significant effects in regard to how we view immigrants and minorities. Guglielmo Meardi (2007) has argued that the case of Polish workers in the UK is unique ­because of the way in which they network, maintain links with home countries, have more complex social identities, and relate to the transnational context. Hence, we must be wary of how we locate and understand interest and need in immigrant communities. Breda Gray (2008) has argued that not only do we have to be sensitive to the more complex identities and developments in immigrant communities, we also have to be aware of our position as researchers and how we frame concerns and issues within our research programs. For example, she argues that the way emigration is understood in Ireland as a national issue of concern can form the basis of an emerging debate about the way questions and concerns are framed and connected. This relates to the broader discussions on methodological approaches when studying minority, excluded, or oppressed groups, and can be more specifically linked to issues of power and hierarchy in feminist research. Ann Oakley (1981), for instance, argued that research relationships should be nonhierarchical and reciprocal to avoid exploitation and manipulation of research participants. The methodological implications of conducting research in the area of immigration and race have been examined by Yasmin Gunaratnam (2003), who argues that feminist methods can actually exclude the experiences of ­people from “minority” groups. Nonetheless, feminist accounts are relevant ­because of the interest in searching for missing subjects and activities, not focusing on the formal and vis­i­ble, and questioning modes of academic and po­liti­cal action (Lorber 1975; Olesen 1994). This reasoning is echoed in aspects of research on race, where caution is required as to how we should proceed in making assumptions and studying racial minorities (Bourne and Sivanandan 1980). It is necessary to take account of the interrelations between race, gender, and class and to recognize the ways in which social differences can construct and reproduce inequalities at ­every stage of the research pro­cess. Second, in collective terms, we see that immigrant groups may or­ga­nize in a variety of ways—­and not solely through traditional forms of trade

Understanding and Framing the Questions    7

­ nionism. For example, Fine (2006) is concerned with cata­loging the u phenomena of worker centers in the United States. T ­ hese are centers that provide a range of ser­vices, social and cultural spaces, and support for marginalized communities. Fine draws out a series of characteristics of t­hese centers that describe an in­ter­est­ing tapestry of “new actors” and spaces of employment relations. ­These centers are based on hybrid organ­ization, ser­ vice provision, advocacy, organ­izing place rather than a work-­site approach, strong ethnic and racial identification, leadership development and internal democracy, popu­lar education, thinking globally, a broad agenda, co­ali­tion building, and small and involved memberships. Many groups through ­these networks and centers are filling a major repre­sen­ta­tion gap in the United States. Trade u ­ nions are but one part of the narrative of strug­gles for rights within t­ hese communities and not the sole player given the role of vari­ous social and religious organ­izations. The community u ­ nion debate (see Tattersall 2005; 2006; ­Wills 2004) that has evolved in recent years is an attempt to see how trade u ­ nions can actually approach immigrant communities, among ­others, with a view to providing broader and socially based forms of repre­ sen­ta­tion. So both in social and institutional terms we are seeing a major rethinking of how we understand the community and immigrant dynamics in ­labor and employment relations. This requires a more open research approach that is socially and spatially broader, and not solely focused on the established systems and actors of repre­sen­ta­tion such as trade ­unions. Third, t­ hese debates have been paralleled by a view that trade u ­ nions themselves as an established and, one could say, traditional form of repre­ sen­ta­tion are variable in the way they understand and respond to immigrant communities. Mary Davis, Roger Mc­Ken­zie, and Wilf ­Sullivan (2006) have argued that trade ­unions respond to the questions of racism and immigration in a myriad of ways. ­These could include proposals involving bargaining systems and equality issues, black activists on leading trade ­union committees, the role of ethnic monitoring, antiracist education and training, the broader learning agenda, and campaigns against racism. ­These varied initiatives point to the complex way trade u ­ nion responses emerge and how they relate to each other (Martínez Lucio and Perrett 2009). John Wrench (2000a, 2000b, 2004) makes the point that how such strategies are underpinned is an impor­tant ­factor. Their historical trajectory may vary between countries. He argues, through drawing on Martin MacEwen (1995 as quoted in Wrench 2004), that ­there can be distinct approaches based on

8   Chapter 1

equal treatment, the level playing field approach, the equal opportunities approach, and the equal outcome approach. Hence, trade u ­ nion responses vary by focusing on dif­fer­ent aspects of immigrant needs, developing dif­fer­ent ser­ vices, and becoming underpinned by vari­ous value systems. Within ­these approaches, the politics of equality in relation to employer strategies must also be considered as an influencing f­ actor (Wrench 1999). What is emerging is a nuanced debate based on the way we conceptualize trade ­unions and their actions on the one hand and immigrant communities on the other—­and the way immigration brings new forms of voice and repre­sen­ta­tion. ­There is a steady realization that we need to rethink not just how trade ­unions and immigrants combine and relate (or not) to each other but how they are constructed and in what spaces, both socially and po­liti­cally. This in turn dovetails with an increasing interest in the ethics of research and practice on work and employment. Michelle Greenwood (2002) has argued that in relation to the study of stakeholder theory the need to understand the dynamics of repre­sen­ta­tion and voice has been less prevalent given the obsession with management strategy and technique, which are normally underpinned by a hierarchical approach and emphasis on management authority. This has been less the case within l­abor and employment relations due to the interest in voice mechanisms and repre­sen­ta­tion and the growing interest in studying a broader set of actors (Frege and Kelly 2004). However, the role of stakeholder theory is ambivalent, as Greenwood (2002) shows. It is torn between a view that sees stakeholders, on the one hand, as passive bodies and agents who can only contribute through the support of management. On the other hand ­there is the view that the stakeholder is less about individuals being a means to an end or an asset that requires the com­ pany’s investment and care, and more as an agent that “participate(s) in the ­future direction of the firm in which they have a stake” (Greenwood 2002, 268). Increasingly, the ethical debate engages in one form or another with the primacy of voice. Yet this necessitates, as we outlined above, a broader view of stakeholders in terms of identity and experience, forms of organ­ ization and social repre­sen­ta­tion, and the nature of the support that established bodies provide and how. Increasingly actors in immigrant communities and on the edges of the l­abor movement, such as in­de­pen­dent or smaller focused trade u ­ nions or movements, need to be acknowledged. ­These needs give rise to a broader understanding of voice and the stakeholder. In effect, we must assimilate the broader view of interests and

Understanding and Framing the Questions    9

actors—of stakeholders—­which emerge within employment systems when discussing equality and diversity (Kirton and Greene 2015). The modern hierarchical model of ­labor and employment relations and employment pro­ cesses begins to be steadily unpicked in this debate in a way that is similar to debates concerning gender regimes (Walby 2004). Healy, Bradley, and Mukherjee (2004) link t­ hese debates in their focus on black w ­ omen, but the debates are relatively isolated. The gender-­related debate implied a very serious critique of the historical packaging of l­ abor and employment relations given its exclusion of w ­ omen in key parts of the economy; however, the immigrant debate u ­ ntil recently seems less concerned with this—­perhaps ­because trade u ­ nions themselves are victims of the new employer and employment order, though it is more likely that the emphasis in the debate is seen from the standpoint of concern about and the question of trade ­union renewal. We ­will engage with this question in this book when discussing how trade u ­ nion strategies of inclusion such as organ­izing are configured in relation to immigrant communities they may be addressing (see also Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017; Martínez Lucio, Marino, and Connolly 2017).

The Emerging Comparative Paradigm: The Rethinking of Repre­sen­ta­tion, Stakeholders, and Voice in Relation to Trade Unions and Immigrant Communities across National Contexts One way in which the debate on immigration and trade u ­ nions has emerged is through the study of voice, repre­sen­ta­tion, and change in an international and comparative context. This is a dimension of the discussion that may serve to open and sensitize our approach to voice and the complexity of stakeholder relations—­a vital precondition for establishing a way of understanding the real­ity of the relations between social constituencies and organ­izations in relation to equality. Comparative ­labor and employment relations has evolved a rigorous academic debate over the past two de­cades or so, allowing us to comprehend properly dif­fer­ent systems and approaches (Hyman and Ferner 1994). It has also allowed us to understand how employment relations and institutions vary across contexts (Locke and Thelen 1995). The notion that concepts such as flexibility, pay, and working time are mediated and constructed in vari­ous ways according to national systems of regulation and

10    Chapter 1

traditions of strug­gle and meaning has been of benefit to the study of ­labor and employment relations and its continuing relevance, and it opens the way we approach ­these concepts. Increasingly we are not only concerned with the typologizing of ­labor and employment relations and economic systems (Coates 2000)—­for example, by looking at levels of coordination, dif­fer­ent state roles, competing understandings and activities regarding social and worker welfare, and the position and authority of the employer—we also see a concern with the way va­ri­e­ties of trade u ­ nion structures and strategies emerge historically. In terms of the study of immigration it can allow us to appreciate the way issues and responses evolve—­and the way the politics of immigration is constructed (Wrench 2004). Hence, comparative research is a vital step for understanding the way immigrant communities and their experiences can be understood. For example, we can begin to see how trade ­unions vary, and why, in relation to the questions of immigration. We can also identify nuances in the way identity, organ­ization, and support are established in dif­fer­ent national contexts. Carola Frege and John Kelly (2004) attempt to map the way we can appreciate the dif­fer­ent strategies that evolve in relation to questions such as trade ­union renewal—­within which the issue of representing new constituencies of ­labor and citizens is impor­tant. They argue that we need to proceed with an appreciation of the dif­fer­ent dimensions of trade ­unionism. Starting with social and economic change as an external trigger—­albeit not one that is constructed in a reductionist manner—­they see trade ­union structure being influenced by this contextual ­factor. This is an impor­tant thematic beginning for their model, which adapts much of the work from social movement debates (see Kelly 1998). Trade u ­ nion structure and the way its politics are or­ga­nized are vital starting points that are often ignored in many con­temporary debates. The role of l­abor and employment relations institutions along with the state and employers plays a further role in shaping this structure in terms of its environment. ­These ­factors influence the way trade ­unions frame issues and give rise to par­tic­u­lar orga­nizational identities, ­whether inclusive or exclusive. Institutional choices are mediated by ­these traditions and structures, but ­there ­will be ways of seeing and understanding prob­lems that frame options and choices. We cannot read how trade u ­ nions ­will understand and respond to questions of immigration, for example, from any clear structural analy­sis of the employment relationship or its context: trade ­union renewal is contested, open, and in many cases problematic. We

Understanding and Framing the Questions    11

must appreciate structure, context, institutions and identity, and framing pro­ cesses to have a more grounded debate on trade ­union renewal and responses in relation to immigration: Frege and Kelly (2003; 2004) provide us with a map for explaining the dimensions of such a response and renewal. This need to appreciate orga­nizational structure, economic context, the role of the state, and the influence of framing strategies is therefore increasingly recognized as impor­tant in the study of l­abor and employment relations. It parallels the increasing interest in how such f­actors contribute to va­ri­e­ties of capitalism and its regulation. With regard to the study of immigration, Rinus Penninx and Judith Roosblad (2000, 12–16) developed a similar approach. Differences in trade ­union responses to immigration tend to vary due to a range of ­factors. ­These authors point to four in par­tic­u­lar while also advising us not to read too much into any forms of categories ­because a clear link between any one ­factor and the character of trade ­union activity may be lacking (we address t­ hese issues chapter 2). First, t­ here is the position of trade u ­ nions within society in terms of power and politics. This is impor­tant for understanding the extent to which trade ­unions can influence the policy responses and social support for immigrants. Second, t­ here are contextual f­ actors in historical terms and t­ hese are primarily national and localized in orientation. ­These can shape the character and orientation of the trade u ­ nion movement on issues such as immigration. T ­ hese f­ actors involve socioeconomic and l­ abor market characteristics that can influence the interests of trade ­unions and ­whether they are defensive or open in their approach to immigrants. Third, t­here are societal f­actors in public discourse on immigration and immigrants, institutional arrangements and legislation, and the attitudes of national authorities, civil society organ­izations, social movements, and po­liti­cal parties. Fi­nally, t­ here are the characteristics of immigrants themselves and how they are accepted by and/or accept trade ­unions. The approach does not aim to be comprehensively explanatory but to provide a framework for understanding the way the ­labor and employment relations of immigration can vary. We cannot make assumptions about the link between worker repre­sen­ta­tion and inclusion in terms of trade ­unions; instead we need to be sensitive to the social, po­liti­cal, and strategic ­factors. In a recent update of this comparative research, Stefania Marino, Judith Roosblad, and Rinus Penninx (2017a, 2017b) confirm the relevance of this set of variables in the current socioeconomic context. However, they underline the need for some reconsideration. First the “characteristics of immigrants”

12   Chapter 1

become more strictly related to ­those labels attributed to them by the policies of the destination countries a­ fter their arrival and that determine the immigrants’ ­legal status and position in the ­labor market. Furthermore, they add to the previous framework another relevant ­factor linked to the history and rooted traditions of trade ­unions, which, as underlined by vari­ous studies (e.g., Frege and Kelly 2003), is fundamental to understanding the way in which they frame challenges posed by immigration and immigrant workers. The authors refer to Richard Hyman’s (2001) approach regarding social, class, and market-­ related identities within trade ­unions, which helps us to understand the way trade u ­ nions see, respond to, and configure immigrant-­related issues. The importance of ­these “framing pro­cesses” is confirmed by some other scholarly research. Although determined in part by the issues of institutional and orga­nizational structure, including that of the state, framing pro­cesses can develop a degree of autonomy in regard to how prob­lems are understood and reacted to. Ed Heery and Hazel Conley (2007) have drawn attention to the importance of the way issues are framed historically and contextualized—­ frame extension. For example, in discussion on trade u ­ nion responses to part-­time work, the role of feminist strug­gles and activity within trade u ­ nions, among other po­liti­cal and instrumental f­ actors, was significant in underpinning or indirectly informing such responses. Hence whereas Janice Fine and Daniel Tichenor (2012) are right to point out that trade ­unions have tended to travel t­ oward relatively more immigrant supporting and understanding policies compared to the past, how this has been done can vary tremendously for a range of reasons. This is Wrench’s (2004) key point and concern regarding the tendency to read too much from notions of trade ­union strength and the suggestion that systems of regulation and their degree of coordination, power, and intervention w ­ ill in turn tell us much about how a trade ­union responds to immigration. That is to say we cannot make the assumption that in a place like Denmark, for example, with its strong l­abor and employment relations regulation of trade ­unions and social inclusion, the politics of social inclusion w ­ ill be straightforward b­ ecause attitudes to immigration appear ambivalent and problematic to say the least.1 In the UK the level of weakness in membership and employment regulation would suggest that trade u ­ nions pay less attention to social inclusion and rights, but this is not necessarily the case. According to Wrench (2004), a narrative and concern with equality had emerged since the 1970s in trade u ­ nion strategies. Policies and orientation are

Understanding and Framing the Questions    13

complex and diverse—­they may be ambivalent as they are in many cases—­ but the increasing centrality of equality and antiracism is a curious ­factor of the British l­abor movement even if the regulatory context is not one of the strongest in the Organ­ization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The influence of po­liti­cal discourse and social strug­gles can configure the orientations of trade ­union actors, and we need to be alert to critical incidents and moments when trade u ­ nion strategies and views begin to shift. The role of the framing pro­cess appears to be one we need to pay attention to—­and the way trade u ­ nion strug­gles have developed over time needs to be understood in terms of structural contexts and also critical moments of reflection. Why are such approaches impor­tant in the study of ­labor and employment relations, trade u ­ nions, and immigration? First, they allow us to understand how the issues are constructed in par­tic­u­lar contexts and how the politics of ­these issues are increasingly impor­tant. It is not a ­simple question of repre­sen­ta­tion and the broadening of established social rights—­and the role of trade unions—as if this ­were a s­ imple case of institutional approximation (e.g., trade ­unions adopting immigrant concerns), as repre­sen­ta­tion develops and varies in dif­fer­ent ways. Second, the interventions by Marino, Penninx, Roosblad, and Wrench, among other scholars—in this case—­opens our understanding of the contexts and shows how the national frame of analy­sis must be subjected to scrutiny thorough conceptualization of its origins and specificities. Third, t­ here is an irony given the nature of the topic at hand. What is at stake is not institutional realignment—­some zero-­sum view of social inclusion as e­ ither existing or not—­but the nature of l­abor and employment relations and how it develops in relation to the meaning of rights in a selective and po­liti­cal manner: the comparative turn in the study of immigration and ­labor and employment relations that complements the first turn t­ oward equality and diversity and the steady repositioning of immigration and race/ethnicity issues.

­ oward a Contextualized View of Trade T Union–­Immigrant Dynamics We suggest that the study of the relationship between trade ­unions and immigrants has begun—by design or by default—to uncover the prob­lems of how we understand not only the discipline of ­labor and employment relations

14    Chapter 1

but also the predicament of racism and exclusion as an issue of repre­sen­ta­ tion as well as rights. What appears to emerge is a steady concern with the way we understand the purpose and structures of trade unionism—­and how they are developed. An ethical turn in stakeholder approaches and questions of voice needs to account for the complex way t­ hese evolve and the intricacy of relations between dif­fer­ent stakeholders—­and the comparative lit­er­a­ture serves this purpose by sensitizing us to issues of context. The singularity of voice, the nature of social inclusion and trade ­union strategies, and their social and po­liti­cal role are increasingly questioned. In effect, we have to review the fixation with the level and nature of social-­and employment-­related ser­vice delivery by trade u ­ nions, on w ­ hether trade ­unions represent immigrants or not, and how trade ­unions are viewed themselves within immigrant communities. What is implied in many established “latter wave” studies is that the way l­abor and employment relations are renewed requires a critique of the system of l­ abor and employment relations itself. The questions of repre­sen­ta­tion in po­liti­cal, social, and ideological terms must be a subject of study within this arena of research: no longer is trade ­union strength or formal repre­sen­ta­tion enough. In many re­spects, the prob­lem may be trade ­unions and their historical construction and, in par­tic­u­lar, the way voice is constructed in ­labor and employment relations and for what purpose. The notion of ­labor and employment relations strength is no longer a s­ imple question. So we need to begin to appreciate the complexity of trade u ­ nions and immigrant communities as well as to locate t­ hese within national regulatory dynamics and systems of ideology, but we also need to add a further concern with the structure and purpose of repre­sen­ta­ tion. We must therefore address four aspects of the relation between worker repre­sen­ta­tion and immigration. First, at the social level, we need to draw out how immigration is structured and composed in any context and at any time. The changing nature of immigration means that it brings to the fore, as Meardi (2007) points out, a greater challenge to the more settled and fixed structures of trade u ­ nion repre­sen­ta­tion. Trade u ­ nions work mainly within national bound­aries, and this has implications for how to represent immigrant workers, especially ­those living and working in dif­fer­ent countries in the EU. ­There has been some recognition of this by trade u ­ nions in construction, with the setting up of the Eu­ro­pean Mi­grant Workers Union in Germany, which has links with Polish trade ­unions. However, the complex and shifting nature of immigration, espe-

Understanding and Framing the Questions    15

cially where employers engage in strategies of substituting immigrant workers from dif­fer­ent nationalities, poses significant challenges to trade u ­ nions and their capacity to represent ­these workers. Hence, how we study this requires a realization that our focus of research is not fixed in terms of issues, themes, and spaces. Sensitivity to the history of immigration, alongside the history of the trade ­union movement, is now steadily establishing itself as a feature of current debates. Furthermore, sensitivity to the changing economic context of immigration is impor­tant in terms of how the new age of capitalism is more disor­ga­ nized and dualist than previous or­ga­nized patterns (see Lash and Urry 1987). The effect on welfare regimes established in the post-1945 period in large parts of the EU, for example, and traditional models of social inclusion are being greatly undermined by such a decentering of the state along with the fragmentation and transformation of worker constituencies. Appreciating this is impor­ tant before establishing the practice and pro­cess of research. In effect, we must ask ourselves what determines and defines immigrant needs, identity, and activity in dif­fer­ent economic and social contexts. The second challenge, at the orga­nizational level, is that the structure of voice (as in the work of Janice Fine, 2006 and Jane W ­ ills, 2004 for example) means that we have to study the role of networks and community-­oriented organ­izations. New forms of organ­ization and intervention emerge that may be on the margin of trade u ­ nions (Heery and Frege 2006). Moreover, how they engage with l­abor and employment relations issues such as training, employment, and social support is an impor­tant question (Perrett and Martínez Lucio 2009). In some cases, immigrant networks even address collective pay issues in specific sectors (­Wills 2004). ­These developments—­which some would argue are not as new as we might imagine—­give rise to a greater sensitivity in regard to mapping and locating actors, spaces, and pro­cesses around the edges of l­abor and employment relations. If one also considers the new forms of communication that have been steadily used in relation to immigrant communities (as in most communities)—­the internet—­then the challenge of demo­cratizing methodology is an increasing imperative. The question is what should be the orga­nizational point of reference in such research? It is not just a case of seeing it in terms of another series of stakeholders (see Greenwood 2002; Winstanley, Woodall, and Heery 1996) but of dif­fer­ent forms and dynamics within repre­sen­ta­tion. The third challenge is studying the po­liti­cal in relation to questions of internal and external trade u ­ nion spaces (Martínez Lucio, Marino, and

16   Chapter 1

Connolly 2017). This is prob­ably the greatest challenge of the trade union–­ immigration issue by virtue of the fact that the po­liti­cal is normally viewed as concerning formal relations between trade u ­ nions and po­liti­cal parties or as the relation between class and trade unions—­and in this case trade ­unions and immigrant communities in formal institutional terms. First, the question is how the trade ­union represents worker interests, constructs them, and subsequently influences external po­liti­cal agents to respond to them, ­whether through strategies of conflict or negotiation. The situation may be changing, the po­liti­cal dimension of trade u ­ nions is broadening due to the issue of equality, even with the dif­fer­ent meanings associated with this term (Wrench 2000b). Hence the po­liti­cal discourses of the trade u ­ nions and trade ­unionists (the two are not necessarily the same) is a vital starting point for a discussion. Yet the po­liti­cal is also about exclusion, silences, misrepre­sen­ta­tions, and generalizations—it is about how voice is constructed and by whom. Second, this necessitates an understanding of resources as a central feature of the po­liti­cal and the importance of dimensions of resources such as monetary resources for collective organ­ization, temporal and ­human resources for organ­ izing social groups and movements, and knowledge resources in terms of orientation and effectiveness of repre­sen­ta­tion and voice. How to capture this in research through mapping strategies and discourses should be a more central concern. Hence, ­there is a need to explain and appreciate the po­liti­cal in terms of immigrant-­trade ­union relations and to map po­liti­cal discourses and resources—­the discursive and extra-­discursive (Jessop 1982). Fourth, we need to map regulation in a new and more novel way (Mac­ Kenzie and Martínez Lucio 2005), especially as the state is composed of vari­ ous complex levels and institutions along with competing legitimating proj­ects (Jessop 2002). The issue of social inclusion is not based solely on the need to develop social inclusion strategies and to legitimate them. The type of social inclusion strategies developed by specific actors and with what support and evaluation strategies is equally impor­tant. Social inclusion covers a range of themes—­education, ­labor market access, social support, po­liti­cal voice, and ­others. The question of coordination and development is central, especially as sustainability is a major prob­lem in the development of social inclusion strategies. This is a prob­lem in any national or regional context. Given the pa­norama of the EU this is steadily becoming a prob­lem for creating a coherent system of regulation and welfare, which is also effective in dealing with racism and the social exclusion of immigrants.

Understanding and Framing the Questions    17

Social inclusion is at the heart of the EU’s rhe­toric, albeit not to be confused with the EU’s real­ity, as are notions of governance and partnership between dif­fer­ent social actors such as trade ­unions and community-­based groups. Strategies such as lifelong learning and new forms of vocational training are seen to forge a positive platform for the work of institutions in dealing with social exclusions (Stuart 2007). Given t­ hese strategies and approaches then the work of peak institutions in the EU is not based solely on lobbying for social rights and funds; increasingly it involves dealing with new forms of social coordination and policy. The term “governance” has been developed to explain the ways in which policies are implemented through a more dispersed and “shared” approach (Kooiman 2003; Newman 2005). This means that partnerships between vari­ous bodies—­public, private, and civil society–­based—­are a feature of new social inclusion strategies. This includes nongovernmental organ­izations and employers as well, often ignored in much of the ­labor and employment relations lit­er­a­ture on the topics discussed, especially employers. This panoply of players means that the po­liti­cal dimension of social inclusion is impor­tant: the broad networks of bodies that are delivering ser­vices such as lifelong learning are increasingly complex. The Eu­ro­pean dimension is therefore raising a new range of institutional challenges. How do ­these vary across countries? Is ­there any coordination? Is ­there cross-­border institutional learning? Alternatively, is it a patchwork of social strategies with sustainability prob­ lems and a lack of coordinating structures and visions? The questions are relevant ­because part of the prob­lem is that social inclusion, or social strategies, vary and can be dif­fer­ent and even in competition with each other.2

­ oward a Dynamic Framework for Understanding T Trade Union Responses in Terms of Their Identities and the Logics of Solidarity It is therefore impor­tant to build on the insights of the arguments and approaches outlined above and weave them into a broader and more dynamic understanding of the nature of trade ­union responses and the question of solidarity and change in relation to immigration. The response of trade ­unions to the question of immigration is, as we have seen, a growing area of study and represents a significant turnaround in research agendas in the field of industrial relations (Holgate 2005; Krings 2009; Marino 2012; Martínez

18   Chapter 1

Lucio and Perret 2009; Meardi 2012; Milkman 2006); but our intention ­here is to link the discussion to broader issues of regulatory context and strategy. We therefore build on the insights of two sets of work in comparative industrial relations that we have considered above. The first focuses on the interplay of regulatory context and internal trade ­union structures in the development of trade u ­ nion policies in general (Frege and Kelly 2003; Hyman 2001; Locke and Thelen 1995). The second involves specific frameworks for understanding trade ­union responses to immigration (Marino, Roosblad, and Penninx 2017a; 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 approach to the debate centered on issues of trade u ­ nion identity. It also requires an understanding of internal debates and tensions in the dif­fer­ent ways in which a trade u ­ nion evolves, perceives gaps in its traditional forms of action, and considers pro­cesses of renewal. Our main original contribution is therefore an exploratory analytical model, using research-­based cases primarily for illustrative purposes. We show that trade u ­ nion responses are stretched between dif­fer­ent logics of action and meaning. We focus on strategies that have a specific effect on immigrants, although no clear line can be drawn between initiatives for workers generally and t­ hose for immigrants in par­tic­u­lar; thus we discuss policies where enhancing immigrant 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 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 u ­ nion structures and strategies emerge historically. In the study of immigration, comparative research is a vital step for understanding broader historical complexity and how trade ­unions vary and why regarding questions of immigration and ethnicity. This point is raised by Wrench (2004), who cautions against a tendency to read too much from structural f­ actors such as trade u ­ nion strength or systems of regulation. Instead, the influence of po­liti­cal discourse and social strug­gles can configure trade ­union orientations; and what is more, we need

Understanding and Framing the Questions    19

to be alert to critical incidents and moments when trade u ­ nion strategies and views begin to shift. This is critical to our narrative as questions of identity and history are impor­tant to the way trade ­union responses are constructed. In the discussion of trade ­union responses to immigrant workers we can identify two dimensions that compose an exploratory analytical framework. The first involves logics of actions, which shape trade u ­ nion discourse and policies and are linked to trade ­union identities and established forms of action. Three main logics are implicitly or explic­itly used by trade ­unions in building representative action. The logic of class leads trade u ­ nions to consider immigrants as part of the wider working class: common interests between immigrant and local workers entail general solidarity among workers. The second logic, of race or ethnicity, insists that immigrant 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 trade ­unions with issues that are not directly related to workplace (housing, health, welfare, or general ­labor market rights). This logic is often applied to immigrants 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 immigrants as workers clashes both with a logic of race and ethnicity (which stresses the distinctive position of immigrants within the l­abor force) and the logic of social rights (which considers immigrants as citizens, not just as workers). However, full repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrant 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 trade ­union identity and purpose” between market, class, and society (2001, 3–4). He argues that trade u ­ nions have tended t­ oward 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 u ­ nionism.” He also argues that, in any country, trade u ­ nions 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 ­toward the “missing” third point. We use a similar instrument to analyze the findings from our comparative analy­sis, as illustrated in figure 1.1. The second dimension concerns the specific strategies (or modes of action) trade ­unions may use to represent and defend immigrant workers. Each of the logics of action is usually associated with a specific strategy. In the first,

20    Chapter 1 Class/Organizing

Race Ethnicity/Community

Social Rights/Social and Institutional Regulation

Figure 1.1.  Trade union logics and modes of action

trade ­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 immigrant activists and a better engagement with equality. The third, linked to social rights, entails trade ­unions engaging in regulation through concerting with social partners at central and regional levels and direct involvement with government in the formulation of policies and laws. In this book we aim to bring out the dynamics of change and developing trade ­union responses in relation to both regulatory contexts and trade ­union identities. Our analy­sis therefore attempts to add a dynamic dimension to this path-­dependent narrative. It does so by considering trade u ­ nion responses ­toward immigrant workers across three countries, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Spain. Drawing on the evidence presented in the following chapters, we place the trade u ­ nion movements of t­ hese three countries within the triangular repre­sen­ta­tion of trade ­union strategies and resources, as illustrated in figure 1.1. We argue that the logic of action and strategy of

Understanding and Framing the Questions    21

trade u ­ nions has tended to coalesce around specific issues and approaches in many cases. It focuses on larger trade ­unions and the way they have attempted to engage with the question of migration. The aim is to see how bureaucratic approaches have shifted or changed in the light of t­ hese social changes. In the UK—­where strategies oscillate between issues of class and race/ ethnicity—­trade u ­ nions 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 trade ­union repre­sen­ta­tion and resources. It is this gap that emerges as a challenge for trade ­union responses as we ­will show. The Netherlands—­with its responses forged between social rights and race/ ethnicity—­has had a deeper tradition of formal social dialogue at the national level. This has encouraged the development of a state-­oriented discourse of multicultural policies and welfarism, involving trade ­unions more closely than in Britain, which has a similar set of policies in relation to ethnicity: the challenge for the Dutch has been a return to forms of class discourses and actions in engaging with new forms of immigration. In Spain—­ balanced in some sense between class and social rights—­the system of industrial relations has a dual expression with traditional class trade u ­ nionism, linked to narratives of class solidarity, balanced by a more strategic link to the state, although this has been tested recently due to austerity politics; while not as embedded as the Dutch model, this has vari­ous neocorporatist characteristics. The need to link to immigrant and ethnic minority communities is therefore a gap it has had to address. Trade ­unions in each country have found it difficult to engage more broadly across the range of needs and questions facing immigrants. Missing logics in the cases we selected and presented ­either relating to class, race, or social rights may represent the weak point in each context. So, it is not a question of just why responses are complete or incomplete but of what paths they have taken and how that shapes or limits f­ uture responses.

Chapter 2

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions of Inclusion and L ­ abor Relations Research Context and Methods

This chapter introduces the employment relations and migration contexts for each of our countries and outlines the research methodology. As set out in chapter 1, our research compared trade ­union strategies aimed at achieving inclusion of immigrant and ethnic minority workers in national contexts: the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Spain. Our starting point is to analyze trade ­unions in the national context, following the idea that trade ­unions, although key actors with a degree of in­de­pen­dence in choosing, are influenced by the institutional context in which they are embedded. T ­ here are similar external pressures (­labor market flexibility, the EU, e­ tc.) across countries, and trade ­unions have to deal with ­these challenges. The way in which trade ­unions frame ­these challenges and respond to them, however, is not totally determined by institutional and contextual ­factors but also by po­ liti­cal, orga­nizational, historical, and identity f­ actors. This starting point allowed us to highlight the extent to which trade ­unions have promoted innovation, ­going beyond path de­pen­dency.

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    23

­ hese countries ­were chosen on the basis of differences in terms of instiT tutional contexts. They constitute dif­fer­ent va­ri­e­ties of capitalism: a liberal market economy, a coordinated market economy, and a mixed or Mediterranean market economy. The history of immigration and the composition of immigrant populations also 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. According to Eurostat data (2016),1 in the UK, the foreign-­born population is around 8.7 million, just over 13 ­percent of the population, with nonnationals numbering 5.6 million. Among nonnationals, over half, 3.2 million, are from another EU member state and 2.4 million are from outside the EU. The largest groups of the foreign-­born are Polish, Indian, and Pakistani. About 2.1 million foreign-­born p­ eople live in the Netherlands, around 12 ­percent of the total population. The largest minority groups are Turkish, Surinamese, and Moroccan. Nonnationals number 835,000, so over half of foreign-­born p­ eople have Dutch nationality. More than half of nonnationals are from another EU member state (459,000). Spain, on the other hand, has only recently become a country of immigration, having started to grow in the early 2000s following the Spanish economic boom; key sectors that have drawn on immigrant ­labor include hospitality, agriculture, and construction. The population of foreign-­born ­people is around 5.9 million, nearly 13 ­percent of the population. The largest groups of foreign-­ born are Moroccan, Romanian, and Ec­ua­dor­ian. The number of nonnationals is 4.4 million, with over half (2.5 million) coming from outside the EU. The EU’s enlargement in 2004 resulted in a significant influx of immigrants from Central and Eastern Eu­rope in all three countries, and particularly in the UK and the Netherlands, with a larger share of EU nationals than in Spain. The time frame of the main research was from 2009 to 2013 and it was updated with follow-up interviews and proj­ects. The aim was to capture the manner in which a framework of responses was emerging prior to the early years of the ­Great Recession of 2008 (when the tensions between the trade ­union movement and the state ­were becoming more acute, as ­were the debates on migration generally). The three countries chosen ­were also seen to represent three dif­fer­ent forms of regulation and trade u ­ nion models. The Netherlands represent a

24   Chapter 2

highly coordinated and institutionalized model of industrial relations, which despite a relatively low level of trade ­union membership (18 ­percent in 2013), benefits from a high coverage of collective bargaining (84.8 ­percent in 2013). The UK represents a quite dif­fer­ent if not opposite case, characterized by a rather decentralized and fragmented system of industrial relations, as shown by the much lower rate of collective bargaining coverage (29.5 ­percent in 2013) when compared to the Netherlands, and despite higher levels of trade u ­ nion density (25.7 ­percent in 2013, although this rate hides a big divide between the private and the public sectors). Spain represents a m ­ iddle case with a trade u ­ nion membership of 16.9  ­percent and a coverage of collective bargaining of 77.6  ­percent in 2013. 2 The three countries also pres­ent dif­fer­ent rates of trade ­union membership among immigrant workers, estimated as 18.1 ­percent in the Netherlands, 14.6 ­percent in the UK, and 5.6 ­percent in Spain (Kranendonk and de Beer 2016). In terms of immigration models, the UK represents an advanced experience of migration that emerged from the recent colonial past and was more or­ga­nized in its initial development, being directed by the state and employers. For example, immigrants from the Ca­rib­bean, Pakistan, and East Africa ­were brought to specific large-­scale public and private organ­izations. In addition, the system of regulation has been relatively stronger in social terms in relation to worker rights, although the system of industrial relations has had—­and still has—­a relatively voluntarist set of features with weak national and multiemployer bargaining features and an increasingly limited reach of trade u ­ nion repre­sen­ta­tion. The Netherlands represents a country with a similar experience of migration historically, although this has changed in recent years due to vari­ous forms of Eu­ro­pean integration. The differences in relation to the UK are in the way the state interacts with trade u ­ nions at the national level. The more or­ga­nized and corporatist character of national and sector-­level industrial relations allows us to view a system where national coordination should in theory be more advanced than the United Kingdom’s even if both share quite extensive histories of equality legislation that the relevant chapters w ­ ill capture. Examining these two countries allows us to see how the variability of industrial relations plays a role. Spain represents a case of migration that was relatively new in historical terms in part due to Spain’s seclusion for economic and po­liti­cal reasons from the early nineteenth c­ entury or even earlier (as its postimperial period is much longer). It also has a dif­fer­ent system of competing trade u ­ nions in

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    25

terms of po­liti­cal and ideological identity. The irony with Spain as a system of demo­cratic industrial relations—­which was interrupted by the Franco dictatorship (1939–76 generally speaking)—is that it has had to develop systems of repre­sen­ta­tion and regulation more recently, and while featuring systems of collective bargaining coverage and national corporatist politics similar to the Netherlands, ­these are not as embedded or deep. Hence, whereas each country is not a hermetically sealed system of industrial relations with clear differentiating marks vis-­à-­vis ­others, they are significantly dif­fer­ent to allow us to explore the evolution and differences in relation to trade u ­ nionism and migration.

The National Cases The Netherlands employment relations The Dutch system of employment relations, labelled as the “polder model,” has been considered an example of corporatism par excellence (Visser and Hemerijck 1997), a “harmony model” of po­liti­cal economy characterized by a high degree of consensus, cooperation, and coordination among responsible “social partners” of or­ga­nized capital, or­ga­nized ­labor, and the demo­cratic state (Hemerijck 1995). Trade ­unions have long enjoyed strong institutional supports that have made them less dependent on membership and the mobilization of power sources (Gumbrell-­McCormick and Hyman 2013). T ­ here are two main trade u ­ nion federations in the Netherlands: the Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging (FNV [Confederation of Dutch Unions]) with over one million members and the Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond with around 300,000 members. The FNV is the most representative trade u ­ nion in the Netherlands and at the time of the research included 18 affiliated trade ­unions that w ­ ere represented directly or indirectly (through their confederations) in all national level advisory, consultation, and policy-­implementation bodies. The FNV-­Bondgenoten, representing mainly ser­vice sector workers, was the richest and biggest trade ­union, with nearly half a million members, followed by the public ser­vices trade u ­ nion FNV-­Abvakabo with 355,000 members.

26    Chapter 2

Yet po­liti­cally ­there ­were a range of challenges due to the restructuring of the trade ­union movement. Following large-­scale mergers in the 1990s, the internal balance of power shifted, especially within the FNV. The resulting two multi-­industrial trade ­unions (FNV-­Bondgenoten and FNV-­ Abvakabo) accounted for two-­thirds of FNV membership, which affected the power balance within the trade u ­ nion movement and between the confederation and affiliated trade ­unions. Abvakabo and Bondgenoten challenged the FNV confederation, especially with regard to its role in the negotiations with employers and the government on pension reforms (De Beer 2013). This conflict between Abvakabo and Bondgenoten, on the one hand, and the FNV confederation, on the other, ultimately led to a crisis within the FNV and a radical overhaul of its structure in 2012. Although the pension debate was the immediate cause of the rupture within the FNV, it reflected a more fundamental and deeper dissension within the FNV between a moderate and pragmatic faction that wanted to represent workers’ interests via consultation with employers and government and was willing to negotiate reforms in the social security system and a radical faction that wanted to protect workers’ interests through industrial action and was determined to preserve existing rights (Roosblad 2013). The Dutch regulatory framework has proved to be relatively stable in the face of external challenges. The Netherlands has managed to minimize the effects of the 2008 economic and financial crisis compared to other Eu­ro­pean countries (Hagima 2013), thanks to low levels of public debt and low unemployment. Low unemployment is directly linked to the expansion of part-­ time work, which started during the 1990s and coincided with the rise of female l­ abor market participation (Visser and Hemerijck 1997). Since the early 2000s, however, the success of this experiment has been challenged by a growing incidence of low pay and the increasing use of flexible types of employment, especially in sectors such as agriculture, construction, domestic care, and cleaning where trade u ­ nion presence can be weak (Boonstra, Keune, and Verhulp 2010). Many unskilled and insecure jobs in t­hese sectors are often taken up by EU mi­grants through (bogus) self-­employment or the posting of workers (see Cremers, Dølvik, and Bosch 2007), non-­EU mi­ grants, and ethnic minority groups. Self-­employment has increased from 12 ­percent in 2007 to 16 ­percent in 2014, which places the Netherlands above the Eu­ro­pean average (IPPR 2015). The trade ­union role in promoting regulation in t­ hese segments of the l­abor market has been diminishing (Bern-

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    27

tsen 2015), due to both declining trade u ­ nion membership and collective bargaining, which has focused on managing flexibility rather than reducing it (Keune 2013). Trade u ­ nion density declined from 40 ­percent in 1960 to 18 ­percent in 2013 (Visser 2015). Membership is relatively high in the public sector, especially in education and construction, while it is relatively low in the ser­vice industry, especially in the h ­ otel and catering industry. Despite the membership decline, the highly centralized Dutch trade ­unions remain central actors with a relatively high collective bargaining coverage of 85 ­percent. Although employers have never systematically tried to destabilize the trade ­unions or to create a trade union–­free environment (Visser and Hemerijck 1997), the decline in membership density undermines representative legitimacy, which the trade ­unions have recognized in the recent “turn to organising” (Connolly, Kretsos, and Phelan 2014; Roosblad 2013).

migration context The Netherlands had already experienced immigration before World War II. However, from the end of the nineteenth c­ entury onward, emigration to the United States and ­later to Canada, New Zealand, and Australia was also significant. For a period, the Dutch government even encouraged its citizens to emigrate, due to the belief that the Netherlands was an overpopulated country. It was only at the beginning of the 1960s that immigration exceeded emigration. The picture of immigration in the Netherlands is quite complex. According to Hans Vermeulen and Rinus Penninx (2000), four dif­fer­ent groups of immigrants are distinguishable since World War II. The first group is composed of the so-­called repatriates or fellow citizens from Indonesia and New Guinea, who started arriving in the Netherlands ­after Indonesian in­ de­pen­dence in 1949 and the decolonization of the “Dutch East Indies.” Most of t­ hese immigrants had Dutch nationality and consequently solid l­ egal status in Dutch society. This group also comprises South Moluccans, mainly ex-­soldiers from the Royal Dutch East Indian Army and their families. They arrived in the Netherlands in 1951 with the intention of returning once a “­Free Republic of the Moluccans” had been established. A second group of immigrants is composed of so-­called guest workers from the Mediterranean regions. Their immigration was encouraged by ­labor shortages during the period of postwar reconstruction and regulated by

28   Chapter 2

recruiting treaties with the sending countries. Such treaties involved Italy (1960), Spain, Portugal, and Turkey (1964), Greece (1966), Morocco (1969), and Yugo­slavia and Tunisia (1970) (Roosblad 2000). A third group is composed of immigrants coming from Suriname, which gained in­de­pen­dence from the Netherlands in 1975, and from the “Netherlands Antilles,” dissolved in October 2010. For a long period, “fellow citizens from overseas” enjoyed ­free entry to the Netherlands. This immigration was small in scale and made up mainly of middle-­class immigrants from Suriname and students from the Antilles. For this reason it was not considered a prob­lem by the Dutch government, at least ­until the 1970s. The last group is composed of refugees and asylum seekers who came initially from Eastern Bloc countries such as Hungary and Czecho­slo­va­kia. This phenomenon grew over the course of time and involved more and more countries, including Iraq, Af­ghan­i­stan, Iran, Somalia, and Ghana. Despite the variety and continuity of immigration, the central idea in the postwar period was that the Netherlands should not be a country of net immigration (Penninx 2006a). L ­ abor migration was commonly perceived as being only a temporary phenomenon. In a Document on Mi­grant Workers (Nota Buitenlandse Werknemers) written in the 1970s, foreign workers ­were encouraged to retain their identity and culture of origin, with a view to returning to their home country. This idea was also applied to Moluccans, for whom the government designed specific policy interventions aimed at safeguarding their separate identity. ­After the oil crisis of 1973, the Dutch government implemented repatriation policies in the form of agreements with sending countries, to encourage the repatriation of l­abor mi­grants from the Mediterranean region. T ­ hese policies, however, did not achieve the desired results. In the context of worsening economic conditions and rising unemployment, an awareness that immigrant workers ­were no longer temporary started to grow. This led to a turning point in Dutch immigration policies, and ­here began the divide between entry policies and integration policies. On the one hand, the 1979 Memorandum on Aliens Policies (Notitie Vreemdelingenbeleid) stated a need for more restriction on entry. On the other hand, the importance of integration policies was reasserted, resulting in the Memorandum on Minorities (Minderhedennota) of 1983. The central idea was that restrictive immigration policies w ­ ere required to make the integration of ­those who had arrived in previous waves of immigration pos­si­ble: “The Dutch tradition of hospi-

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    29

tality should no longer be manifested in admitting larger quantities of foreigners,” but rather “by setting up immigrant policies of good quality for ­those who are in the country already” (Notitie Vreemdelingenbeleid 1979, 8; quoted in Roosblad 2000, 99). From the end of the 1970s, therefore, while entry policies had a markedly restrictive character, integration policies w ­ ere strongly supported. During the 1980s, “the basic rationale . . . ​was that specific groups in Dutch society that combined a low socio-­economic status with being perceived as ethnically and/ or culturally dif­fer­ent would run the risk of becoming permanently marginal groups in society” (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2007, 15). Integration was considered to be a two-­sided pro­cess. The instruments to prevent the formation of marginal groups w ­ ere envisaged as emancipation through po­liti­cal participation, cultural and religious equity, and socioeconomic equality. The basic idea was that the development of an individual and group identity would result in the individual’s emancipation within the community and have a positive influence on the integration pro­cess. Hence participation in all spheres of society, including the po­liti­cal one, was to be encouraged. During the 1980s, antidiscrimination legislation was reinforced and structures for reporting and consultation w ­ ere established. In par­tic­u­lar the In­ de­pen­dent National Bureau against Racial Discrimination, committed to reporting on and working against racism and discrimination, was set up in 1985. Furthermore, active and passive voting rights for “alien” residents ­were introduced, and the presence of “elected representatives of immigrant background” was supported in the national parliament and in the cities. The Dutch nationality law was modified to make it much easier for immigrants and their ­children to become Dutch citizens. In the religious domain, minority policies stressed the importance of equal facilities. The government incorporated par­tic­u­lar representatives from minorities into policy deliberation and implementation practices. This pro­cess was influenced by the Dutch tradition of pillarization: “Just as the ‘old’ Christian and Protestant pillars had their own state-­sponsored, semi-­autonomous institutions in education, health, welfare and the public media, such rights cannot be denied to the new cultural and religious minorities of mi­grant communities” (Koopmans and Statham 2001, 79). In the socioeconomic domain, policy mainly addressed the ­labor market, education, and housing. Only in the housing domain, however, did such policies result in successful outcomes. ­These policies prevented a homogeneous

30    Chapter 2

ethnic concentration and focused on the creation of low-­rent social housing for immigrants from dif­fer­ent backgrounds and Dutch citizens who shared the same socioeconomic characteristics (Penninx 2006a). The most unsuccessful policy area has been integration policies related to the l­abor market. Even in periods of economic growth the unemployment rate of ethnic minorities has remained around three times higher than among indigenous workers (van der Meer and Roosblad 2004). Significant differences persisted among colonial immigrants, who often speak Dutch before they arrive and are more familiar with Dutch society. While the position of Indonesians improved, Surinamese, Dutch Antilleans, and Arubans remained in a less favorable position (Zorlu and Hartog 2001). Among guest workers, Southern Eu­ro­pean immigrants such as Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, and Yugo­slavs progressively improved their working conditions, whereas Turks and Moroccans remained in a more unfavorable position in the ­labor market (Lucassen and Penninx 1997; van Ours and Veenman 1999). Despite some failures in specific domains, the Netherlands did have a progressive multiculturalist policy for a time. However, in the 1990s public and po­liti­cal discourse started to look critically at ethnic minority policies. It was considered that ­little pro­gress had been made b­ ecause of undue attention to cultural aspects and subsidization of organ­izations, and the discouraging of individual participation in education and the ­labor market. The princi­ple that the obligations of immigrants should be more balanced with their rights was embraced in the Counternnota of 1994. This policy ­adopted “a renewed ‘Integration Policy’ with a more ‘Republican’ character, focusing on ‘good citizenship’ of individual immigrants” (Penninx 2006a, 132). More adaptation to Dutch norms and values was demanded. The terms “assimilation” and “newcomers” ­were introduced and the expression “ethnic minority” was substituted with the term “allochtonen” (immigrants). During this period, the idea that immigration should be treated as a technical ­matter and not the subject of po­liti­cal rhe­toric started to decline. Explicit and diverging po­liti­ cal stances challenged the earlier po­liti­cal consensus, marking the shift of the public and po­liti­cal debate on immigration issues from depoliticization to polarization (see Penninx 2005, 2006a, 2006b). According to Penninx (2006a), three major f­ actors account for this change. First, as mentioned above, ethnic minority policy failed in the area of the ­labor market and education. Second, the perception of the Islamic religion

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    31

changed. Third, the so-­called asylum crisis occurred—an increase in the number of asylum seekers that the government was not able to manage. This resulted in more undocumented immigrants, which, in turn, helped to reinforce the perception that immigration was out of control. More restrictive entry mea­sures ­were introduced. The Alien ­Labour Law (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), which regulated the employment of foreign workers, was passed in 1995. The principal rule was that immigrant laborers ­were entitled to a residency permit only if t­here was a shortage of employees from member states of the EU, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein. Employers ­were obliged to report any vacancy and wait for a minimum of five weeks before employing a foreign worker. Hence, this act discouraged ­labor migration, which was only allowed where a foreign worker had unique skills and qualifications. The law was successively amended in 2000 to improve its implementation and enforcement. In 1998, the Linking Act stated that only immigrants with residency permits could obtain social security and other social benefits. Restrictive mea­sures have also been implemented with re­spect to f­ amily formation and reunification. From the 1990s, f­ amily migration started to be seen as an obstacle to individual integration, and hence a menace to society (van Walsum 2004, 143). Since the modification of the Aliens Resolution (Vreemdelingenbesluit) in 2000, Dutch residents are required to have stable employment, be at least twenty-­one years old, and earn at least 120 ­percent of the minimum wage in order to bring a foreign partner into the Netherlands. Fi­nally, the country has also introduced mea­sures to speed up the pro­ cess of asylum applications, resulting in a significant reduction in successful requests. The Foreigners Act (Vreemdelingenwet) of 2001 introduced temporary status for the first three years, a limitation on the right to appeal and an obligation on the part of the rejected asylum seeker to leave the Netherlands within twenty-­eight days to “return to their home country.” It has been underlined that this law could produce a further increase in illegal residency (van Amersfoort 2004). At the end of the 1990s, the conviction that multiculturalism was failing became stronger. Amid general social discontent, the center-­right VVD party (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Demo­cratie [­People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy]) appealed to populist positions on migration and integration (Penninx 2006a). Islam and the integration of Muslim immigrants w ­ ere identified as being especially problematic. The terrorist attack of September 11,

32   Chapter 2

2001, reinforced this social concern. The two key issues in the 2002 parliamentary election campaigns became public security and immigration, largely due to an effective campaign by Pym Fortuyn, the leader of the LPF party (Lijst Pym Fortuyn [Pym Fortuyn List]) and his right-­wing populist followers. “Fortuyn profiled himself with harsh statements on criminality, direct democracy, immigration and integration. He pleaded for ‘zero migration,’ argued that ‘the Netherlands was full,’ and called for ‘a cold war against Islam’ ” (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2007, 19). It was asserted that immigration, particularly from Arab countries, might conflict with established “cultural” institutions, such as equality between the sexes and gay rights. Shortly before the elections, Fortuyn was assassinated by an ecological activist, but his LPF party gained 26 of the 150 parliamentary seats. The murder of Pym Fortuyn and the assassination of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 contributed to a worsening social climate and generated a violent debate in the Dutch media. The Dutch Monitoring Centre in the Netherlands reported that racist violent acts increased e­ very year between 1996 and 2000. Po­liti­cal discourse also changed. The liberal VVD strongly enforced populist thinking on migration and integration (Penninx 2006a). Many proposals to limit the rights of foreigners to levels below ­those of Dutch ­people ­were discussed in the Dutch House of Representatives, although they w ­ ere not implemented ­because of the significant in­equality that any legislation would have resulted in. The center-­right governments that came to power a­ fter 2002, including the Liberals, the Christian Demo­crats, and initially the LPF, took the lead in formulating the “New Style” Integration Policy of 2004. This policy followed the paradigm of the 1990s as regards the lead concepts of “citizenship” and “self-­responsibility,” although stronger emphasis was given to the cultural adaptation of immigrants to Dutch society (Penninx 2005). Furthermore, integration policy had become clearly linked to immigration policy: it facilitated the prior se­lection of immigrants and restricted new waves of asylum seekers, ­family reunion, and marriage migration. In the field of f­ amily reunification, the law provided instruments aimed at the early integration of newcomers, including a compulsory test of language skills and knowledge about Dutch culture and society before entering the Netherlands, and civic integration courses once the immigrant had entered the country. The renewal of temporary permits was made dependent on the successful completion of ­these courses. According to Rinus Pen-

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    33

ninx (2006b, 252) such mea­sures “have a strong symbolic, po­liti­cal message and attempt to respond primarily to the populist vote. The tone is authoritarian, and policies are increasingly mandatory, laying the burden of integration unequally on the shoulders of immigrants”. The Law on Integration and Citizenship (Wet Inburgering), effective from January 1, 2007, led to substantial changes for the municipalities as they ­were made to be more responsible for supporting immigration guidance. Hence Dutch policies underwent remarkable change in a relatively short period: “While for a long time the Netherlands was celebrated for the success of its multiculturalist approach, t­ here is nowadays an increasing emphasis on integration and adaptation to Dutch norms and values. In this regard, the Netherlands is one of the most striking examples of countries that have renounced the multiculturalist approach” (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2007, 3). Despite this trend, the Netherlands continues to experience a significant amount of new immigration, especially since the 2004 EU enlargement. In 2009 the proportion of residents with a foreign background in the Netherlands was 20.3 ­percent of the total population. P ­ eople with a Western foreign background constitute 9 ­percent, among which Poles are the most numerous group. Residents with non-­Western foreign backgrounds constitute 11.2 ­percent of the total population, among which the biggest minority groups are Turks, Moroccans, and Surinamese (CBS 2010). About half of Turks and Moroccans belong to the second generation, and for Surinamese this is over four in ten (CBS 2010). The position of immigrant workers in the ­labor market has been increasingly influenced by changes in its structure and composition, and in par­tic­ u­lar by the growth of flexible types of employment (Boonstra, Keune, and Verhulp 2010) in sectors with a weak trade ­union presence. ­These sectors are witnessing an increase of immigrant workers, including EU workers from newly accessed countries, who receive low pay and worse terms and conditions of employment. ­These changes have deeply affected the debate on migration and immigrant workers in the Netherlands. In fact, the emphasis on social integration of mi­grant and ethnic minority workers—­linked to the tradition of multiculturalism and sustained by the state—­seems to leave more and more room for discussion on the l­abor market integration of mi­grants (especially but not uniquely new mi­grants) linked to the increasing concerns of social dumping (Cremers 2015). This change has impor­tant implication for mi­grants since it contributes to the rise of anti-­immigrant feelings, which

34   Chapter 2

also involve historically embedded communities. However, it also has impor­ tant consequences for trade u ­ nion action since trade u ­ nions are the actors that need to take the initiative in regulating t­ hese marginal sectors of the economy and the linkages among flexibility, precariousness, and exploitation.

Spain employment relations The legacy of authoritarianism during the twentieth c­ entury in the Spanish po­liti­cal economy grows ever distant, but it, and the po­liti­cal response to it, continues to shape aspects of the l­ abor relations system. Certain characteristics of the pre-1975 period w ­ ere to have a strong influence on the subsequent development of this system. First, worker repre­sen­ta­tion was strongly orientated to the workplace and the com­pany, although the effectiveness and depth of that repre­sen­ta­tion was highly variable (Ortiz 1996). While collective action in the workplace was integral to the anti-­Francoist movement during its ­later years and the period of po­liti­cal transition, it played a part in the construction of the identity of national l­abor organ­izations. Second, the partial liberalization of ­labor relations in the late 1950s and 1960s prompted an un­ co­or­di­nated and inefficient system of collective bargaining, which spawned a vast range of collective agreements that lacked a coordinated structure (Martínez Lucio 1998). This too created subsequent prob­lems in developing representative organ­izations. Third, state regulation in areas such as employment termination and job classification, and their defense by l­abor organ­ izations l­ater in the 1970s, in certain circumstances framed the debate on ­labor utilization and flexibility at work and in the ­labor market. This was to become a major battleground ­under democracy. Fourth, employers attempted to offset what they perceived to be rigidities in employment through a wide array of bonuses and other special payments (Toharia 1988, 121). As a result, central institutional control over this ele­ment of employment has been highly complex and relatively weak. Fi­nally, this shifting, amorphous industrial relations environment meant that economic, social, and po­liti­cal demands ­were never clearly differentiated, especially in the early de­cades of the post-­ Francoist period. It took three de­cades for a new type of consensus around supply-­side and regulatory issues to emerge, which started to shape a new

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    35

form of po­liti­cal and social dialogue between l­abor and capital—­for example, training. Spain is an economy in which small firms predominate. Despite the role of industrial districts in Catalonia, the Basque country, and Madrid, conservatism and paternalistic employment relations, along with the attempted avoidance of regulation, remain the dominant characteristics of small-­scale capital in Spain. Trade u ­ nion membership and organ­ization tend to be much weaker in small firms, and workforces are generally dependent on trade ­union bodies external to the workplace, even where elected trade u ­ nion representatives exist. The predominance of small-­scale enterprise means that their industrial relations and personnel management practices are the prevalent pattern (rieto 1991). Unfortunately, empirical data on the industrial relations of small firms remain relatively scarce. Research has concentrated on large companies, and in par­tic­u­lar on multinationals. A second notable feature of Spanish employers is the relative weakness of domestic capital vis-­à-­vis foreign companies, again the legacy of the country’s late and dependent pattern of industrialization (Martin and Velázquez 1996). Foreign multinational companies have been importers of new industrial relations, personnel, and ­human resource management policies into Spanish industry. What is more, since the 1990s, larger-­scale Spanish employers are outward looking and they tend to act on the basis of their multinational interests, rather than their Spanish ones. Since the 1980s, the public sector has under­gone massive rationalization and restructuring. The Instituto Nacional de Industria—­the state holding com­pany for a range of public enterprises—­was steadily run down as an orga­ nizational entity, and many companies ­were privatized. Public ser­vices such as the Post Office w ­ ere steadily modernized through the use of temporary contracting and flexible employment mea­sures. The decline of the state’s productive role has deprived it of a means of direct regulation of the economy, and it could be seen as weakening indigenous capital still further in relation to foreign capital. The privatization of many public utilities has created a generation of Spanish multinational companies that have become more outward looking, and in some cases seemingly obsessed with integrating more Americanized views of ­human resource management in Spanish ­labor relations. The organ­ization of business interests in Spain is highly unitary in formal terms (Pardo and Fernández 1991). The employers’ confederation CEOE

36    Chapter 2

established a near mono­poly of repre­sen­ta­tion following its foundation in 1977. It represents large and small, foreign and national, public and private firms alike, although t­here has been a tendency to rely on small and medium capital, since the multinationals which dominate the large firm sector tend to be less active in the organ­ization. The Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales (CEOE [Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organ­izations]) was formed out of vari­ous territorial and sectoral organ­ izations, some of them with their roots in the old state u ­ nion system. Its structure continues to be based on a mixture of territorial and sectoral bodies combining the economic functions of trade associations with the industrial relations role of employers’ associations. Companies are generally members of provincial sectoral federations, which in turn have membership in the main employers’ association, the CEOE, through provincial intersectoral groupings as well as national-­sectoral associations. Various other employer bodies dealing with small and medium-sized employers, for example, are linked to the CEOE. The growth of regional government has encouraged a corresponding decentralization of employers’ organ­izations, and the autonomous communities are an impor­tant arena of employer action. One of the CEOE’s most power­ful members is the Catalonian FNT (Formento del Trabajo Nacional). At the end of the 1970s, trade u ­ nionism was “extraordinarily complex” and politicized (Miguélez 1991, 214). Subsequently, the structure of repre­sen­ ta­tion was clarified by the increasing duopoly of the Union General de Trabajadores (UGT [General Union of Workers]) and the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Obreras (CCOO [Workers’ Commissions]). The CCOO emerged out of the spontaneous semiclandestine workplace organ­ ization of the dictatorship period. The UGT has a much longer history. Founded in 1888, it has always been closely linked to the Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE [Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party]) founded a few years earlier. Despite its near total eclipse during the Francoist dictatorship, it regained a leading role following the transition to democracy, helped by the establishment of a favorable legal-­institutional framework. Hence Spanish ­labor relations, beyond specific autonomous regions, are strongly dominated by left-­leaning trade u ­ nions. The once power­ful anarcho-­syndicalist tradition has not been able to recapture its dominant position of the early part of the 20th ­century, although it exerts an influence around social mobilization and alternative views. Strong in­de­pen­dent trade u ­ nions with a preference for mobilization remain in sectors such as the port industry.

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    37

Low trade ­union membership density (which has fluctuated between 10 ­percent and 20 ­percent over the past thirty years), related financial difficulties, and reliance on state funding have led to talk of a “crisis of repre­ sen­ta­tion” in Spanish trade u ­ nions. In the emergence of a new form of immigration and ­labor mobility—­and the increasing presence of a female workforce—­the real­ity is a ­labor movement attempting to respond to the institutional needs of such groups. This is done through relevant structures internally and state-­supported servicing programs, as with immigrants, and even greater attempts at more inclusive approaches in the servicing and support of diverse trade ­union membership bases. The membership figures give an incomplete picture of trade ­union influence. First, Jordana (1996) argues that trade ­union membership in the 1970s has been significantly overstated; thus the picture of subsequent decline is misleading. Second, as in France, formal trade u ­ nion “representativeness,” for the purposes of reaching collective agreements and participating in tripartite bodies, is judged according to the results in workplace elections in which all employees, ­whether trade ­union members or not, are entitled to vote. Participation of the workforce in ­these elections is high. In companies where elections take place (in many smaller companies, elections are not held b­ ecause of a lack of trade u ­ nion resources), participation is around 80 ­percent, and around three-­quarters of the votes go to the two main trade u ­ nions. Unlike in France, the two major trade ­unions have consolidated their position in workers’ committee elections, and nonunion repre­sen­ta­tion has fallen away. The combined share of the UGT and the CCOO ­rose from 56.2 ­percent in 1978 to well over 80 ­percent by the 1990s—­and it has remained more or less at this level ever since. Thus the Spanish trade ­union movement has been labeled a “voters” trade ­unionism rather than a “members” trade ­unionism (Martin Valverde 1991, 24–25). In other words, influence depends on electoral success as much as on membership figures. In t­ hese terms, the main Spanish trade u ­ nions appear to be more favorably regarded and more widely supported by workers than their membership figures might indicate. Impor­tant developments in the dynamics of interunion relationships since the 1980s include in par­tic­u­lar a certain rapprochement between the UGT and the CCOO. The reasons are diverse. One was the growing rift between the UGT and the PSOE. Against a background of Eu­ro­pean integration and, more recently, the demands of monetary ­union, socialist governments of the 1980s and 1990s abandoned socially progressive policies and pushed through

38   Chapter 2

legislation to deregulate ­labor markets, cut state expenditure, and reform social security systems. In 1988, the UGT and the CCOO jointly called a widely supported twenty-­four-­hour general strike, forcing concessions from the government. The changes in the communist left in the early 1990s have also removed barriers to cooperation between the two confederations, and since the mid-1990s the CCOO has been involved more pragmatically in bargaining over work organ­ization issues at the com­pany level. In 1996, in a major development in trade ­union relations, the two main confederations launched a coordinated joint collective bargaining strategy to extend the sphere and content of bargaining, and to lay down bargaining priorities aimed at maintaining employment levels and improving employment security. Since 1996 they have also begun to cooperate with the PSOE and the right-­wing Partido Popu­lar (Popu­lar Party) governments through a joint approach on health and safety, training, migration, and other areas. Coordination between ­these two main trade ­unions has provided a coherence and consensus to ­labor relations that has both positive features (regulatory coherence) and negative ones (a relative dependence on the state and formal systems of regulation). However, the emergence of economic austerity since 2008—­and a politics of deregulation—­have begun to challenge the model of l­ abor relations and the coverage of collective bargaining and aspects of state-­labor relations (Rocha 2014). This does not mean, however, that we can ignore aspects of dialogue within the system compared to the UK, for example (González Begega and Luque Balbona 2014).

migration context As have other Mediterranean countries, Spain has long been a country of ­labor emigration. In the de­cades following World War II, Spanish workers moved to other Western Eu­ro­pean countries, especially to France and Germany. A significant number also headed to South Amer­i­ca. ­Until recently, internal migration was also considerable. Many Spanish ­people moved from regions such as Andalusia, Extremadura, and Galicia to Catalonia, the Madrid area, and the Basque country. In the mid-1980s, however, Spain started to attract immigrants in a significant way, and in less than one de­cade it became a new country of l­abor migration. This rapid change is explained on the one hand by the rapid decline of indigenous workers in the rural areas

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    39

as the result of internal migration, and on the other hand by employers’ demands for cheap l­abor following the economic restructuring that began in the late 1980s (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008; Calavita 2005). Immigration to Spain started to grow faster at the beginning of 2000, following the booms in the Spanish economy and the tourist industry, and was particularly concentrated in areas such as Madrid, Catalonia, Andalusia, Murcia, Valencia, the Balearic Islands, and the Canary Islands. According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (National Statistical Bureau), in 2010 the number of immigrants reached 5,708,940, constituting 12.2 ­percent of the total population. This makes Spain one of the leading immigration countries in the EU. The largest groups of immigrants are Romanians (since 2008), Moroccans, and Ec­ua­dor­ians. However, many other nationalities are represented, among them many EU nationals (the British are the largest group with 387,226 residents) and Latin Americans (the largest group consists of Colombians). The first immigration law (LO 7/1985, known as Ley de Extranjería) was passed in 1985, just before Spain joined the EU. This law established conditions for foreigners to remain in the country and introduced restrictions on entry. Non-­EU workers could only be hired if employers could demonstrate that no Spanish citizens or residents ­were available for the position. Furthermore, residence permits w ­ ere granted on a one-­year basis, encouraging the idea of temporary status for immigrants. According to some authors, both the establishment and the contents of this law ­were influenced more by Spain’s entrance into the EU (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008) and by pressure to comply with the Schengen Agreement (Colectivo IOE 2001) than by a real necessity to regulate and restrict immigration. Immigration, in fact, was still very low at that time (241,971 immigrants representing just 0.63  ­percent of the population in 1986) and mainly consisted of Eu­ro­pean citizens. The only significant groups from outside Eu­rope w ­ ere Moroccans, Colombians, Chileans, and Argentineans (Miguélez and Recio 2008). Hence immigration did not encourage the implementation of rules as restrictive as ­those modeled on the regulatory framework of other EU countries (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008). This policy of work permits (referred to as the general regime) had the effect of obstructing ­legal entry. In 1993 the Spanish government launched a quota system aimed at creating a direct route of entry into Spain for a limited number of applications and in par­tic­ u­lar economic sectors. This system, however, worked as a regularization

4 0    Chapter 2

program, since most applications ­were filed by undocumented mi­grants already in the country. Immigration law was modified several times over the following years. However, it remained restrictive and increasingly conflicted with the rising demand for unskilled ­labor during the 1990s and 2000s. In contrast to non-­EU ­labor mi­grants, u ­ ntil 1994 asylum seekers enjoyed a privileged status that provoked a stream of applications. However, following the EU treaty of 1994, asylum legislation was modified and adapted to meet the demands of the EU (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008). From 1995 onward, restrictive asylum regulations made it difficult for foreigners claiming asylum to enter Spain. In the course of time, the restrictive entry policy resulted in a progressive increase in undocumented mi­grants: they ­were estimated to have risen from 388,000 in 2001 to 1,098,000 in 2005 (Cachón 2007). The government’s response has been to implement continuously a series of regularization programs (six from 1985 to 2005), which in practice constituted one of the main ways of obtaining regular status. Such interventions ­were the result of bottom-up pressure by social actors as well as by regional and local governments (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008). Immigration legislation also continued to be modified. Beginning in 2000, job offers became anonymous to avoid the use of quotas as a regularization mechanism. In addition, annual quotas had to be established in collaboration with regional governments, employer organ­izations, and trade ­unions. Again, the participation of t­hese organ­izations and trade u ­ nions at the regional level was encouraged. While immigration policymaking was the exclusive domain of the central government, integration policies first developed at the regional and local levels. The first national integration policy framework was only established in 2004. In 2006 the National Programme for Citizenship and Integration was implemented with the aim of promoting equality for immigrants. In contrast to immigration policies, the design and development of integration policies have been influenced by many more actors and stakeholders at dif­fer­ent levels of society (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008). Over the course of the 1990s the situation in Spain in relation to the ­labor market began to change with an older workforce, the increasing presence of ­women in the l­abor market, and a sudden increase in immigration. While unemployment had rarely been below 15 ­percent in the first twenty-­five years of the new democracy, ­women’s participation in the ­labor market has re-

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    41

mained relatively low. In the 1990s a variety of sectors such as construction, agriculture, and hospitality began turning to immigrant ­labor sources. Spain’s immigration level up to the 1990s was one of the lowest in Eu­rope, having emerged in regard to ­labor markets from a relatively closed and internally oriented economy u ­ nder the dictatorship. If anything, the regime prioritized emigration as a way of sustaining managed urban development and growth during the 1960s and 1970s. However, during the 1990s immigration from North Africa, Latin Amer­i­ca (especially Ec­ua­dor and Colombia), and Eastern Eu­rope (Romania and Poland in par­tic­u­lar) meant that a new workforce was arriving and settling in key urban areas and agricultural towns. In 1996, 1.4 ­percent of the population was born overseas, whereas in 2008 it was 11.33 ­percent (Aragon Medina et al. 2009). The economic crisis that emerged from 2008 onward has had a detrimental effect on the Spanish workforce, especially among young workers, ­women, and immigrants. Levels of unemployment have risen since 2008 to around 25 ­percent in 2014, with the rate among immigrants consistently reaching much higher levels. The number of immigrants returning to their home countries increased to a certain extent, although this was in part due to the government policy of providing unemployment benefits in vari­ous lump sum payments if immigrants left Spain. However, what emerges in Spain is an uneven experience of migration that has seen quite significant concentrations of immigrants within sectors with much smaller employers or more unprotected characteristics even if they have formal national or local regional collective agreements covering their terms and conditions, for example, construction and agriculture. The nature of migration has not been as or­ga­nized as in other cases with high levels of immigrants concentrated in such sectors and in the hidden features of the economy. This is not generalizable to all mi­grants insofar as immigrant communities have stabilized and created social and institutional networks and structures, and the state and social actors have found ways to regularize issues related to employment and residency vis-­à-­vis such groups, though it has created an urgency among social actors and trade ­unions in par­tic­u­lar in regard to extending extant working conditions and regulations to ­these harder-­to-­reach groups. The level of unemployment and social exclusion of migrants is high, and the political gap remains a significant ongoing issue. The trade unions have not formally been seen to regard the state as

42   Chapter 2

a major space for social inclusion strategies, and this has become weaker in recent years (see Martínez Lucio 2017a).

The United Kingdom employment relations British industrial relations are widely known for their “tradition of voluntarism” (Flanders 1974). This term indicates relatively low intervention by the state. In fact this intervention has historically been limited to the provision of instruments to support collective bargaining such as conciliation and arbitration machinery (Ferner and Hyman 1998). The support of ­free collective agreements and industrial autonomy was shared by employers and trade u ­ nions. If employers considered legislation as constraining the princi­ ple of laissez faire, trade ­unions tried to avoid the intervention of the courts, considered hostile to ­labor, in industrial disputes. Hence, while many trade ­unions in Eu­rope demanded a ­legal framework that would guarantee trade ­union recognition as well as regulate the pro­cess of collective negotiations, British trade ­unions “have recognised the need to rely on their own collective strength—­‘industrial muscle’—­rather than depending on external support; they have been more concerned with de facto than de jure rights” (Hyman 2001, 68). As a consequence, instead of positive rights on industrial ­matters, a set of ­legal immunities w ­ ere created to cover a specific area of industrial relations. Voluntarism has s­ haped British industrial relations over the course of time and has created specific features, some of which still endure. One of t­ hese is related to collective bargaining and consists of the absence of any formal obligation by employers to bargain with trade u ­ nions and the second feature is that collective agreements are not legally enforceable: “collective agreements are ‘binding in honour only,’ of ­legal relevance only to the extent that their terms may be incorporated (implicitly or explic­itly) into employees’ individual contracts” (Hyman 2001, 70). In princi­ple, collective bargaining may occur at any level. Industry-­wide, multiemployer bargaining may be conducted at the national or local level between employers’ associations and trade ­unions. Single-­employer bargaining may occur at establishment, com­pany and divisional, or corporate level. At the shop-­floor level, collective agreements may

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    43

coexist with informal rules rooted in “custom and practice” (Brown 1972). However, over time, industrial relations have become enterprise-­specific and the coverage of collective bargaining has continued to diminish. The long-­standing tradition of voluntarism, however, does not mean that the state has not intervened in the industrial relations field. The Conservative governments in power between 1979 and 1997 heavi­ly influenced British industrial relations through several legislative packages, implemented at approximately two-­year intervals, which led to a progressive weakening of the institutions of collective regulation (Purcell 1993). As Chris Howell (2006, 158) states: “The role of legislation a­ fter 1979, and the willingness of the police and the judicial branch of the state to enforce that legislation, marked a ratcheting up of the level and nature of state intervention, compared to previous efforts to act as midwife to a new set of industrial relations institutions.” Key provisions of such mea­sures ­were aimed at limiting trade ­union bargaining strength and eradicating the closed shop that became unlawful in 1990. The legislation limited the ability of trade ­unions to or­ga­nize industrial action, weakened trade ­union immunities from ­legal action by employers and restrained picketing. It also intervened directly on trade u ­ nion internal organ­ization as “the government saw the trade u ­ nion leadership as being unrepresentative of the views of their (implicitly more ‘moderate’) members, and so legislated to prescribe the internal demo­cratic procedure trade ­unions should adopt” (Ferner and Hyman 1998, 13). The limitation of trade u ­ nion power has been flanked by a pro­cess of l­ abor market deregulation, decentralization, and individualization of employment relations, and restructuring of the public sector. Attempts to build a ­legal framework of employees’ minimum rights, including a remedy for unfair dismissal and redundancy payments, for example, ­were made by ­Labour governments in the 1960s. However, during the 1980s, Conservative governments curtailed and diluted this legislation in an opposing trend to Eu­ro­pean legislation (Goodman et al. 1998). ­These changes have been so influential that some scholars talk of “new industrial relations” (Bassett 1986) or even of the end of institutional industrial relations (Purcell 1993). The L ­ abour Party returned to government in 1997 ­after eigh­teen years of Conservative governments and remained in power u ­ ntil 2010. Although the New L ­ abour administration had an industrial relations agenda dif­fer­ent from that of the Conservatives, it did not

4 4   Chapter 2

challenge the bulk of Conservative industrial relations legislation. New ­Labour’s industrial relations reforms focused on the creation of individual rights at work, rather than supporting the collective regulation of class relations (Howell 2006). L ­ abour governments implemented a set of minimum individual work rights, introducing a National Minimum Wage, limiting working hours, and expanding rights to claim unfair dismissal, and introducing rights for working w ­ omen and parents. However, l­abor market regulation in Britain remained limited. Britain has a large number of employers’ associations, with structure and organ­ization similar to that of other Eu­ro­pean countries. However, their membership level is quite low. The main association, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), was formed in 1965 following the merger of three separate employers’ confederations. It has the highest membership, comprising around 3,000 individual companies, mostly larger enterprises in the private sector, and around 150 trade associations. The CBI does not participate in collective bargaining, being primarily a lobbyist organ­ization. It is regarded by the government as its main link with business. However, t­here are few formal mechanisms for dialogue between social partners and the state. Employers and trade ­unions are consulted by the government on specific issues and are also represented in a series of committees. However, the Thatcher government eradicated any forms of tripartism or corporatism, and ­these have not been reintroduced on a formal basis. Many British trade ­unions can trace their origin back to the ­middle de­ cades of the nineteenth c­ entury when the first national trade u ­ nions of craft workers w ­ ere formed. In the following de­cades, the ­unionization of semiskilled and unskilled workers employed in industries such as coal, cotton, steel, and railways created the first stable large-­scale trade u ­ nionism among workers without formal craft status and laid the foundation of the general trade u ­ nions of the twentieth ­century (Hyman 2001). Also, during the twentieth ­century, the ­unionization of white-­collar workers increased substantially. For a long time, this history was reflected in the distinction of trade ­unions as craft, general, industrial, or white-­collar. This distinction, however, has gradually become blurred due to trade u ­ nions broadening their membership and due to several mergers (Waddington 1995) that w ­ ere also in response to declining membership. Trade u ­ nion density, in fact, has fallen markedly. From its peak of 56.3 ­percent in 1980, it has fallen to its lowest levels (around 30 ­percent)

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    45

in the 2000s with a marked difference between the private and public sectors (16.1 ­percent and 59 ­percent, respectively, in 2008). Multi-­unionism is still strong, even though, following the mergers of recent de­cades, the number of trade u ­ nions has progressively decreased (Waddington 1995) from 347 in 1966 to 167 in 2008. Trade u ­ nions are or­ga­nized both horizontally and vertically, representing ­either occupations, such as teachers, or par­tic­u­lar industries or companies. This complex pattern, which does not pres­ent a unitary orga­nizational logic, reflects the slow historical evolution of British trade ­unionism (Ferner and Hyman 1998). Currently, the most representative trade ­unions are multi-­occupational and multi-­industrial. The largest trade ­union, with about 1.9 million members, is Unite, formed in 2007 by the merger of Amicus and the Transport and General Workers’ Union. In the public sector, the largest trade ­union is Unison with a membership of 1.34 million. Both are affiliated with the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which is the only central confederation in Britain: “This unitary characteristic reflects the fact that British ­unions have never been radically differentiated on ideological grounds and that u ­ nionisation of public employees and white-­collar grades has largely evolved out of the traditional ­union structure” (Ferner and Hyman 1998, 28). The TUC was formed in 1868, and in 2008 it had 6,471,030 members (around 80 ­percent of ­unionized workers). The TUC’s main role is to lobby government, but it does not have any direct role in collective bargaining and cannot itself take industrial action. The lobbying efficacy of the TUC, which was very strong soon ­after World War II, has declined over the years, as has its involvement in central policymaking. The link with politics, however, remains strong compared with other Eu­ro­pean countries: many of the TUC’s trade ­unions are affiliated with the ­Labour Party (although the TUC is not), which they contributed to establishing in 1906. In line with the voluntarist tradition, historically t­ here have been no statutory works councils in enterprises. Instead, this regulatory space was occupied early on by trade u ­ nion shop stewards engaged in collective bargaining at the plant level. As workplace repre­sen­ta­tion is primarily guaranteed by trade u ­ nion presence in the workplace, this has shrunk over the course of time due to the decline of trade ­union membership and plant size, since the presence of shop stewards is closely linked with employee numbers within enterprises. In 2008, only 46.6 ­percent of workplaces had trade u ­ nion repre­ sen­ta­tion. The result of this pro­cess, and the diminished role of stewards

4 6   Chapter 2

where the trade u ­ nion remains, is a “repre­sen­ta­tion gap” at the workplace (Ferner and Hyman 1998).

migration context During the 1945 postwar boom many Commonwealth residents ­were encouraged to come to the UK to fill jobs that indigenous workers ­were reluctant to take (­Castles and Kosack 1973), particularly in hospitals and transport. Immigration to Britain, relatively low before World War II, had started to become a controversial po­liti­cal issue by the 1950s, when immigration from the Commonwealth actually began. In that period, the government even considered recruiting workers from Commonwealth countries, especially from the West Indies, to tackle increasing l­abor shortages (Spencer 1997). However, the prevalent belief was that Eu­ro­pe­ans ­were more suitable workers, since they would be easier to integrate and easier to return when no longer needed. Hence, while immigration from the West Indies was restricted (Clayton 2010), Eu­ro­pean workers w ­ ere encouraged to s­ ettle in the UK. Polish workers ­were among the first group, followed by immigrants from Italy, Ukraine, and Germany (Mi­grant Health 2006). Despite restrictions, immigration from the Ca­rib­bean continued to rise, as did immigration from the countries known as the Commonwealth: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The patterns of inclusion in the ­labor market w ­ ere very similar to ­those of other Western Eu­ro­pean countries, with a prevalence in the manufacturing industry. However, t­hese immigrants differed from other guest workers due to their former colonial status. In fact they had the same po­liti­ cal and ­legal rights as the native population, including voting rights in both local and national elections (Wrench 2000a). This explains why Britain was the first country in which post–­World War II immigrants, mainly from former colonies, started to constitute permanently resident ethnic minorities (Schierup, Hansen, and ­Castles 2006). By the end of the 1950s it had become a common belief that t­here had been a disproportionate increase in immigrants from the Commonwealth, leading to successively tighter restrictions on immigration and a progressive move away from the broadly conceived citizenship concept (Menz 2009). Britain became the first country in northwestern Eu­rope to introduce rigid controls on immigration (Schierup, Hansen, and ­Castles 2006) in an attempt to arrest the flow of immigrants from the Commonwealth. This aim was pur-

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    47

sued by manipulating citizenship eligibility in the course of subsequent reform (in 1962, 1968, 1971, and 1981) (Menz 2009, 152). The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 introduced specific controls to test the presence of basic conditions that a Commonwealth citizen would have to satisfy to gain entry. Only p­ eople who w ­ ere born in the UK and Ireland or who held a passport issued by the government of ­those countries would not be subject to immigration control. Immigration officers ­were given wide discretional powers in determining ­whether such conditions ­were satisfied or not, resulting in fewer restrictions on entry for immigrants from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Clayton 2010). One of the unexpected outcomes of the 1962 act was the rise of so-­called Asian Africans. Most of ­these immigrants, originally from the Indian subcontinent, had been brought into the ex-­colonies of East Africa by Britain—­ before Indian in­de­pen­dence and the creation of Pakistan—to work on reconstruction proj­ects. Following in­de­pen­dence in East African countries (­Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) and the policy of Africanization, which required residents to acquire the new citizenship, most of this minority population that had UK citizenship immigrated to the UK. Following this new increase in immigration, in 1968 the government deci­ded to establish a new Commonwealth Immigrants Act (Bevan 1986; Dummett and Nicol 1990; Shah 2000). According to this act, British subjects would be f­ree from immigration control only if they, or one of their parents or grandparents, had been born, ­adopted, registered, or naturalized in the UK. At the end of the 1970s, primary immigration had largely been brought to an end and antidiscrimination and equal opportunities legislation, aimed at facilitating integration, started to be implemented. The focus of restrictive policies moved to f­ amily settlement and the entry of spouses. However, primary immigration only decreased slightly. During the 1980s a large number of Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans moved to the UK (Mi­grant Health 2006). Legislative initiatives in the 1990s further restricted entry “implementing carrier sanctions and safe third country provisions, as well as in-­kind provisions of benefits and regional dispersions” (Menz 2009, 156). Most of ­these policies w ­ ere implemented to respond not to immigration in general, but to increased claims for asylum. At the end of the 1990s, the UK was commonly believed to be a multicultural society where distinct groups could live together peacefully and with a high level of participation from economic, po­liti­cal, and social points of

4 8    Chapter 2

view. However, the presence of integration prob­lems was highlighted by many indicators, including the low socioeconomic status and high rates of unemployment of many black and Asian ­people, high concentrations of ethnic minorities in poor neighborhoods, high levels of racist vio­lence in many areas, and the prevalence of racism in the police force (underlined by the 1997 public inquiry into the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence in 1993). In the summer of 2001 riots in deindustrialized northern towns with large Asian populations, such as Oldham, Burnley, Bradford, Leeds, and Blackburn, increased support for the British National Party in the June 2001 general elections. The events of September 11, 2001, and the alleged links between al-­Qaeda and radical Islamic groups based in the UK exacerbated tensions and the rise of Islamophobia. In the same period, a new debate on immigration and national identity started, together with a rise in public concern about the loss of jobs as a result of the entry of workers from Central and Eastern Eu­ro­pean states joining the EU in 2004. However, the highly stratified ­labor market and the abundance of low-­skilled, low-­paid jobs, as well as the relative dynamism of the British economy, made the UK a very attractive country for both Eastern Eu­ro­pe­ans and non-­Europeans (Menz 2009). The accession of a number of Central and Eastern Eu­ro­pean countries to the EU in May 2004 brought a significant influx of immigration to the UK (Pemberton and Stevens 2010; Scott 2007). In more recent years the increasing number of new immigrants has been drawn from a wider range of countries, although foreign nationals from the EU and states with long-­ standing ties to the UK tend to dominate. In 2008 the top ten nationalities ­were Polish, Indian, Slovakian, Pakistani, Australian, Romanian, French, Lithuanian, German, and Italian. According to the 2011 census, 7.5 million ­people living in E ­ ngland and Wales (13 ­percent of the total population) w ­ ere born outside the UK. Interestingly, the largest non–­UK-­born ethnic minority group was Other White (2.1 million p­ eople); the majority of this group (71 ­percent) arrived in the UK between 2001 and 2011, which reflects the substantial increase in immigrants following the A8 countries joining the EU in 2004 (A8 countries comprise: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia). In 2013 this included over half a million p­ eople (531,000) from Poland (Office for National Statistics). At the time the research began in 2008, immigration policies continued to show a restrictive character, while at the same time accommodating the needs

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    49

and interests of employers in specific sectors both at the high and low end of the l­abor market (e.g., Menz 2009). Following Menz (2009, 164): Recent economic migration policy is influenced by competition state rhe­toric and ideology and strongly s­ haped by employer concerns and interests. Embracing t­hese positions, l­abour migration policy has been rediscovered and liberal provisions for employees perceived as adding to existing sectoral strengths especially information technology, health, finance, natu­ral science research, and to some extent engineering. Si­mul­ta­neously recruitment channels for low-­skill migration have been created in sectors such as food pro­ cessing, hospitality and agriculture with recent policy changes aimed at channelling Romanians and Bulgarians into ­these two sectors rather than non-­Europeans.

In 2008 ­labor migration legislation envisaged four tiers. The first tier was reserved for highly skilled professionals and entrepreneurs who had permission to enter the UK to search for a job. The second category was reserved for applicants who could meet shortages in specific sectors such as nursing and teaching. The third and fourth tiers concerned nationals of countries that had concluded repatriation agreements with the UK and consisted of short-­term limited quota schemes for low-­skilled workers and students. The points system has been defined as a “paradigmatic example of business-­ driven ­labour recruitment schemes” (Menz 2009, 11) that distinguishes between “good” ­labor mi­grants and “bad” asylum seekers, and is based on “competition state logic and rhe­toric” that entails a carrot-­and-­stick approach ­toward Third World countries (Menz 2009). In the UK the issue of migration revolves around vari­ous f­ actors. The first is that a highly or­ga­nized and state-­regulated system of migration in the 1950s through to the 1980s shifted ­toward a more open model especially in relation to the EU. This led to vari­ous dif­fer­ent mi­grant experiences from ­those more embedded within the core of the l­abor market t­ oward ­those at the periphery, although gen­er­a­tion­ally this varies within immigrant communities as well. Second, the extent of outsourcing and deregulation has caused a steady polarization of migration with many (but not necessarily all) locked in a more vulnerable employment position. This question of vulnerability is one we deal with below as a substantive l­abor market issue and ideological concept. Third, the organ­izing of immigrants is thus more challenging and

50    Chapter 2

fragmented due to orga­nizational and social f­ actors with vari­ous responses and the unreliability of the state. Increasingly, with the decision made in 2016 to leave the EU, the formal status of even established immigrants has become challenged and a range of new issues is emerging with regard to definitions and challenges, although in this book we take a broader view that includes the time before this event.

Researching Migration and Trade Unions Broadening and Locating Our Understanding of Trade Unions and Migration For many, the study of the dynamics of equality and representation—­ especially in terms of migration—­requires us to use qualitative techniques, new forms of biographical methods, multilevel analy­sis, and a greater sensitivity to the purpose and rationale of orga­nizational and social strategies. However, the bound­aries and identities of ­labor and employment relations have to be more central to our research focus as well (see Mac­Kenzie and Martínez Lucio 2005). We need to start thinking in terms of constituencies, bound­aries, and regulation in more open and flexible ways. Regulatory systems and levels of engagement are not always in sync with the flows and needs of immigration—­the construction of social inclusion across systems and practices often fails. The methodological challenges are considerable in terms of how immigration, repre­sen­ta­tion, and levels of regulation actually interface. Approaching ­these across dif­fer­ent levels of analy­sis that are subtle and multilayered—­open to dif­fer­ent actors and views—­should be a vital part of a new ethically informed strategy. T ­ here is now a tendency to try to map the dif­fer­ent dimensions of l­ abor and employment relations pro­ cesses generally and in relation to immigration issues that, hopefully, w ­ ill play a more integral part in the discussion on trade ­unions and immigration, moving it t­ oward a more sensitive understanding of the complexities of regulation. Furthermore, the move to an awareness of diversity and equality issues brings new challenges to the way we research and write within academia. In this re­spect, the research has to remap the po­liti­cal and institutional sur­ face of equality politics. Yet it has to do this with approaches that stretch our

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    51

understanding of immigration. As Guglielmo Meardi (2007) reminds us, we need to relandscape our view of repre­sen­ta­tion and relevant orga­nizational pro­cesses, and locate them in the dif­fer­ent regulatory and economic traditions that make up capitalism and its alternatives. We have to emphasize the history and context of change in social constituencies, the new mechanisms of repre­sen­ta­tion and change within communities, the role of the po­liti­cal in discourses and resources, and the broad play and spaces of regulation and social policy.

The Research and the Approach Our methodology was therefore based on a qualitative approach using semistructured interviews and nonparticipant observation when pos­si­ble. 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 trade ­unions, selected on the basis of membership size and the attention paid to immigrant and ethnic minority workers. In this re­spect, we looked at t­ hose instances where trade ­unions ­were responding to immigration or changes within immigration from the early 2000s aware of the fact that many nonresponsive or quite negative approaches exist within the l­abor movement. Throughout the study we also engaged with relevant social organ­izations regarding migration and repre­sen­ta­tion with a view to seeing how they themselves engaged with related work and employment issues, as well as how they engaged with—­and ­were engaged by—­trade ­unions. We w ­ ere aware in our work of the fatal flaw in much of the research on migration and trade u ­ nionism that seems to follow “best practice” initiatives in relation to the way trade u ­ nions engage with immigrants; but while we did this we ­were also conscious of the fact that we w ­ ere trying to look at the way such responses ­were constructed po­liti­cally and or­gan­i­za­tion­ally, and how they cross-­referenced with other approaches. In this re­spect the aim was to show how tensions emerged across the range of responses trade ­unions developed nationally. To this extent a more critical approach was taken that was not focused so much on the lack of a response—an issue in its own right—­but the very character and tensions existing across the politics of

52   Chapter 2

inclusion within ­labor and employment relations. To this extent in the research we ­were aware of the question of contextualized comparisons (Locke and Thelen 1995) as an approach and set of ideas that allowed us to be sensitive to the variety of contextual ­factors in each case. In this work we attempted to look at how issues of trade u ­ nion understandings and approaches responded to specific contextual ­factors and also specific complexities in the relations underpinning ­labor and employment relations in each context. As stated in chapter 1 the increasing use of quantitative research methods means that the observation of what is happening to the trade ­union is prioritized over the purpose, identity, and meaning of trade u ­ nionism in the context of a changing workforce. Yet a steady realization has emerged that the question of race and immigration requires a qualitative turn and critical reappraisal of how research is to be done and why. We undertook over 150 semistructured interviews with trade ­union officials and activists from vari­ous levels, and a number with voluntary sector organ­izations: fifty interviews in the Netherlands; forty-­six in Spain; forty-­ two in the UK; and twelve at the EU level. We also engaged in participant and nonparticipant observation of trade ­union congresses, special conferences, and some meetings in each country. This was the core of a proj­ect funded by the Leverhulme Trust from 2009 to 2013, conducted by us. Additional interviews (thirty in the UK and seven in the Netherlands) w ­ ere carried out in 2013 by Stefania Marino as part of research proj­ect funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. In this book, we primarily analyze national trade u ­ nion responses to immigration and immigrant workers, in terms of formal debate and strategy, as we aim to evaluate critically that dimension of the debate and ­those formal orga­nizational structures, though with a view that is sensitized to the need to broaden our view of social and regulatory relations. The aim is to explore how the trade u ­ nions deal with the repre­sen­ta­tion and inclusion of immigrant workers, and the extent to which their strategies correspond to coherent logics of action. Hence for each national case we primarily underline ­those strategies that have been the most impor­tant among t­ hose observed. Where pos­si­ble the interviews w ­ ere recorded and transcribed and detailed field notes ­were taken during and ­after nonparticipant observations. The research in the Netherlands is based on fifty interviews with trade ­union officials and organizers from vari­ous levels and sectors in the Dutch trade u ­ nion movement as well as nonparticipant observation of trade ­union

Uncovering the Nature and Tensions    53

meetings and conferences. The research was carried out from 2008 to 2013 and the majority of interviews ­were conducted with officials and organizers in the ser­vice sector trade ­union, FNV-­Bondgenoten. The nonparticipant observation involved attending trade u ­ nion meetings with cleaning sector workers and FNV-­Bondgenoten officials in the buildup to strike action in Schiphol airport and in the aftermath of the action. The Spanish case consists of forty-­six interviews conducted with trade ­union officials and activists, public bodies, immigrant organ­izations, and immigrants in a number of dif­fer­ent regions in Spain. The key interviews, both semistructured and unstructured, w ­ ere conducted with trade u ­ nion officials and activists at all levels of the CCOO and the UGT, including specific immigrant organ­izations (especially Ec­ua­doran and Colombian organ­izations). The research also included some participant observation of trade u ­ nion congresses and visits to trade ­union offices and trade-­union-­run immigrant worker information centers and offices in five regional states in Spain. In the UK we selected two regions where we focused our data collection—­ the North West and the London regions. We conducted interviews with trade ­union officials, activists, and representatives across a wide range of trade ­unions including the TUC, Unison, Unite, the retail trade Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, and the general GMB trade u ­ nion. In both regions we also interviewed representatives from the voluntary sector and other organ­izations, including the Mi­grant Rights Network, think tanks working with Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities such as Birmingham Race Action Partnership and the Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations, the Equality and ­Human Rights Commission, and the Mi­grant and Refugee Support Network. Alongside interviews we participated in trade u ­ nion conferences and meetings relating to issues of migration. This enriched the interview data and provided some in­ter­est­ ing insights into the politics and pro­cesses of developing trade u ­ nion responses and how they can be operationalized. In addition to the three-­country study we also conducted research at the EU level. Twelve interviews w ­ ere conducted with representatives at the EU level, including trade u ­ nion officials from the Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), and several of the Eu­ro­pean Sectoral Level Federations—­UNI-­Europa (ser­vices and communication sector), the Eu­ro­pean Metalworkers Federation, the Eu­ro­pean Federation of Trade

54    Chapter 2

Unions in Food, Agriculture and Tourism, and the Eu­ro­pean Federation of Public Ser­vice Unions. The research also included participation in the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect developed by the ETUC over the period 2009–10—­a proj­ect aimed at mapping the actions of trade u ­ nions across Eu­rope in relation to “mobile and mi­grant” workers. The objective of the proj­ect was to establish a common position regarding immigrant workers for the ETUC congress in 2011. Participating in this proj­ect allowed us insight into the challenges of developing common positions and responses across EU countries. Chapter 6 reflects on the observations and possibilities for repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrants and minorities at the Eu­ro­pean level. In this chapter we have outlined the extent of our work and how it engaged with the way trade ­unions understood, dealt with, and represented issues of immigrant rights and needs in dif­fer­ent national contexts and in the transnational context. The work was carried out using a series of customized interview schedules in each context and level that at their core ­were or­ga­nized around vari­ous key themes. ­These themes ­were linked to the backgrounds of the trade ­unions and the question of migration, dif­fer­ent types of strategies and forms of engagement with the latter, and dif­fer­ent challenges that existed and emerged during the period of research. The aim was to outline the way the issues w ­ ere understood and acted on, and the way t­ hese worked across vari­ ous levels and relations that the trade ­unions had with the state, employers, and civil society. We ­were also interested in the way the trade ­union movements cross-­referenced dif­fer­ent experiences and how they viewed the dominant approaches that emerged in response to immigration. We made e­ very effort to follow and listen to the way trade u ­ nionists, civil society organ­izations, and immigrants understood the question of migration and repre­sen­ta­tion and what terminology and views developed in understanding how trade ­unions should respond.

Chapter 3

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands Between Race and Social Rights

This chapter focuses on trade u ­ nion strategies to represent immigrant and ethnic minority workers in the Netherlands. In the early 1990s, trade ­unions in ­these countries started developing policies to represent the rights of ­these groups of workers. ­These policies ­were developed in continuity with the multiculturalist policy framework and mainly addressed the improvement of ­labor market conditions of ­these workers (Roosblad 2000). Trade ­unions focused on the ­labor market inclusion of ethnic minority workers by promoting and supporting initiatives related to education and training, and mea­sures aimed at fighting ­labor market discriminations. ­These initiatives ­were mainly developed through tripartite and bipartite negotiations in an industrial relations system characterized by a strong tradition of social dialogue that also guaranteed a high degree of institutional embeddedness in trade ­unions. According to the theoretical framework presented in chapter 1, the dominant logic of the action of Dutch trade ­unions was between race/ethnicity and social rights.

56   Chapter 3

Starting in the early 2000s, changing economic, ­labor market, and social conditions put the Dutch industrial relations model u ­ nder increasing pressure. As described in chapter 2, a decline of influence of joint consultation bodies (Roosblad 2013) and a decline in internal centralization—­a precondition for corporatist exchange—­threatened trade u ­ nions’ ability to influence national-­level decision making (Roosblad and Berntsen 2017). ­These developments w ­ ere accompanied by an increase in l­ abor market flexibility and an enlargement of marginal segments of the l­abor market, which trade u ­ nions found increasingly difficult to regulate (Keune 2013). Within this changing picture, trade ­unions started diversifying their strategies. One of the main aims was to increase membership, including—­and especially—­promoting the recruitment and inclusion of previously unrepresented groups of workers. This aim was achieved through the introduction of a US style of organ­izing that addressed parts of the l­abor market characterized by an overrepre­sen­ta­ tion of immigrant and ethnic minority workers. The “turn to organ­izing” did not fundamentally threaten established trade ­union strategies but rather complemented them in t­ hose sectors and areas where traditional forms of regulations ­were increasingly proving less effective (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). However, they ­were also fundamental for renewing the internal trade ­union debate by strengthening the importance of class and the idea of internal democracy and participation in the trade ­union movement (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). In relation to our framework, we argue that in the Dutch case t­ hese changes have constituted an attempt to renew through the “missing point” of our triangle, attempting to return to some notion of class as an impor­tant logic of action through organ­izing narratives and structures.

Dutch Trade Unions and Migration: A General Overview Similarly to other Northwest Eu­ro­pean countries involved in World War II, in the 1950s the Netherlands was facing ­labor shortages as a result of the reconstruction efforts. ­Labor demand was also caused by higher social expectations among national workforces. Rising living standards and educational levels, in fact, made natives increasingly reluctant to take low-­paid, dirty, heavy, or low-­status jobs (Vranken 1990). The Netherlands put in place a ­labor system—­including recruitment treaties with sending Mediterranean

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    57

countries (Martens 1999)—­based on the temporary employment of guest workers. This system was conceived as a buffer against cyclical downturns and was at the basis of the long economic boom (1945–75). Governments and employers w ­ ere in close agreement on the definition of this l­ abor system, but the trade ­unions, given their intermediary role, w ­ ere also called upon to take a stance on both immigration and the presence of immigrant workers in the country. The position of the trade u ­ nions was rather positive in the first half of the 1960s but changed quite rapidly following the fast increase of guest workers in the country. From the mid-1960s, trade ­unions started considering the influx of new workers as a source of disadvantages for the native l­abor force. Similar concerns ­were expressed in relation to the repatriation of immigrants from colonies and ex-­colonies (first the Dutch East Indies followed by Suriname and the Dutch Antilles), who had Dutch nationality and a solid l­egal status in Dutch society and whose integration was an impor­tant and declared goal of the Dutch government. Trade ­union strategies aimed to diminish the detrimental effects of immigration on employment and wages by advocating equal treatment. Following the economic crisis and the changing ­labor market conditions a­ fter 1973, the Dutch governments ­adopted restrictive and selective immigration policies aimed at keeping the number of immigrants likely to be dependent on the welfare state as low as pos­si­ble (Penninx and Roosblad 2000). L ­ abor mi­grants ­were also encouraged to return to their countries of origin through repatriation schemes. In effect, and also due to the relatively favorable economic development in Southern Eu­rope, a substantial proportion of Mediterranean immigrants (from Italy, Spain, Greece, and Yugo­slavia) returned to their home countries (Roosblad 2000). Despite repatriation policies and the closing of borders to ­labor mi­grants, immigration did not come to a halt. In the course of the 1970s the number of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants started to grow following the increase of f­ amily reunification, and immigrant communities gradually emerged. The integration of t­ hese workers in the l­abor market and the trade u ­ nions was fundamental to avoid a split in the l­abor force. During the 1970s trade ­unions engaged in a number of initiatives to improve the conditions of immigrant workers, including special courses and advisory committees (Roosblad 2000). However, the first policies directly addressing immigrant workers ­were implemented in the 1980s. Trade ­unions ­were very active in defending the position of immigrant workers in society by campaigning for good

58   Chapter 3

housing and education and by fighting against racism. However, trade ­union action in the repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrants’ l­abor market rights was less clear and was developed in cooperation with employers. Similarly, trade ­unions ­were not effective in promoting the inclusion of immigrants in trade ­union structures. Despite the establishment of special advisory bodies, the presence of immigrant members, workplace representatives, and trade u ­ nion officials remained rather low. At the end of the 1990s, the trade ­unions embraced a diversity policy as the main model of action ­toward immigrant and ethnic minority workers. According to this approach, previous special policies based on target groups’ characteristics had to be replaced with interventions based on characteristics of individuals. According to the trade ­unions, a diversity policy or diversite­ itsbeleid offered a broader scope to fight dif­fer­ent types of discrimination, while also avoiding the stigmatizing of groups. Nevertheless, positive policies ­toward immigrant and ethnic minorities as “target groups” w ­ ere not abandoned. The FNV mostly focused on the disadvantageous position of ethnic minority workers in the ­labor market and promoted central negotiations with counter­parts on issues such as employability, vocational training, l­ abor market entry and upward mobility, and discrimination in the ­labor market and workplaces. This action resulted in several formal and informal agreements within the Sociaal-­Economische Raad (Social-­Economic Council)—­a tripartite statutory body, whose task is to provide advice to the government and the parliament on economic and social issues—­and the L ­ abour Foundation, Stichting van de Arbeid (STAR)—­the bipartite body recognized by the government as official partner in deliberating on bud­gets, wages, and social policies—­that constituted FNV policy for affiliated trade ­unions who ­were mostly responsible for policy implementation. To coordinate the task of affiliated trade u ­ nions, the FNV established a Diversity Task Force. This structure sat alongside the existing Secretariaat Ethnische Minderheden, a federal advisory body on ethnic minority issues. The FNV also planned specific campaigns (such as the Op weg naar de top [On the Way to the Top]) aimed at “increasing diversity within the trade ­unions” by incorporating target groups’ members within the trade ­union boards’ structures. FNV-­Bondgenoten included federal policy addresses in its congress documents (FNV-­Bondgenoten 2000) and in the guidelines for sectoral bargaining (FNV-­Bondgenoten CAO Handboeken 2001–2004). It also established its own advisory body,

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    59

the Kadergroep Kleurrijke Bondgenoten (KKB [Trade Union Diversity Advisory Board]), made up of trade ­union activists from dif­fer­ent com­pany groups’ departments. Most of ­these policies, however, remained largely u ­ nder the radar, as reported in an FNV evaluation report, based on activities from 2001 to 2005, entitled “What Have We Done Together?” In 2003, the FNV ended the Diversity Task Force and declared that the affiliated trade ­unions and the federation had to continue working on diversity policy in­de­pen­dently of each other. The proj­ect, which aimed at recruiting target-­group officials, was canceled a­ fter only a few unsuccessful rounds of interviews. In FNV-­Bondgenoten, the planning of special policies was mostly delegated to its advisory body; but that proved to be in­effec­tive and practically stopped by the end of 2003. According to a study commissioned by FNV-­ Bondgenoten and undertaken by an external organ­ization (Buro Cato) in 2001, KKB lacked both economic resources and functioning internal links to carry out this task. Federal policies scarcely translated into collective l­ abor agreements. Trade ­unionists who w ­ ere interviewed often attributed such failure to the re­sis­tance of employers who could not be “forced or obliged to hire them” (FNV-­Bondgenoten official). In 2005, both the FNV and FNV-­Bondgenoten recognized the weak implementation of ethnic minority policies. In the evaluation report mentioned above, the FNV attributed this failure to the worsening of the social climate and to the increasing contrasts between native and ethnic minority workers following the murders of politician Pym Fortuyn and filmmaker Theo van Gogh (Penninx 2006a&b).

Social Regulation and Immigrant Inclusion Trade ­union strategies to represent the interest of immigrant and ethnic minority workers first developed in relation to the ­labor market inclusion of ­these workers. ­These policies mainly addressed the so-­called allochtonen workers, a term that refers to anyone with one or both parents born outside the Netherlands.1 This term has come to be used to refer to “ ‘vis­i­ble ­others’: ­people perceived by the majority population as dif­fer­ent and distant in terms of cultural background and socio-­economic status” (Marino 2015, 832). The use of the term in official public discourse has led to criticism due to its

6 0    Chapter 3

labeling and discriminatory effects (see: Entzinger 2014) and it has recently been left aside. However, it has been widely used in public discourse as well as in trade ­union debate. Trade u ­ nion policies t­oward allochtonen workers addressed in practice mainly black minority ethnic groups.2 The main resource used by the trade u ­ nion to represent l­abor rights of immigrant and ethnic minority workers has been its involvement in the tripartite and bipartite institutions that characterize Dutch industrial relations. The formal and informal agreements reached by industrial relations actors at the national level represent the official common position of the social partners on impor­tant ­matters related to the economic and ­labor spheres. Formal and informal agreements and policy guidelines are regularly issued with the intention of achieving better equality in the ­labor market between native, immigrant, and ethnic minority workers. Specific goals pursued by past agreements include the promotion of ­labor market participation of young ethnic minority workers, the reduction of youth unemployment, and the general improvement of the ­labor market position of ethnic minority youths. ­These goals are a way to promote integration and social cohesion, and also to invest in the ­human capital represented by all young ­people and to anticipate ­future ­labor shortages. Specific mea­sures consist of education and training opportunities for young p­ eople with low levels of education through the development of a dual track (school and work), or addressing low literacy levels in society and in trade and industry (see STAR agreement 2007–15). Other mea­sures ­were informed by concern for discrimination in the l­ abor market. For instance, the FNV largely supported the enforcement of anonymous job applications to avoid discrimination against ethnic minority applicants. Furthermore, the FNV promoted the drawing up of an antidiscrimination checklist, guidelines to help employers in the recruitment of foreign employees, and the organ­ization of meetings between employers and employees. Such initiatives are often supported by external organ­izations (such as LBR—­Landelijk Bureau ter Bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie [National Bureau against Racial Discrimination]; and the multicultural institute FORUM) with re­spect to both planning and implementation.3 National-­level tripartite and bipartite agreements shape official trade ­union guidelines that, even if not legally binding, frame further policy developments in affiliated trade ­unions. ­These agreements are meant to be implemented through sectoral bargaining, which is a specific task of affiliated trade ­unions. Although the concern for immigrant and ethnic minority

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    61

workers’ conditions in the ­labor market increased over time, special mea­sures envisaged ­were often scarcely implemented (Marino 2012). The trade ­unions attributed this to the increasing social hostility t­oward immigrant workers and increasing tension between native Dutch and immigrant workers, which diminished the “room” for trade u ­ nion inclusive policies (Marino 2012). However, issues related to workplace dynamics including increasing discrimination and employer re­sis­tance ­were also mentioned: It is a prob­lem of implementation. They [social partners at the sectoral level] reach ­these collective agreements. Then the ­unions have the task of monitoring how ­things are ­going in workplaces. . . . ​In your research you are considering repre­sen­ta­tion but I think that you should look at racism and discrimination, as well as try to understand why ­things are as they are . . . ​­because on the factory floor, racism and discrimination play an impor­tant role in the bad implementation of CAOs [“collectieve arbeidsovereenkomst,” collective l­ abor agreements]. Many black p­ eople have been victimised in workplaces b­ ecause of racist and discriminatory acts. (Male, BAME [Black, Asian, and minority ethnic] trade u ­ nion activist, FNV-­Bondgenoten) Well, in the past ten years we have tried to reach collective agreements on creating jobs for ethnic minority workers. But we cannot force or oblige companies to hire them. (Male trade u ­ nion officer, FNV Bondgenoten) We tried to make special campaigns for ­women and allochtonen ­people for work and education such as training courses, but the results w ­ ere not good. We h ­ aven’t reached t­ hose groups and t­ here has also been re­sis­tance from employers. (Male, BAME trade ­union officer, FNV Bondgenoten)

While social partners displayed a general consensus on policies and mea­ sures aimed at promoting ­labor market integration of ethnic minority workers, the debate on l­ abor migration has been more complex. In contrast to the Dutch employers’ federation, Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen-­ Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, the FNV is not in f­ avor of promoting ­labor migration as an instrument to solve structural prob­lems in Dutch society, such as an aging population. While trade ­unions considered ­labor migration as beneficial to Dutch economy and society, they also invoked regulations able to prevent it from becoming a threat to the national ­labor market and to the terms and conditions of employment. Dutch trade ­unions have actively contributed to past governments’ admission policies and l­abor programs. In a broader context of declining influence, trade u ­ nions are still

62    Chapter 3

an influential actor in decision making concerning the regulation of economic immigration in such a way as to satisfy quantitative and qualitative shortages in the national ­labor market. The continuity of action in such a domain differentiates the Dutch case from the UK and Spanish ones and underlines the importance of institutional procedures, practices, and traditions as the basis of the stronger embeddedness of Dutch trade u ­ nions in the national regulatory framework. The internal debate on l­abor migration became even more central in the early 2000s in relation to the ­free movement of workers and ser­vices within an enlarged Eu­rope that represented a new type of experience, which was less coordinated, in relation to immigration. The trade ­union position was not dissimilar to that of the past. The trade u ­ nions came out in f­ avor of the ­free movement of workers from the new member states and considered it beneficial for better economic per­for­mance. However, the trade ­unions emphasized the need to ensure decent terms of employment and working conditions for all the workers in the Dutch ­labor market in order to avoid “social dumping.” Trade u ­ nions also expressed the concern that increased immigration might undermine plans to combat unemployment among young ­people and long-­term structural prob­lems in the ­labor market generally. We are an association, so we tried to protect the interests of our members, and when new ­people come, like the Polish, you sometimes have members saying: “They come from outside to get our jobs.” . . . ​If p­ eople come from outside to work in the Netherlands for lower salaries, then we have prob­lems ­because u ­ nionised ­people who want full salaries are no longer attractive to employers. . . . ​It is not a prob­lem with ­people coming from Poland . . . ​the prob­lem is when you have situations in which employers look for the cheapest workers. That’s one of the issues. (Male, BAME trade u ­ nion officer, FNV Vakcentrale)

Concerns about the social dumping effects of “new” immigration especially from Eastern Eu­rope w ­ ere central in the debate on transitional restrictions to be applied to ­labor migration from new Eu­ro­pean countries. The FNV opposed transitional arrangements with the view that l­abor market institutions would have been able to prevent social dumping effects, including underpayment and undocumented ­labor. In its view, improving working conditions, enforcing minimum wage levels, and increasing inspection

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    63

activities would suffice to make the hiring of undocumented workers less attractive to employers.4 The Christian-­National Union Confederation took a dif­fer­ent approach by considering transitional arrangements as necessary to prevent and combat undocumented work, low pay, and false self-­employment. The trade u ­ nion stood up strongly for transitional arrangements and contributed to the government decision to implement them in the dif­fer­ent phases of Eu­ro­pean enlargement. Trade ­unions also acted in relation to the posting of worker directives, especially following the 2007 Eu­ro­pean Court of Justice Laval judgment. The posting of workers posed similar—if not more critical—­challenges to the l­abor market and trade u ­ nion regulatory power. Trade ­union lobbying at the Eu­ro­pean level contributed to the so-­called Enforcement Directive in 2014 aimed at improving the enforcement of l­abor rights for posted workers. At the national level, trade u ­ nion pressure on the government to act against unfair competition resulted in trade ­union involvement in the formulation of a new law aimed at preventing bogus employment in the construction sector. Alongside its role as social partner within the national regulatory framework, the FNV also promoted campaigns to mobilize the federation and affiliated trade ­unions to achieve specific goals. ­These campaigns usually had a double aim. On the one hand, they ­were meant to lobby government and employers’ associations when a consensual decision had not been reached at the central level. On the other hand, they often provided information to trade ­union members to improve their awareness on specific ­matters. Also when campaigns addressed sensitive issues for immigrant and ethnic minority workers, they w ­ ere usually addressed to all trade u ­ nion members. One example is the Equal Work, Equal Pay campaign, or­ga­nized in close collaboration with other Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions, with the aim of obtaining the same wage and ­labor conditions for nationals and immigrant workers, especially when considering the increasing ­labor mobility from the newly accessed EU countries. This campaign addressed national governments and employers’ associations, the aim being to gain improvements in the law. It also focused on collective ­labor agreements at both the sectoral and workplace levels in order to introduce special clauses on this ­matter. We are not in favour of closing the borders. They work ­here, they must have equal pay. That’s our goal. . . . ​We tried to solve the prob­lem of immigrant workers, also in agreements with colleague u ­ nions in Europe—­with Belgium

6 4   Chapter 3 and German metal unions—to inform each other, but also to try to support immigrant workers from Eastern u ­ nions. . . . ​Campaigns to po­liti­cal parties and governments to make laws establishing that when you work you have equal pay. Some laws in The Netherlands are not good. We have also tried to make our l­ abour contracts better. . . . ​We also try to make the Dutch companies hiring foreign workers responsible for their good payment. For instance, a lot of workers work for Randstaad, which are used by companies that do not give equal pay. (Male, BAME trade u ­ nion officer, FNV Bondgenoten)

Another impor­tant campaign focused on the General Retirement Act, which was to fight against a 2 ­percent reduction in pension provisions for each year that the beneficiary had not lived in the Netherlands. This issue therefore concerned both immigrant and native workers who had lived abroad. FNV efforts w ­ ere also directed at supporting antidiscrimination activities in workplaces. In the 2009 Congress, the FNV also presented a resolution on “Decent Work for All” aimed at improving the l­ abor conditions of workers employed through flexible contracts and guaranteeing them a decent level of social security. The FNV also promoted social debate through conferences and meetings together with external associations. Examples are the discussions set up with Catholic organ­izations on globalization and social justice, globalization and ­labor migration, values and social coherence, and solidarity between young and el­derly ­people. The FNV collaborated with antidiscrimination associations such as the previously mentioned LBR and FORUM, which also advised trade ­union bodies on specific activities for immigrant and ethnic minority workers.

Strategies Linked to Race and Mi­grant Status: Engaging with Diversity As mentioned in the previous section, trade ­unions have devised several policies to fight ­labor market discrimination ­toward ethnic minority workers. In the early 2000s trade ­unions replaced the former focus on target groups (doelgroepen) with diversity, which quickly became the most impor­tant policy framework for initiatives related to immigrants and ethnic minorities (as well as ­toward ­women and young workers). In the trade u ­ nion view, this

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    65

approach emphasized the need to recognize cultural differences among groups of employees as well as among the individuals belonging to ­those groups. In this view, real equality can be achieved if differences are taken as the basis for the development of l­abor relations. While the expression doel­ groepen (target groups) remained, the expression diversiteitsbeleid (diversity policy) was considered as offering more scope to fight against dif­fer­ent types of discrimination, while also avoiding stigmatizing groups. This framework was reconfirmed as central in the 2005 and 2009 congresses. In the early years, diversity policies and proj­ects ­were mainly run by ad hoc commissions within both the federations and the affiliated trade u ­ nions. To coordinate the tasks of affiliates, the FNV established a Diversity Task Force, alongside the existing advisory Secretariaat Etnische Minderheden (Secretariat for Ethnic Minorities). In 2003, however, the FNV ended the task force and declared that affiliated trade ­unions and the federation had to continue working on diversity policy in­de­pen­dently. Also the affiliated trade ­unions opted, in the following years, to abolish ad hoc commissions and to mainstream diversity within the trade ­union in such a way that it became a common concern of all departments. We had a system we called Secretaariat for ethnic minorities but we d ­ on’t have it anymore, b­ ecause we d ­ on’t like to have a separate department. We would like to work in a more integrated way b­ ecause when our expertise regards income issues it d ­ oesn’t m ­ atter if it is for w ­ omen or for young ­people, or other ­people. We w ­ ill try to have more integrated policies. (Male, BAME trade ­union officer, FNV Vakcentrale)

This decision followed the awareness that t­ hese bodies had been rather unsuccessful in achieving their task. This development was also supported by some ethnic minority officials worried that special bodies might contribute to the marginalization of ethnic minority issues within the trade ­union. At the time of the research, advisers monitored the implementation and outcomes of diversity policies across dif­fer­ent trade ­union departments. Furthermore, some network-­based initiatives emerged in some trade ­unions, as in the case of the FNV Bondgenoten’s “Nieuwe Nederlanders” (New Dutch), which consisted of officials, negotiators, and policy advisers. The strong engagement with diversity policies—­which seems higher than that displayed in the UK in relation to equality—is mainly explained by the fact that this

6 6   Chapter 3

framework is formally embraced and promoted at higher levels of Dutch trade ­unions and is facilitated by them being more highly centralized as organ­izations than in the UK, for example. This allows diversity policy to be rather homogeneously transmitted by trade u ­ nions and implemented as a formal policy framework across the dif­fer­ent affiliated trade u ­ nions (while in the UK, the more fragmented nature of the trade ­union structure increases differentiation of policies and approaches across dif­fer­ent trade ­unions). Diversity policies have developed in initiatives addressing the ­labor market as well as the trade ­union itself. In relation to the labor market, mea­ sures have been a­ dopted to encourage employers to support and re­spect the interests and rights of an increasingly diversified workforce. For instance, several mea­sures addressed basic individual rights, such as freedom of speech and the opportunity to express personal belief. To stimulate equal treatment and equal opportunities, the social partners also agreed on the NVP-­ sollicitatiecode (recruitment code of the Nederlandse Vereniging van Personeelsmanagement & Organisatieontwikkeling).5 The FNV or­ga­nized fifty information meetings in collaboration with immigrants’ organ­izations, successfully lobbied to lift unnecessary restrictions on el­derly immigrants who receive social assistance, and substantially increased the diversity of FNV-­appointed representatives on the boards of the Chambers of Commerce. Other initiatives concerned prob­lems related to workplace health and safety, such as stress and bullying. Trade ­unions also addressed the prob­lem of low participation and involvement among workers with foreign backgrounds, with the aim of achieving multicultural repre­ sen­ta­tion. FNV-­Bondgenoten and FNV-­Abvakabo, for instance, produced a brochure titled “Together at Work, Together in the Works Councils,” aimed at explaining how workplace trade unionists could increase immigrant employees’ involvement in works councils. Furthermore, the FNV provided trade u ­ nion officials with practical suggestions on promoting diversity during representative elections. In 2004, the FNV promoted the proj­ect Gesprekken op de werkvloer (Dialogue in the Workplace) following increasing social hostility ­toward foreign workers in the aftermath of the murder of the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh. Dialogue in the workplace aimed to improve relationships and reciprocal understanding among dif­fer­ent groups of workers in workplaces, in such a way as to promote solidarity among them. FNV officials directly joined affiliated trade u ­ nions in workplaces when the meetings w ­ ere held.

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    67 We, but also a lot of other p­ eople, noticed that an “us-­versus-­them culture” was developing. Theo van Gogh had been murdered in November 2004, which caused a lot of agitation. Therefore we said: the u ­ nion has to do something. The factory floor is like a small society on its own. And perhaps ­there are more chances on the factory floor than in the rest of society to get to know ­people well. Outside the factory floor it is much easier to stay in your own circle. So this was ­really an opportunity according to our Head Board. (Male, BAME trade u ­ nion activist, FNV Bondgenoten)

Several mea­sures ­were aimed at increasing diversity within the trade ­ nions themselves. The aim was to incorporate target-­group members on u the boards of both the Confederation and affiliated trade u ­ nions, where “you see some ­women in impor­tant positions but no ethnic minorities” (FNV policy adviser). A specific proj­ect, On the Way to the Top was created with this goal in mind. At the central level, two proj­ects aimed to get more ethnic minority ­women into top trade ­union positions. The first proj­ect, A Place with FNV, resulted in the incorporation of twenty ethnic minority w ­ omen in m ­ iddle management positions. In 2009, the FNV started training ethnic minority “top w ­ omen” for executive positions on the boards of affiliated trade u ­ nions in the context of a proj­ect called Campaigning for Influence. This training program was or­ga­nized in collaboration with several associations (the FORUM multicultural institute) and the government training institute (ROI). T ­ hese initiatives, being more directly engaged with by the trade u ­ nion, had high profiles. ­There was, to a certain extent, a managerial approach to issues of equality and diversity. Such training was common in the UK but, in the Dutch case, it was seen much more as a symbolic shift in the development of a new form of social engagement with BAME communities. Diversity has become a central point in the media campaigns and communication strategies of the FNV. Equality and diversity are often promoted by using a biographical approach. The emphasis on immigrant workers’ and members’ lives or the achievements of single individuals constitutes a power­ ful way to link diversity issues to everyday life. Media campaigns are often directed at dif­fer­ent sections of the workforce—­youth, ­women, and immigrant workers, for example—to sensitize the trade u ­ nion to a range of multiple identities in the workplace and Dutch society. Several campaigns have involved the use of posters, biographies and per­for­mance artists—­each

6 8   Chapter 3

representing a dif­fer­ent type of worker and worker narrative. This approach was also vis­i­ble in the Power to Media campaign, a marketing/advertising campaign that aimed to communicate the significance of trade ­unions for targeted groups of workers such as “flexible workers,” “youth,” and “cleaners.” This campaign was very relevant to immigrant workers since they are overrepresented in many of ­these vulnerable groups. ­These policies and initiatives assisted the trade ­union in its manner of presenting itself and engaging with broader constituencies. While being fundamental in supporting immigrant and ethnic minority workers, special policies had several limitations. As mentioned before, they had a strong top-­down character in being developed at the confederation level by special advisory bodies and departments and then being disseminated to affiliated trade ­unions to be further elaborated and implemented. Other initiatives w ­ ere developed directly by affiliated trade u ­ nions but, again, within specific central departments. This constituted an obstacle for the effective implementation of ­these mea­sures. Initiatives often remained limited in number, ­were developed thanks to the voluntary efforts of trade ­union officials, and encountered several obstacles in workplaces—­not only due to the re­sis­ tance of employers but also in some cases to a lack of interest and effort on the part of both trade u ­ nion officials and activists. Although addressed at immigrant and ethnic minority workers, t­hese actions alone w ­ ere not able to increase the levels of participation and ­unionization of t­ hese groups of workers, especially of ­those working in sectors not protected by collective agreements. This weakness became a central issue in the trade ­union debate during the early 2000s as a result of contextual and internal trade ­union changes. Hence such campaigns as well as more formal—­even “managerialized”—­ visions of diversity w ­ ere unable to connect in the day-­to-­day workplace practice of trade u ­ nions or the new challenges of growing weakness in traditional regulatory politics.

The Issue of Class: Connecting with the Workforce through Organ­izing The long tradition of institutionalized social dialogue and the strong reliance on encompassing collective bargaining has provided Dutch trade ­unions with a rather strong institutional power, which has been less reliant on mem-

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    69

bership as a power resource for trade u ­ nion action than other countries have been (Marino 2012; Visser 1998a). Since the mid of 2000s, however, Dutch trade u ­ nions started investing more resources in grassroots mobilizing strategies, which have been seen as impor­tant ele­ments of trade ­union renewal (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). This development has occurred in the context of declining trade u ­ nion membership density (currently at about 18 ­percent [Visser 2015]), increasing challenges to their institutionalized role, and increasing deregulation in specific areas of the ­labor market that are more exposed to international competition. Dutch trade ­unions have recognized the need to maintain representative legitimacy though membership recruitment and activism (De Beer 2013; Roosblad 2013). The search for ways to improve trade ­unionism in the Netherlands came at the same time that the US Ser­vice Employees International Union (SEIU) was looking to develop international links. The SEIU set up an international initiative to or­ga­nize cleaners and security staff and it invested resources in organ­izing campaigns that target international food ser­vice, cleaning, and security employers. The SEUI also assigned staff to several Eu­ro­pean and non-­European countries including the Netherlands, and provided training and coaching to trade u ­ nion officials in ­these countries. Following ­these initiatives, Dutch officials started to construct spaces for the discussion of new types of trade ­union activity and the importance of grassroots-­based ­approaches. Leaders from the ser­vice sector trade ­union FNV-­Bondgenoten and the public sector trade u ­ nion FNV-­Abvakabo attended SEIU conventions. One official from FNV-­Bondgenoten, responsible for the cleaning sector, undertook a training course on organ­izing in Amer­i­ca in 2006 and was charged with bringing back the organ­izing approach to the cleaning sector in the Netherlands. Other activists have been to London to follow the London Citizens campaign—­which has brought together a range of organ­ izations relating to economic and social justice in the city. The campaign has built up links and networks with organizers working in the Justice for Cleaners campaign in London. T ­ hese international experiences served as examples to the Dutch activists for developing additional new organ­izing in the Netherlands. In a booklet published in 2007 by the FNV as material for extending the debate on innovative trade u ­ nion strategies, the social and po­liti­cal changes taking place in the Netherlands, and the newly discovered awareness of the

70   Chapter 3

weakening of the polder model ­were used to explain why a new approach to workers’ participation was necessary for the Dutch ­labor movement: The Netherlands has had a reputation for its polder model, in which social partners are actively involved in all kinds of consultative bodies, decisions are based on compromises, collective agreements are binding for entire sectors and strike action is rare. The trade ­union movement had a rather strong institutional position, which means that t­ here was no strong necessity to organise and mobilise workers. (Kloosterboer 2007, 15)

Revitalization efforts and organ­izing strategies, as well as topics such as representativeness, workers participation, trade u ­ nion democracy, workplace relations, and participation, became an impor­tant part of the confederal debate. The FNV asserted the importance of organ­izing new groups of ­people, among them the young, the unemployed, workers in the ser­vice industry, and immigrant and ethnic minority workers. The explanation for the wide consensus around organ­izing in the formal trade ­union debate is that the narrative about organ­izing did not clash with traditional trade ­union strategies and purposes. This is ­because it was essentially based on the idea of strengthening the trade ­union through a renewed emphasis on membership growth and activism. In this sense, new organ­izing was understood as the adoption of specific practices, in specific sectors, to encourage members to join and participate in the trade ­union. The FNV therefore “was seen as being supportive” and it provided resources for the development of t­hese activities (FNV-­Bondgenoten trade ­union or­ga­nizer). In 2007 the FNV-­Bondgenoten launched a campaign in the cleaning sector during a meeting at Schiphol Airport attended by five hundred cleaners. In the following months, organ­izing committees w ­ ere created in Maastricht, The Hague, Utrecht, and at Schiphol Airport. Immigrants’ organ­izations, churches, mosques, social movement groups, and ­others pledged their support. The campaign was framed around two issues: fighting for an increase to €10 an hour and fighting for the respectful treatment of cleaning workers by employers. The campaign itself was considered unique for the Netherlands. A combination of grassroots organ­izing, direct action, and broad co­ali­tions applied pressure on employers and their contractors. The approach ­adopted in the cleaning sector in the Netherlands was directly influenced by the SEIU and the tactics used in the successful Justice for Janitors campaign as well as

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    71

in the Justice for Cleaners in the UK—­which included mapping workplaces and targeting and “shaming” client companies of cleaning contractors. The campaign produced results a­ fter just one year when in 2008 cleaners won higher wages as a result of the 10 Euro campaign. In early 2008, cleaners reached an agreement on higher wages, vocational training, language courses, and a more transparent collective agreement. ­These outcomes ­were clearly celebrated and referenced in the trade u ­ nion, which gave greater visibility to trade u ­ nion activity in the repre­sen­ta­tion of ­these workers. In early 2009 FNV-­Bondgenoten began a new campaign to or­ga­nize cleaners at Schiphol Airport. The trade u ­ nion recruited over half of the cleaning workers and the activists ­were able to build on the success of the 2007/8 campaign to mobilize the workers to try to achieve better working conditions. The trade ­union was again successful, and ­after four days of strike action, the cleaners won travel expenses, job security, and a €50 bonus. They also managed to negotiate a one-­off bonus for all Dutch cleaners of 0.5 ­percent of their yearly income. The campaign continued ­until 2010 and culminated in prolonged strike actions concentrated in key areas of the economy, mainly airports and railways. The cleaners won further concessions from employers and w ­ ere able to negotiate sectoral-­level agreements in their sector. The campaign resulted in improved working conditions for the cleaning sector and led to the development of a core of trade u ­ nion organizers in the mainly service-­sector-­based trade ­union FNV-­Bondgenoten.6 A key feature of this campaign was the high level of commitment of trade ­union organizers and the high level of resources concentrated on building up self-­organization among the cleaners. The success of the campaign was built on an ability to empathize and engage with the workforce in new and novel ways. The ideals and po­liti­cal investment were very strong, as is well-­ described by one of the interviewees: This is not just a job, if I can come ­here and I see this as a job I ­will have quit it a long time ago. This is like what we are . . . ​I am part of a very historical moment in the Netherlands. I am part of something that has never happened before. (Male, trade ­union or­ga­nizer, FNV-­Bondgenoten)

In 2009, FNV-­affiliated trade ­unions recorded increases in membership—­ with FNV-­Bondgenoten growing by 2,500 members in a three-­month

72    Chapter 3

period. The assertive campaign in Schiphol Airport led more than half of cleaning workers to become members of FNV-­Bondgenoten. In meetings during and ­after the campaign a very positive and supportive approach to new activists was apparent as a close set of mentoring and strategic relations was established between the organizers and the new representatives. The shift t­oward organ­izing began to involve a more systematic reflection of trade ­union purpose and identity, and was linked to a concern for a return to “class politics” in some form or other. For the p­ eople interviewed, the main concern was to de­moc­ra­tize the trade u ­ nion, which included the pro­cesses of decision making. This was not a rejection of the traditional forms of negotiations, but support for a trade u ­ nion in which t­ hese negotiations would better reflect the needs and demands of workers. ­There was awareness that to achieve this goal the trade ­union had to rely on a broader and stronger membership base and not on being recognized by employers and the government. This was explic­itly recalled many times during the interviews: What we want is a r­ eally power­ful u ­ nion who wants to fight, and we want to make deals that are good for ­people. That’s what we want and it’s not always the u ­ nion we have. Of course, we have to make a deal with the employers, but it has to be a deal that you want, not the one that the other part imposes. (Male trade ­union or­ga­nizer, FNV-­Bondgenoten) We should go back to our basics and that’s, you know, the employers, the government have the money, we have the numbers. . . . ​And when we have the numbers, we have also influence. (Male trade u ­ nion or­ga­nizer, FNV-­ Bondgenoten)

Organ­izing began to represent a link to the new disor­ga­nized features of the Dutch economy and a new wave of immigration that was less protected by the heritage of the polder model. Following the success achieved in the cleaning sector, other affiliated trade u ­ nions such as FNV-­Abvakabo and the construction trade ­union FNV-­Bouw applied new organ­izing in other contexts. That is already very dif­fer­ent. So far ­we’ve found that the best way to organise is where t­ here are already small groups. So organising in churches is r­ eally a pos­si­ble option or meeting places or where a group of p­ eople already come together just as friends. That is the best way. . . . ​We’ve been thinking about

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    73 organising a neighbourhood, which you then could consider as a com­pany or a workplace to organise and it is maybe for a l­ater phase. . . . ​We have this fantasy of collective l­abour agreement for a neighbourhood, for example. But let’s see. (Male trade u ­ nion or­ga­nizer, FNV-­Bondgenoten)

The FNV directly focused on organ­izing aty­pi­cal and undocumented workers and supported the u ­ nionization of “illegal” immigrant workers, claiming that “­every worker is a worker, regardless of l­egal status.”7 For example, this policy has enabled undocumented sex workers in Holland to join the sex workers’ trade u ­ nion (De Rode Draad) affiliated with the FNV since the 1990s. Some campaigns have specifically targeted immigrant workers as in the case of the Eemshaven campaign (from 2011 to 2013) and the Polish Brigade initiative (started in 2013 and ongoing) (see Roosblad and Berntsen 2017). The first campaign focused on the conditions of EU mi­grant workers at two construction sites in Eemshaven. This campaign did not envisage the strong direct participation of immigrant workers due to the difficulty of organ­izing this highly mobile component of the workforce. Rather trade u ­ nions engaged in negotiations with management and in l­egal proceedings (Berntsen and Lillie 2016) with the aim of guaranteeing the enforcement of employment standards. The second campaign was aimed at overcoming language barriers for Polish mi­grants who ­were mainly employed as agency workers. Different from the previous campaign, this one tried to mobilize Polish workers (Berntsen 2015) and was not focused on a specific sector or organ­ization. The aim was to provide continuity in the relationship with t­hese workers, to make the trade ­union accessible to them once they moved to dif­fer­ent jobs. Organ­izing campaigns have been implemented in several sectors of the Dutch economy, including domestic work, agriculture, and the retail industry. However, t­here has been skepticism t­oward organ­izing in more traditional sectors. In the public sector trade ­union FNV-­Abvakabo, for instance, the trade u ­ nion executive agreed to a pi­lot proj­ect in order to test out the organ­izing approach. The proj­ect was to or­ga­nize nurses at a university hospital. The campaign focused on a specific issue: the hospital’s need for new equipment. The campaign succeeded, but the activists found that the nurses ­were quite loyal to their employer and patients. It was felt that organizers ­were not relevant in the public sector and w ­ ere more suited to the market or private sector (interview with trade u ­ nion or­ga­nizer, FNV-­Abvakabo,

74   Chapter 3

June 2010). In this case, as in other cases in traditional sectors of the economy, it is evident how the introduction of organ­izing has caused tension with the dominant repertoire of social partnership. This has generated an internal debate on the extent to which organ­izing fits in with the consensus-­based approach typical of Dutch industrial relations. More recently, it has been underlined how the organ­izing approach—­based on the Anglo-­Saxon model—­constitutes only one of the strategies pursued by the Dutch trade ­unions and coexists with other strategies even within the same sectors (Roosblad 2013). Furthermore, the implementation of organ­izing in the Netherlands has inevitably been influenced by contextual and trade union–­related ­factors: where implemented, it has been used to maintain representative legitimacy and institutional power through extending repre­sen­ta­tion, recognition, and regulation (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). Despite internal challenges and tensions, organ­izing has been part of an impor­tant ongoing pro­cess of internal reflection: while the affirmation of direct participation and participatory democracy as the basis of the original meaning of organ­izing (Car­ter 2006) has been rather limited to very specific cases, organ­izing has been impor­tant in the promotion of a shift t­oward a more demo­cratic approach to workers’ repre­sen­ta­tion. The neocorporatist approach that characterizes Dutch industrial relations means that key issues related to immigration have historically been responded to in a formal and at times cohesive manner. The embedded nature of employment regulation means that immigration has been or­ga­nized systematically within industrial relations. Trade u ­ nion policies and strategies—­ developed within a framework of strong and fruitful relationships with employers and the state—­have been beneficial to immigrant and ethnic minority workers in terms of employability, training, and l­ abor market participation. Although a gap persists between native and ethnic minority workers regarding access and position in the l­abor market and working conditions, starting from the 1990s, Dutch trade u ­ nions have generally shown a strong commitment to inclusion, building on more traditional models of social inclusion and dialogue. This approach developed at a time when immigrants entered a more regulated and or­ga­nized l­abor market. However, since the early 2000s, the patterns and experience of immigration have changed, for instance, in the nature and length of stay, and immigration is characterized by a stronger diversity in regard to ­legal status and employment trajectories.

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    75

In a context of increasing competition, which is another result of Eu­ro­ pe­anization pro­cesses, Dutch employers have increasingly resorted to decentralized approaches to employment (agency work and subcontracting) and greater systematic targeting of more vulnerable workers. Areas such as cleaning, domestic work, and agriculture—­where immigrant workers are overrepresented—­are increasingly prone to poor working conditions and more decentralized employer and management practices. ­These pro­cesses also occurred in a changing institutional context that challenged trade u ­ nion power to promote regulation within the social dialogue framework. The promotion of social regulation through partnership still characterizes Dutch trade u ­ nion activities, but t­ hese initiatives are not on the same scale as ­those negotiated during the early 1990s (Roosblad 2000). The more difficult terrain for social dialogue and increasing pressures on the ­labor market have been considered relevant in explaining this change (Roosblad and Berntsen 2017). Furthermore, the trade u ­ nions in the Netherlands have been traditionally less able to build relationships with immigrant and ethnic minority workers and to include them in the organ­ization both as members and activists. The presence of immigrant and ethnic minority workers in workplace representative structures has also been reported to be scarce. Some recent analy­sis has focused on the rate of immigrant u ­ nionization across Eu­ro­pean countries (Gorodzeisky and Richards 2013; Kranendonk and De Beer 2016) and has confirmed a relevant gap in the u ­ nionization of native and immigrant workers (22.5 ­percent and 18.1 ­percent, respectively). T ­ hese studies argue that the level of orga­nizational security inversely affects trade ­union incentives to or­ga­ nize immigrant workers and is consequently reflected in the ­unionization rates (Gorodzeisky and Richards 2013, 251). Other studies have highlighted an inverse relationship between the institutional influence of trade u ­ nions and efforts to include ­these workers: the stronger their influence, the less the effort to include immigrants (Krings 2009; Marino 2012; Wrench 2004). Data also suggest that a pro­cess of self-­organizing of immigrant and ethnic minority workers has not developed in Dutch trade u ­ nions. Although advisory committees and special structures have been pres­ent in the federations and affiliated trade u ­ nions at dif­fer­ent stages, t­ hese structures have a strong central nature and are not comparable with the experiences of black and minority workers’ sections in other national trade ­unions, for example, as in the UK. Such outcomes seem to be influenced by the centralized structure of

76   Chapter 3

the Dutch trade u ­ nions and by their relatively low presence in workplaces and at the decentralized level in general (Marino 2012). Such features have made it difficult to establish contacts and build a systematic dialogue with immigrant and ethnic minority members. This has led to an internal debate on the new methods needed to engage with the workforce, linked to a growing realization of the limitations of traditional social dialogue models for representing and regulating new spaces of work in themselves. Our research reveals evidence suggesting that formal adherence to the organ­izing model, as formulated in the 2005 FNV Congress, has resulted in the a­ ctual implementation of organ­izing strategies and in the adoption of more confrontational views at decentralized levels. The introduction of an organ­izing approach has constituted first and foremost an opportunity to engage with a precarious workforce, an impor­tant part of which is constituted by immigrant and ethnic minority workers employed mostly in less regulated sectors of the l­abor market. In 2009, FNV-­ Bondgenoten reported a growth of 2,500 members in a three-­month period. As a result of the Schiphol campaign more than half of cleaning workers became members of FNV-­Bondgenoten. While t­ hese results are impor­tant, it is difficult to mea­sure the extent of engagement of t­ hese workers in the postcampaign phase and the effect of organ­izing on workers’ engagement and participation in the long term. Clearly, it was necessary to build more sustainable workplace institutions in order to achieve better outcomes through negotiation. The relative success of organ­izing has been celebrated not only in relation to specific outcomes such as the achievement of a collective agreement or an increase in trade ­union membership. The debate has also focused on internal changes, on an idea of renewal of the Dutch l­abor movement that primarily meant a shift in internal politics and strategies of actions. It has led to a more open discussion—in relative terms—­with regard to questions of class identity and repre­sen­ta­tion. This extends to an idea of renewing the trade u ­ nion internally in terms of demo­cratic procedures and in its relationship with members. The new constituents felt they w ­ ere “putting forward an example of how the trade ­union should be” (Female, trade u ­ nion or­ga­ nizer, FNV-­Bondgenoten). Several tensions also emerged in the adoption of organ­izing in the Netherlands, and t­hese are more or less vis­i­ble depending on the specific sector and orga­nizational context. First, ­these tensions are linked to the fact that

Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands    77

organ­izing pres­ents a departure from less confrontational strategies traditionally employed in the Dutch trade u ­ nion movement. Organ­izing potentially challenges the way in which social partnership and longer-­term relations are established among employers, man­ag­ers, and trade ­union “officials.” Second, organ­izing campaigns have been implemented more successfully in less-­ regulated areas of the economy, while they have found less room in more traditional areas, such as nursing, ports, and chemicals. In ­these more highly ­unionized, traditional sectors, a social partnership approach ­toward employment relations has remained prevalent (see Roosblad 2013 and Roosblad and Berntsen, 2017), and organ­izing campaigns have been no more than “islands of organising in a sea of ­union ser­vices” (Vandaele and Leschke 2010: 24). Furthermore, the organ­izing strategy has been able to empower vulnerable (immigrant) workers and increase their ­unionization in the short term, though so far it has not promoted the formation of an internal space for immigrant and ethnic minority workers within the trade ­union. Despite ­these obstacles, the organ­izing approach is acquiring a greater mea­sure of consent within the official trade ­union debate, and several proj­ ects aimed at promoting trade ­union presence and activism at the local level are also emerging in affiliated trade ­unions not directly involved in organ­ izing campaigns. Such proj­ects, inspired by organ­izing princi­ples, have the goal of promoting structural changes, moving beyond the prob­lem of “single issue” campaigns. The extent to which organ­izing princi­ples w ­ ill be able to promote orga­ nizational changes in structure, culture, and activity remains an open question, as does the eventual effect of such changes on the Dutch industrial relations “model.” Organ­izing as a way of transforming a trade ­union more broadly in its purpose and objectives is not a given. However, the introduction of the organ­izing approach is an impor­tant novelty in the trade u ­ nion debate. Although it does not constitute a shift from previous strategies and approaches, it is an attempt at enlarging (and differentiating) trade u ­ nion action and—we could argue—­moving from the logic of influence to the logic of membership (Schmitter and Streeck 1981). The question of immigration is impor­tant, not just as a pressing social issue but as a development that tests the regulatory efficacy of the industrial relations system, even systems that have been deemed to be some of the more robust in Eu­rope. The Dutch case shows how formal and institutional approaches are being used alongside organ­izing and mobilizing strategies that

78   Chapter 3

endeavor to rethink the orga­nizational and symbolic link between (new) workers and the trade ­union movement. ­There is no reason that institutional and organ­izing strategies should be at odds with each other, as the experience of other countries suggests. However, in the Dutch case trade u ­ nion identity and industrial relations structures and pro­cesses are the subject of much trade u ­ nion debate (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). The challenge of balancing equality and state-­oriented approaches of a formal nature with new approaches to class and engagement represents the basis of renewal. The emergence of new forms of activism and activists—­along with an engagement with external organ­izations such as the SEIU and Unite in the UK—­mean that inevitably demo­cratic and orga­nizational issues of an internal nature w ­ ill increasingly emerge.

Chapter 4

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain From Class to Social Renewal?

In this chapter we outline the way trade ­unions in Spain have been developing responses to migration issues in relation to the questions of class, social rights, and race/ethnicity. The Spanish case is unusual b­ ecause it is one in which the use of specialist repre­sen­ta­tion or specific forms of immigrant-­ targeted learning have been subsumed into a more integrated language of class and worker regulation, internally and externally. It is a case that has seen a quick and systematic increase in migration since the early 1990s and that has been concentered in sectors with weaker or weakening trade u ­ nion repre­sen­ta­tion and challenges in regard to state regulation and regulatory reach. It has seen an inclusive approach based on integration and the extension of general and universal rights as far as ­labor organ­izations are concerned, although the motives for this may derive from a desire to shore up the system of regulation in the face of ever greater l­ abor market change and dualism. This response has been framed in a paternalistic manner and developed through the established approaches of dedicated secretariats and structures for marginalized groups such as ­women and youth.

8 0   Chapter 4

Nevertheless, the extent of innovation and change is in­ter­est­ing in this case as the trade ­unions tend to engage with the question of race and ethnicity, and the broader challenges facing immigrant workers. This is done this by extending the logic of community trade ­unionism, albeit in a service-­oriented manner. It has also attempted this by finding ways to extend collective agreements and regulatory pro­cesses through the use of vari­ous cultural and local work or community strategies that are in fact drawn from earlier strug­gles and the social and cultural identity of the Spanish ­labor movement. The nature of renewal has been largely informed by t­hese types of historical approaches, although in some cases t­ hese approaches have had to rely on a core indigenous group of workers and trade ­unionists. In the larger trade u ­ nions, renewal has relied on a form of servicing, albeit an innovative one (Martínez Lucio, Marino, and Connolly 2013).

Spanish Trade Unions and Immigration: A General Overview New forms of migration led to a range of challenges for the l­ abor movement due to a large presence of immigrants in the informal economy—­one of the largest in Eu­rope and prevalent in areas such as hospitality and agriculture—­ and an increasing use of immigration in impor­tant sectors such as construction. Trade u ­ nionists from the majority and minority trade u ­ nions w ­ ere encountering a range of bad employment practices, health and safety hazards, and low pay levels emerging among small and medium-­sized firms that employed immigrants. ­These ­were relatively more significant to the Spanish economy than to countries such as the UK or Germany. T ­ here was a growing awareness that, as workers, immigrants w ­ ere subject to high levels of exploitation and susceptible to greater risks to their health and safety, due to the culture of smaller firms and their tendency to bypass regulations in many cases, while also placing pressure on the system of regulation within ­labor markets, such as collective bargaining, by undercutting wages. Spanish u ­ nions had developed internal orga­nizational structures for emigrants but had not ­really considered immigrants during the 1980s. Antiracist initiatives directed at the spheres of work and in society w ­ ere not a priority within the l­abor movement. In part, this was due to initially low levels of immigration and a preference—­according to our research—to view exploitation mainly in terms of class. Immigrants ­were seen to be exploited due to their precarious

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    81

employment relations and low levels of social inclusion mechanisms in society. This became the main narrative within the two main u ­ nions (although the anarcho-­syndicalist trade ­unions have been more focused on the effect of racism and xenophobia in society). National and local ­union interviewees in larger ­unions felt that the major challenges included extending and enhancing the mechanisms for regulating work, which w ­ ere already in place in bargaining at the sectoral, regional, and com­pany levels, along with providing a body of ­union repre­sen­ta­tion within the firm. However, although ­there are works councils and u ­ nion elections in Spain e­ very four years that determine worker repre­sen­ta­tion in the firm, and t­ hese receive 80–90 ­percent turnout from the workforce, in small and medium-­sized firms the role and scope of the representatives have always seen challenges and been partial (Martínez Lucio 2008). The scale of immigration, its intensity in a short period of time, and the influence it was having on the regulation of work brought a range of responses from Spanish u ­ nions in the 1990s. Trade u ­ nions began developing immigrant sections aimed at raising the question of immigration and the levels of support for immigrants within the trade ­union. For example, the Confederación Sindical de Comisiones Abrearas (CCOO [Workers’ Commissions]) department for emigration mutated into one dealing with immigration. This occurred with the involvement of immigrant members. ­These sections ­were secretariats, and unlike their counter­parts in some trade u ­ nions in the UK, for example, they did not have systematic internal representative mechanisms and demo­cratic pro­cesses such as annual conferences for immigrant members—­although they ­were more expansive in their presence. Interviews with se­nior members in the relevant secretariats between 2008 and 2010 revealed that autonomous immigrant sections w ­ ere not “on the t­ able and neither should they be.” However, most of Spain’s majority trade u ­ nions have developed and involved a range of immigrant activists. A series of leading figures have begun to play a role within ­these sections, although in national conferences and congresses of the trade u ­ nions the presence of immigrants is not vis­i­ble to any g­ reat extent. T ­ hese new voices—­while still less apparent at leadership levels—­have been central to developing a range of campaigns on questions of legality and legalization. Trade u ­ nions have been at the forefront of pushing governments—­both on the right and left—­into wide-­ranging amnesties for undocumented immigrants. The development of national tripartite institutions at the state level, where trade u ­ nions, employers, specific

82    Chapter 4

immigrant bodies, and other “social partners” work alongside government representatives on a range of advisory proj­ects for government initiatives and research proj­ects similar to ­others dealing with, for example, learning (Guillén Rodriguez, Gutiérrez Palacios, and González Begega 2008). ­These bodies have formed a neocorporatist dimension of immigrant economic and social interests involving trade u ­ nion engagement and advice. ­These bodies provide a network for communicating concerns and discussions and, even in the context of post-2008 state austerity politics, have sustained themselves in some cases. Trade ­unions took this further through an institutional strategy that has called for and gained resources for learning and support—­including from the local level of state administration where trade u ­ nions have developed information ser­vices, local social ser­vices for younger workers, emergency housing, and other ser­vices (Aragon Medina et al. 2009). This is relevant ­because the role of the state during the period of neoliberalism has not solely been concerned with criminalizing immigrants (see Hiemstra 2009) but also with developing social ser­vices in relation to such communities due to “integration” issues. The major trade u ­ nions have developed their ser­vices with new immigrant communities in mind with par­tic­u­lar reference to information and learning. They have begun to use their leverage in terms of learning and training funds (see Rigby 2002) as a way of developing courses on language and basic information relevant to immigrants in l­abor markets. This ser­vice approach varies according to region, but both socialist and conservative regions have developed high levels of commitment of support—­ albeit in a welfare state context that remains underdeveloped by Western Eu­ro­pean standards in key areas such as housing and social ser­vices (see Alonso 2007). At the heart of ­these developments is the systematic creation throughout Spain, of information centers, which constitute the largest of ­these types of initiatives in numerical terms. Below, we evaluate the development of trade ­union responses across vari­ous dimensions of class, the state, and rights as well as immigration, race, and ethnicity.

Questions of Class and How It Is Framed The question of class and the discourse of a unified class underpin the language of the larger trade ­unions. This involves the importance of creating

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    83

common points of reference and seeing trade ­unions as vehicles for inclusion that defend the body of worker rights through mechanisms such as collective bargaining. Strategies for dealing with social exclusion have not been focused on dealing with race and ethnicity issues. Many of our interviewees have argued that the prob­lems facing immigrants are related to the nature of the ­labor market. Antiracist initiatives at work and in society ­were not a priority in the l­ abor movement b­ ecause of low levels of immigration during the formation of the new trade ­union movement following the dictatorship of Franco (from the 1970s onward). This has also been reflected in the absence of systematic attempts to create immigrant activist networks, although since the early 1990s a body of immigrant workers and activists has emerged within the trade ­union, and includes activists who develop their own informal networks. The argument of vari­ous interviewees from a Spanish background within the Union General de Trabajadores (UGT [General Union of Workers]) and the CCOO is that creating separate groups and / or networks would lead to separatism and that the British model of black workers’ sections would not be appropriate given the low levels of activism in immigrant communities on work-­ related politics. Training of a specialist nature for such groups is not deemed necessary, as the objective is to have individuals engaged in the mainstream of trade ­union education, so the aim as expressed to us was to get immigrants into t­ hese mainstream trade u ­ nion courses. We w ­ ere confronted with the argument that bringing immigrants into activist roles was proving to be challenging. Membership levels ­were increasing among immigrants, but activists and trade u ­ nion representatives w ­ ere unlikely to be immigrants. Immigrant representatives ­were almost non­ex­is­tent in the public sector due to the manner in which recruitment and nationality are bound together, especially in the civil ser­vice. Especially in countries such as the Netherlands and the UK, public sector trade ­unions have been at the forefront of many equality and race initiatives, in part due to the presence of black, Asian, and minotirty ethnic (BAME) workers (see chapters 3 and 5). The trade unions—­the UGT and the CCOO—­therefore brought immigrants into more formal roles within their structures. No national or local networks or special bodies linked t­ hese individuals together. However, inclusion was considered to be best arranged around the role of supported individuals from immigrant communities who could connect with other such communities on a “like-­for-­like” basis. For example, in the construction

84    Chapter 4

and hospitality sectors of the Madrid Region CCOO, the presence of such individuals—­who had been brought on board by indigenous regional officers and leaders—­was proving to be pivotal in connecting with the local community of immigrant workers. ­These ­people ­were able to go into workplaces and engage with individuals from their own background and convey information. They ­were also individuals whom immigrants could be asked to see once they came into the office. The nature of traditions in joint regulation and internal trade ­union repre­ sen­ta­tion was framed in the major trade u ­ nions in a very specific inclusive but one-­dimensional vision of class. Increasingly, the debate has moved to a broader focus and class-­wide perspective, in part to avoid the image of a trade ­union as privileging minorities. However, the strategy was concerned about preserving and sustaining collective rights, insofar as xenophobic politics up to that point had been less apparent, although with the politics of austerity issues of immigrant access to health and other ser­vices have increased. While ­there is evidence of equal and special treatment, it has not involved the emergence of specialized immigrant networks and bottom-up participative mechanisms. Quite the contrary, the immigration departments of the main trade ­unions pointed out to us that they did not want to see the development of UK-­ style black workers’ sections. Hence, the focus has been on extending established worker rights to the larger body of documented immigrant workers, lobbying and supporting where pos­si­ble undocumented workers, and supplementing this work with a focus on specific support and information ser­vices and access points on vari­ous workplace and broader issues. The immigrant department officers in charge of aspects of this work have not always been immigrants themselves; ­legal specialists remained ­until recently an indigenous professional population. The notion of dedicated or special sections with a specific voice is not part of this dynamic, although individual participation and development of immigrants as trade ­unionists is a key policy position for left-­ leaning trade u ­ nions. However, it would be a m ­ istake to ignore the role of specialist departments and networks in regard to immigration (which in turn had emerged from the departments of emigration), and especially the role of ­women who have influenced the work of immigrant related ­union activities, as we ­will outline ­later in the chapter. ­These strategies, which can be labelled “default-­inclusion strategies” w ­ ere vis­i­ble in the main work that trade u ­ nionists did in collective bargaining. Trade ­unions have striven to inform and include immigrant workers through

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    85

vari­ous mechanisms, but the logic of this is based on explicit concerns about un­regu­la­ted immigration undermining the increasingly tenuous system of regulation and collective bargaining that is emerging (Martínez Lucio, Marino, and Connolly 2013), as discussed in chapter 1. Collective bargaining coverage has been high—in comparative terms relative to the UK—­and immigrant workers in the main would have had their working conditions regulated by a com­pany and/or sector-­level agreement, at least in formal terms where they are within the scope of collective bargaining. W ­ hether this is reflected systematically in the content of collective bargaining and the inclusion of immigrant and ethnic-­related needs—­and specific issues and needs— is not exactly clear: yet there existed a generally supportive view of the role of such issues and commitment to joint regulation according to Julie R. Watts (1998, 2000). However, added to the social-­political view of class in unifying terms one notices that—­alongside a steady neoliberal imposition of change in areas such as collective bargaining—­the crisis has tested the resources and effectiveness (and reach) of the ­labor movement in relation to vari­ous industrial sectors and small and medium-­sized firms that employ a fairly large number of immigrant workers.

Social Rights and the State While state-­labor relations in Spain have normally been strategic and not as embedded as they are in Austria or Sweden, for example, this dimension of trade ­union strategy has been significant in creating spaces around which regulatory reform and change could be discussed and supported in relation to the l­ abor market and immigration. This formal approach through the platforms and structures of the state has been forged to complement the way class has been understood, as outlined above. First, trade u ­ nions have steadily become involved in a range of tripartite bodies at national and local levels. The national bodies involve trade ­unions, employers, and immigrant organ­izations, and are engaged in a range of discussions with the state on immigration, ­labor market needs, and social issues. ­These have allowed a high-­level dialogue to evolve within vari­ous social and economic-­related ministries. T ­ hese have facilitated dialogue between trade ­unions and vari­ous immigrant organ­izations, although the latter have varied in their resources and strategic focus. The role of the trade ­union

8 6    Chapter 4

movement in relation to the state is variable—­some would argue that t­ here have been a range of national-­level institutional relations and agreements (Guillén Rodriguez, Gutiérrez Palacios, and González Begega 2008), while ­others have been more sanguine in their analy­sis (Martínez Lucio, 1998, 2008). However, the subject of immigration has been a significant area for trade ­union intervention. The trade ­union movement has been involved at the national level in strategic discussions about residency and workers’ rights. In addition, amnesties for undocumented workers, which have periodically been implemented to alleviate social and regulatory pressures in the ­labor market, have to vari­ous extents involved the main trade ­unions and their respective heads of immigration and employment. This is an impor­ tant feature of the dialogue, which does not exist in some countries, such as the UK. Relations between the Ministry of L ­ abour and the majority trade ­unions on such issues are frequent, with committees chaired by leading academics. Since the relabeling of the Ministry of L ­ abour to the Ministry of ­Labour and Immigration (which has been mirrored in the majority trade ­unions), ­these relations have continued, albeit interspersed with moments of significant differences and disagreements. Although relations with the previous right-­wing administration w ­ ere significant, the election of the Socialists in 2004 was for some a major step forward in this respect: “Stronger state–­union relations in Spain result in more inclusive po­liti­cal action and servicing t­owards immigrants by Spanish trade u ­ nions” (Meardi, Martín, and Riera 2012, 19). In Spain some very direct social partner influence on detailed aspects of immigration policy was observed at some stages. The role of the Spanish ­labor movement in supporting social policy has therefore been significant. Agreements on the regularization of undocumented immigrants u ­ nder the Socialist Zapatero government (2004–11) ­were quite proactive in dealing with the state and also often leading the debate with employer organ­izations. This institutional dynamic has been paralleled by developments at the regional government level. In some cases, such as in Aragon, a very close relationship was seen between the main trade u ­ nions and the relevant governmental departments up ­until 2011. The focus was on assisting social dialogue and repre­sen­ta­tion throughout the local level of the region and on identifying social and welfare needs. The national and regional level of the state has also developed active links with immigrant bodies, with state funding and forums being offered to sup-

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    87

port the roles and voices of immigrants. The challenge has been the unstable nature of immigrant organ­ization and the variation of orga­nizational and cultural practices among vari­ous immigrant communities. However, in addressing this challenge, the regional tiers of the state and or­ga­nized ­labor have included representatives from vari­ous communities. The governance of Castille La Mancha up ­until 2011 was Socialist, and Castille Leon was ­under the right-­wing Popu­lar Party. In the case of the Madrid region, the nature of the right-­wing presidency and its hostility to social dialogue and the trade ­unions provided a counterpoint to what was a relative norm in Spain overall in such ­matters. Immigrant bodies in the Colombian and Ec­ua­dor­ian communities commented on growing reticence and uncertainty about dialogue and funding in that specific region. Po­liti­cal contingencies and the growing electoral sensitivities concerning immigration issues may begin to alter this strategic social dialogue at the regional level, not least due to the serious financial situation facing the country. This has been paralleled by increasing levels of trade ­union intervention in regional and local government forums, which has been especially pres­ent in agricultural areas where immigration has become a vital feature of the ­labor market. Local tripartite bodies are presented in regions as diverse as Castille La Mancha and Aragon. They engage with issues related to social needs (e.g., housing and education), economic relations (e.g., employment and the role of agencies), and issues of citizenship and learning, for example. The trade ­unions also use such bodies to propagate the role of collective bargaining and national and provincial agreements in sectors such as agriculture, thus sustaining a dialogue or influence on employers in t­ hese sectors through national bargaining negotiations and the local bodies. ­These bodies are normally driven po­liti­cally by a desire to avoid social exclusion, and in par­ tic­u­lar social conflict, which has been apparent in vari­ous incidents and xenophobic events. 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. Major strides t­ oward social dialogue and social welfare organ­izations have been made at city, town, and village government levels. A major study of this dimension of trade ­union activity has shown that such local-­level structures of repre­sen­ta­tion have been central to the provision and organ­ization of specific social ser­vices, as well as to the framework of dialogue and the climate of trust that has been constructed between actors and local communities on

88   Chapter 4

the subject of immigration (Aragon et al. 2009). Our research confirms this. In many cases the trade ­unions have been pivotal in establishing special forums that cover key towns or clusters, or towns and villages, with the aim of developing dialogues among local councilors, employers, trade ­unions, and when pos­si­ble immigrant organ­izations on issues such as housing and other welfare ser­vices. In addition, in agricultural areas in Castille La Mancha more systematic ways of monitoring employment conditions have been developed. In fact, many of t­ hese forums have addressed and even enacted employment procedures and recruitment mechanisms to ensure fairness, and also some amount of regulation for workers, particularly in agriculture. ­These mea­ sures are difficult to quantify in extent and outcome, but they are a feature of vari­ous regions and areas. They help to bring employers into the context of discussion and in trying to liaise between local and immigrant populations and create an ele­ment of planning and awareness. The challenge in Spain again has been the high proportion of small and medium-­sized employers along with an extensive informal economy. The presence of paternalistic employment practices and the limited reach of sectoral and provincial collective agreements for specific segments of agriculture ­were questions addressed in t­ hese forums. The state has also involved itself alongside trade ­unions in the areas of learning and training. Through vari­ous tripartite bodies and organ­izations, the trade ­union movement has managed to link the funds available for training to specific local proj­ects and local training centers. ­These local proj­ects and training centers have also been subject to the local forums discussed above. The role of trade u ­ nions in learning and training has expanded since the 1990s with significant po­liti­cal influence being held over the allocation of funds (Martínez Lucio et al. 2007). ­These funds have gone to support training courses held in trade u ­ nion centers and to finance learning initiatives beyond traditional educational structures in local government and social organ­izations. They are also very significant in providing ­career advice, which is partly offered by trade u ­ nions and funded by the state. The levels of the state and its vari­ous bodies have been a reference point for trade ­unions in regard to social dialogue, the opening of representative spaces to vari­ous organ­izations in immigrant communities, and the provision of ser­vices on the front line. ­These initiatives have mainly been taken up by trade ­union officers inside the apparatus of the trade union—­especially ­those from immigrant, social affairs, and equality departments. Activists and local territo-

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    89

rially based representatives have played a role and worked alongside t­hese departments, but in general, activists have driven this pro­cess. The ability to link to the state therefore represents an impor­tant dimension of the Spanish response, as we ­will see in the way information and support ser­vices have been developed. The outcome of this link with the state has been significant support for direct trade u ­ nion efforts regarding vari­ous aspects of immigrants’ needs, although various financial scandals regarding state training funds and unions have limited and constrained such initiatives in recent years.

Prob­lems with Extant Responses A cursory glance at the activities of Spanish trade u ­ nions in relation to immigration reveals that ­there has been much innovation and engagement. This is a trade ­union movement that has drawn on its experiences and memories in relation to emigration, engaged with its social and gender-­related structures, and developed very direct forms of engagement when it comes to the elaboration of a strategy regarding immigration. However, ­there are some challenges in the manner in which this response has developed through the prism of a traditional class discourse and a relative reliance on state support. First, austerity exposed an element of a systematic dependence on the state for resources and the development of social dialogue, and this may pres­ent a challenge if po­liti­cal contexts continue to change. While conservative regional governments have been engaging with the corporatist approach to immigration and work, ­there is no guarantee this ­will continue, especially given the fundamental crisis of the state that Spain ­faces. This prob­lem also highlights the fact that regional states vary, and t­ here are indications that a more fragmented approach to the question of social inclusion may arise in the ­future. In addition, neoliberal reforms in the system of collective bargaining since the commencement of the ­great recession of 2008 have given employers greater power to opt out of agreements at the multiemployer level and to change specific terms and conditions of employers (Fernandez Rodríguez, Ibañez Rojo, and Martínez Lucio 2016). Second, the core focus of the trade ­union response has been or­ga­nized through the development of a range of educational and informational ser­ vices. This has been done via the established apparatus of the trade ­union. One could argue that in the absence of a significant number of new activists

9 0    Chapter 4

from immigrant communities, the trade ­unions have no choice but to proceed in this manner; however, ­there are pos­si­ble demo­cratic deficits and gaps in relation to the immigrant workforce that may need attention. This raises the issue that sufficient numbers of activists and levels of activism from immigrant communities are still lacking. Much of the internal bureaucratic work of the trade u ­ nions still relies on its social and gender departments, directly or indirectly. This can be explained with reference to the fact that immigrant-­oriented occupations are mainly in less-­organized sectors and where t­ here is a prevalence of small and medium-­sized enterprises. One interviewee from a construction com­pany was concerned about the remaining cultural gap in regard to trade ­unionism and immigrant communities. ­There tended to be a separation in aspects of the work on immigration within the trade u ­ nions, although this prob­lem was being met by merging the secretariats for employment and immigration and linking the work of the advisory centers more closely to the sector federations. Hence the orga­nizational politics of immigration was worth noting. This may appear to be an aside, but in countries such as the UK and the Netherlands the access of immigrants to public sector positions has allowed for a greater synergy, especially in the former, in terms of antiracist and equality agendas as well as trade ­union agendas. Spanish public ser­vice trade u ­ nionists did not r­ eally see the immigration issue as very pertinent—­even if ­there ­were internal trade ­union officers concerned with immigration. Third, the experience of immigration in Spain has taken place mainly in highly flexible and vulnerable sectors. Large numbers of immigrants have not had access to many core employment opportunities. This has meant that the trade ­union, which generally has its power base located in the core workforce, has been less affected by immigration. Immigrants see themselves primarily as working on the periphery and in a less protected context. This remains one of the main challenges to immigrants, the trade u ­ nion movement, and the workforce as a ­whole, as working conditions become more difficult to regulate in a coordinated and centralized manner. Evidence from vari­ous quarters suggests a degree of reticence and criticism vis-­à-­vis immigration among the population, and although this may not influence the formal po­liti­cal agenda, state support for immigrants has been uneven to say the least. In addition, some research has shown that workplace activists are much more ambivalent about the impact of immigrants even in the CCOO with its sociopo­liti­cal traditions (Jódar et al. 2014). Some have argued that

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    91

policymaking has been complex in Spain, due to fissures between integration and immigration policy as well as the regional structure of the state, which pres­ent challenges to the pro­cess of social dialogue (Bruquetas-­Callejo et al. 2008). O ­ thers note a fundamental lack of coherence in immigration policy in regard to social support, ­labor market access, controls, and other policy features (González-­Enríquez 2009). This leads to serious questions of social exclusion and health and safety challenges due to the precarious nature of the work and jobs a significant number of immigrants do (Agudelo-­ Suárez et al. 2009). However, for Julie R. Watts (1998, 2000), the irony about Spain has been that social partners, especially trade ­unions, have not been as ambivalent as ­others on the question of immigration and they have been ­eager to play a supportive role in relation to such developments and a more socially oriented strategy—­and one needs to place this in a context where immigration was not very significant ­until the 1990s. Pablo Miravet (2005, 6) writes about the way the two key trade u ­ nions engaged in a highly inclusive manner with the question of migration very early on: “The early development of specific structures within the trade u ­ nion as well as the development of diverse and systematic action by the leading trade u ­ nions over the past de­cades is testimony to the commitment of the trade ­unions to the integration in ­labor terms of immigrant workers with regard to the quality of rights of such workers” (our translation). And many have shown how Spanish trade u ­ nions have reacted positively: A fundamental contribution of the trade u ­ nions to immigration (one they share with other NGOs which work for and with immigrants) has been their rapid ability to prioritise concern for groups of workers—­such as immigrants—­ with specific prob­lems. The activities and positions of CCOO and UGT play an impor­tant “anticipatory” role since one can assume that immigration in Spain ­will continue to increase. Within this context, their endeavours to turn public opinion away from xenophobia and racism and to eradicate discrimination against immigrants in the workplace are extremely impor­tant. (Cachón and Valles 2003, 474)

Yet actively connecting with the broader realities of the question of immigration has been challenging.

92    Chapter 4

Renewal and the Engagement with Race and Migration Socially While in part framed by the class and social strategies above, we can detect a range of strategies and approaches indicating that the Spanish ­labor movement since the 1980s has begun to rethink its attempt to or­ga­nize and support immigrant workers. ­These strategies take the form of community advisory approaches, the use of innovative and dynamic strategies in relation to regulatory reach, the use of welfare and cultural strategies that are in part framed by earlier strug­gles of the ­labor movement during the dictatorship and transition, and alliance-­forming strategies with specific immigrant and international groups.

Community and Communication: The Role of Advisory Centers Trade ­unions developed a network of information offices and centers in virtually e­ very major Spanish city. ­These have been developed by u ­ nions, especially the CCOO and the UGT. They are normally located in local trade ­union offices, and their role is to act as a first port of call for immigrants in relation to work and other social or labor-­related concerns. Many immigrant centers and law firms are focused on ­these types of activity, but none can compare in sheer extent and breadth to the trade u ­ nion network—­something that is unusual in Eu­rope. One feature of this new form of engagement with immigrants is that the state provides a large part of the funding of such resources. This allows trade u ­ nions, which have been identified as key ele­ments in providing such ser­vices, to develop trade union–­oriented information and a strategy of support centers more generally. The centers provide a range of information ser­vices in relation to employment, citizenship, social rights, and housing—­among o­ thers. It must be emphasized that t­ hese are not immigrant-­ led offices, although trade u ­ nionists from immigrant backgrounds may be involved. The trade ­unions in general are expected to keep clear rec­ords of their activities. Several people are often employed in the centers and in some cases up to half a dozen p­ eople may be working in one capacity or another, although numbers vary between offices. Our research covered a se­lection of cities in the center and north of Spain (Madrid, Toledo, Valladolid, and

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    93

Oviedo)—­and included visits to the centers and interviews with their staffs and the relevant trade u ­ nion. ­These immigrant information offices ­were not always located in areas where immigrant communities would reside, but in the main trade ­union offices. The prob­lem with t­ hese facilities—­which are much lauded within the official Eu­ro­pean trade u ­ nion movement—is that they tend to be driven as a ser­vice and or­ga­nized around a professional network of trade u ­ nionists. They do not always play a role in linking immigrants with the main body of the trade union—­although the realization of this in recent years has been acknowledged and responded to—­and they have not r­ eally served as a basis for a new network of immigrant activists (partly ­because it is not immigrant activists who are involved in them). In some cases, the CCOO’s Centros de Información a Trabajadores Extranjeros (CITEs [Immigrant Workers’ Information Centers]) would attend to at least three thousand individuals a year. It is clear that as worker centers, they are mainly information-­based and formal in their approach to attending to immigrants. They open a file on a worker and it is logged centrally with the trade u ­ nion so the worker can return for further advice at dif­fer­ent centers within the trade ­union. This allows, for example, seasonal agricultural workers, as they move across Spain, to be supported and logged when they have visited dif­fer­ent offices in dif­fer­ent regions according to the harvesting calendar. In comparative terms across Eu­rope the experience of CCOO and UGT developments in this area w ­ ere accepted as a leading “benchmark and good practice” (ETUC officer). The CITEs themselves do not always or­ga­nize broader social activity, co­ali­tion building, or communication strategies with the local immigrant groups. This is driven mainly by the immigration departments of the trade ­unions and t­hose coordinating some of the offices in question. Hence, the ­actual ser­vice provision ele­ment is divided from the broader immigration-­ related strategies of the trade u ­ nions. This means that centers for bringing workers from immigrant backgrounds into the trade u ­ nion movement may have a lesser role than was first anticipated. Therefore, an attempt was made to broaden the centers, moving them away from the territorial structure of the trade u ­ nion; but the question of their integration into mainstream trade ­union activity led to vari­ous discussions:

9 4    Chapter 4 The CITEs can be understood as varying and being distinct. You could say in colloquial terms they are offices that attend to immigrants. . . . ​­These are linked to our (industry) federations increasingly in vari­ous ways in recent years so that the sector level work of the trade ­union is more closely linked to the advice and work of ­these bodies: and this helps link the trade ­union into the immigrant’s issues and vice versa. (Male immigration officer, CCOO Castilla La Mancha)

In the geographic areas researched, links with or­ga­nized immigrant groups w ­ ere sporadic as far as the trade ­unions w ­ ere concerned, ­because of the prob­lems of sustainability that such groups had. This varied according to the extent and politics of dif­fer­ent immigrant communities. Hence, in the Castille Leon region, co­ali­tion building was a prob­lem even though the CCOO trade ­union had or­ga­nized a range of regional-­level cultural events. However, in Madrid and Barcelona, links with immigrant organ­izations ­were more common and stable. Yet the CITE was potentially a space and link that could assist broader activities in some cases, although this was not always common: Where we have CITEs . . . ​as in one case . . . ​we have been able to organise seminars and meetings on multiculturalism . . . ​and in the local trade ­union centre we held a session on the immigration laws and relevant new reforms. Hence we tend to take advantage of the CITE in that case. In another CITE we held assemblies and other related meetings where immigrants could attend. We do what is necessary through t­hese centres. (Male immigration officer, CCOO Castilla La Mancha)

The CCOO locally had concerns about the need to connect traditional CCOO work with the CITEs and the “clients” they had. In the Oviedo UGT, it was acknowledged that the ser­vice had become more detached and that this ser­vice provision had to be rethought. In 2009 the CCOO began to integrate its immigration section into its employment section, which led to a joint department at the national and regional level. Although this mirrored developments in certain state departments, it was considered a vital step for integrating the issue of immigration into the mainstream of the trade ­union’s work. ­There ­were also discussions about building a more proactive network of CITE activists throughout the country with the aim of using it for information gathering and for linking with the immigrant population.

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    95

However, it was not seen as the basis for a stand-­alone section or autonomous body according to se­nior members of the CCOO: We see the kind of black sections you have in the United Kingdom as something that can divide the working class. It is our policy and I think that of other main trade ­unions to integrate immigrants into the mainstream work and structures of the trade u ­ nion. So yes we have many representatives and ­others working in the trade ­union offices assisting in bargaining or recruitment but we do not have separate sections: that would possibly divide us. (Male national officer, CCOO)

This was echoed by Moroccan trade u ­ nionists working in the CCOO, although they w ­ ere part of a main regional ser­vice organ­izing sector: I personally did not experience racism in the u ­ nion offices and the approach is that immigrants have the same prob­lems as the local and indigenous workers, it is one class, and that t­here may be additional prob­lems as an immigrant but they have to be resolved. That is my view. I have the feeling this is generalised in the trade u ­ nion. B ­ ecause we work from within the trade u ­ nion to argue that we are all one working class. (Male, BAME trade ­union representative, CCOO ser­vice sector)

Yet for some this was a deeper reflection of the prob­lem of reaching out to the direct inclusion of younger workers and w ­ omen—­ let alone immigrants—­even with all the formal efforts that had been made. According to one female public sector official of the CCOO t­ here was an absence of younger trade u ­ nionists and employees of the trade u ­ nion and also growing disconnect and tensions emerging around this issue. For many, although the trade u ­ nion movement had youth and w ­ omen’s departments, it was failing to connect with new social dynamics in that area. This question of integrating ­these innovative community dynamics into broader strategies of social inclusion and trade ­union activism is therefore a challenge. For the UGT this was a greater prob­lem: their immigrant worker offices w ­ ere considered as part of the servicing logic of the trade u ­ nion and the work was viewed as more technical and ideological in approach. Relevant activists in the specific regional trade ­union structures w ­ ere, for example, concerned with the way local regional leaderships w ­ ere increasingly disconnected from the local and community dimensions of the trade

9 6   Chapter 4

­ nion, where once they would have visited local sites more often. In this u instance, it was recalled how regional-­level trade u ­ nion officers would visit the local town and city offices more regularly and be more connected to the local dynamic. Instead, the interviewees felt that now it was only during trade u ­ nion elections e­ very four years that p­ eople from the regional offices and even from the larger workplaces visited local communities and small to medium-­sized employers (see Martínez Lucio 2017a for a discussion of the routine and sometimes bureaucratic approach to trade ­union elections). The new “community ­union” dimension and the link to the past “community” of the trade u ­ nion is not so clear in such developments. In the CCOO this dilemma has in recent years been especially apparent, given its history. The CITEs are in part contextualized in terms of the sociopo­liti­cal identity of the trade union—­itself a changing object of internal trade ­union politics within the CCOO—­but remain ambivalently linked to the trade ­union’s overall work and activities. Hence in recent years, the CCOO has begun to use the CITEs as an entry into the mainstream activity of the trade ­union by referencing the role of membership and trade ­union activity. Therefore, although they form a vital part of support for immigrants’ rights, strategies have been developed to integrate such immigrant-­oriented activities more clearly. This demonstrates the way such highly elaborate structures of worker support may be formally linked to the trade ­union, but not necessarily to its broader politics of community engagement and activism—­thus leading to internal po­liti­cal discussions. However, irrespective of t­ hese strategic and po­liti­cal issues, this aspect of trade u ­ nion intervention is one of the most significant in the EU, and ­these centers have increasingly been extended to deal with a broader range of workers during the economic crisis post-2008, thus linking dif­fer­ent aspects of immigration policy.

Roaming Regulation Regulation depends on implementation and enforcement. The changing nature of the workplace and the ­labor market has brought new challenges in regulating employment conditions due to subcontracting, agency work, and the development of an increasingly embedded informal economy. While most areas of work have a relevant collective agreement covering basic terms and conditions—in the form of a com­pany or national or provincial sector

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    97

agreement—­implementation may be uneven in the case of small and medium-­sized enterprises and sectors such as hospitality and construction, which are precisely where significant parts of the immigrant community work. In response to this, trade ­unions have developed a greater emphasis on fieldwork and visits (Martínez Lucio, Marino, and Connolly 2013). In the case of agriculture, the UGT, through a cluster of officials, visits groups of workers during the key moments of harvesting, for example. They target areas and work alongside local trade unionists—­some of whom may be immigrants themselves—­with the aim of explaining the agreed terms and conditions of employment to workers. They also attempt to pick up on grievances and cases of bad employment practice. The workforce carry­ing out harvesting, such as Romanian tomato pickers, can be very short term and mobile. This means that each year the workforce can be dif­fer­ent and t­here is a constant need to ensure communication with the workers and to monitor employers. The UGT and the CCOO also check the housing conditions of the workforce (this is explained in greater detail below). In one case a van that allows the seats to swivel so it becomes a meeting and consultation area is used. This means that workers can meet discreetly. The trade ­union also uses relevant collective bargaining meetings for each type of agricultural produce to communicate broader issues to employer organ­izations and meetings at the local level to gather information on a range of questions. However, the nature of employment and the networks among smaller employers can undermine and even invalidate much of this institutional effort. The use of visits and fieldwork therefore allows the trade ­unions to connect directly, but this strategy depends on the availability of significant numbers of trade ­unionists, given the expansive and intensive nature of agricultural workers in Spain: We have a c­ ouple of vans which are official mobile offices where you can spin the seats around for meetings inside and we put detachable signs on it saying it is a Mobile Office for Social and L ­ abour Information. . . . ​We travel around the dif­fer­ent farms and workplaces providing advice to ­people. (Male trade ­union officer, UGT)

The prob­lem is partly due to the limited nature of l­abor inspection in Spain:

98    Chapter 4 Unfortunately, the ­labour inspectors in Spain do not function well. It is a prob­ lem we have in Spain. In agriculture the nature of the employer and workplace is such that the inspector cannot easily locate the workforce. In many harvests as in the case with the Valencian Community they do not harvest the orange but have another com­pany (normally the retailer in some cases) that contracts workers from a temporary agency which pays the workers below the level of the relevant collective agreement and maybe something like €20 a day [which is below half the level]. (Male trade ­union officer, UGT National Agricultural Trade Union)

Thus, the more direct field-­based research is a common feature of trade ­ nionism, but in sectors such as construction, the CCOO in Madrid also beu gan to recruit and use Moroccan workers. The regional level of the trade ­union identified Moroccan workers who had a positive predisposition to the trade u ­ nion and brought them into its formal apparatus. They w ­ ere deployed for visits to construction sites, public places where informal recruitment took place, and local community centers. They ­were able to communicate pay rates and other working conditions and to attempt to recruit individuals into the trade ­union. In the case of hospitality, a Moroccan trade u ­ nionist in the CCOO also linked the trade u ­ nion into local community organ­izations and po­liti­cal networks inside the Moroccan community. This effort to bring individuals into the core apparatus of the trade ­union has become a common feature of some Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions, but it is especially vital in a context where the trade u ­ nion movement lacks a significant amount of immigrant activists. Yet a male Moroccan activist in construction and the CCOO pointed to broader dynamics in getting immigrants included as trade ­unionists, which reflects the way the nature of immigration is understood: In our regional sector membership t­ here may be 9000 members with one-­ third being immigrants. In a meeting on immigration we sent out notices and letters to inform individuals so they could attend and I have seen how only a few turned up, so we are disconnected in some ways and it seems that they are unable to connect beyond work time. . . . ​In E ­ ngland or other countries in Eu­rope it’s dif­fer­ent b­ ecause migration is relatively new in Spain having started in the 1990s. In the other cases they may be what they may be but they are En­glish or French—­and maybe this w ­ ill happen in 20 or so years’ time ­here—­but the difference is that ­those communities in your countries are much more settled and engaged. (Male, BAME trade ­union representative, CCOO Madrid)

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    9 9

So the feeling that ­there ­were social or cultural gaps—­real or not—­ informed the reflections and thoughts of trade ­unionists. Yet impor­tant in linking with immigrants w ­ ere the strategies geared t­ oward connecting with an increasingly decentralized workforce and trade ­union elections that are held ­every four years. T ­ hese elected worker representatives become the official voice of the workforce and in larger firms they form the basis of the works council. Trade u ­ nions compete against each other during this pro­cess. Trade u ­ nions or­ga­nize campaigns in established and larger workplaces through their branches, but in smaller companies they are normally visited by a team of trade ­union representatives from other workplaces or by officials from local or regional offices of the trade ­union. ­There are concerns that with small and medium-­sized enterprises many trade ­union representatives are isolated once the electoral pro­cess is over, and t­ here have been questions as to ­whether the elections are a symbolic competition between trade ­unions to ascertain which are the majority trade ­unions and which can be involved in vari­ous state forums. However, ­these elections nevertheless force the trade ­unions to engage with a wide group of workers and communicate a range of worker rights and policies. Increasingly this activity has been linked to the logic, outlined earlier, of connecting and communicating with the more disconnected constituencies of the workforce. They are part of a pro­cess that organizes many of the trade u ­ nions’ resources and focuses them on the w ­ hole workforce. Our research indicates that ­these have become more sensitive to immigration-­related issues, yet they remain episodic and focused on par­tic­ u­lar periods in time (see Martínez Lucio 2017a).

Welfare and Culture: Engaging with Immigration beyond the Field of Work A curious finding of our research relates to the way that Spanish trade u ­ nions have tried to cast a wider net in relation to the subject of immigration by addressing nonworkplace and employment issues. In the case of the UGT’s work in agriculture, the visits to vari­ous areas outlined above involved detailed inspections of housing and temporary accommodation. The trade u ­ nion would inspect and, if necessary, threaten employers with ­legal action if the accommodation was problematic. On a visit to the UGT the researcher was presented with substantial documentation and archives (consisting of reports and

10 0   Chapter 4

photo­graphs) that covered the accommodation of seasonal workers across a wide number of Spanish provinces. The quality of the material was detailed and suggested that this was a central feature of the visits. T ­ hese initiatives allowed the trade u ­ nion to work alongside the l­abor inspectorate and vari­ous other public bodies. The subject of housing and accommodation was also linked to collective bargaining and more extensive meetings with employers. This allowed the trade u ­ nion to access workers more broadly and to legitimize its presence, given the poorer conditions in which many immigrants are ­housed. The visits w ­ ere therefore systematic in nature, although the number of ­people available to conduct them was a challenge for the trade ­union. This question of housing and accommodation was also addressed by trade ­unionists in terms of longer-­term residency. Trade ­unionists in the UGT in Aragon addressed the difficulty that immigrants had in getting accommodations. It was common for immigrants seeking accommodations to be refused access or to have their rent increased. Interviews with immigrants confirmed how the level of rents varied according to ethnicity, with Dominicans sometimes paying more, for example. The UGT in this regional case managed to establish a ser­vice that would help immigrants to find accommodations and ensure that appropriate conditions and rent levels ­were offered. In fact, the trade ­union went further at one stage and set up a temporary accommodation agency and ser­vice to bring together landlords and tenants in a regulated and coordinated manner. As with the employment-­agency approach discussed earlier, the trade u ­ nion intervened as an intermediary body. ­These ­were not generalized practices but ­were common in vari­ous regions and illustrate how the trade u ­ nion has sought to address immigration in a broader way. It also shows how the trade ­union can sustain its links to the community. T ­ hese initiatives can be an orga­nizational challenge to sustain, but they run alongside many of the ser­vices outlined above. This strategy of extending the jurisdiction of the trade u ­ nion also has a cultural dimension. In Castille Leon the CCOO established cross-­cultural events with the aim of engaging immigrant communities and creating a dialogue and reference point for the trade u ­ nion. ­These cultural interventions ­were underpinned by engaging with international campaigns on ­human rights and demo­cratic strug­gles: We have held vari­ous cultural activities in some cases supported by the regional government. T ­ hese have been inter-­cultural events and have allowed

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    101 us to help connect with specific groups and organisations in key cities such as Valladolid. We have had a tradition of public and open events although in recent years we have done less of this generally. (Female immigration-­related officer, CCOO Castille Leon)

The social identity of the trade unions—­especially the CCOO—­allowed them to link with movements and strug­gles in North Africa and South Amer­i­ca through meetings, joint proj­ects, and co­ali­tions. This is a missing link in much of the discussion on the question of trade ­unions and immigration. The role of international development and demo­cratic rights acts as a lever to connect trade ­unions as well as represent them in regard to the po­ liti­cal concerns and experiences of immigrants in Spain, but also in relation to the immigrants’ home country. Hence the po­liti­cal campaigning and international po­liti­cal mobilization of the trade ­unions is an impor­tant link and basis for activity. The question of refugee status and ­legal documentation was an area that minority left-­wing trade ­unions ­were also effective in mobilizing, thus allowing broader engagement with the new workforce. This cultural dimension was essential to the CCOO’s research-­based Primero de Mayo (First of May) Foundation. The development of a series of proj­ects on emigration and immigration ­were focused on facilitating an active archive and po­liti­cal sensibility to questions of immigration in general as a core part of Spanish national and ­labor identity. One proj­ect focused on collating a vast array of materials (documents and photo­graphs) from Spanish po­liti­cal and economic emigrants abroad. The archives ­were the most extensive in Spain. The proj­ect led to a series of high-­quality publications of an academic and popu­lar nature, broadening the imaginary landscape of migration and linking immigration with emigration: Our work is to try and link together ­these experiences of emigration and immigration: to create an awareness of the experience of Spanish workers abroad since the 1940s and to do that in a rigorous manner and with systematic archives and cultural exhibitions. (Female researcher, CCOO Primero de Mayo Foundation)

Some proj­ects focused on specific groups of workers such as Spanish female domestic workers in parts of Eu­rope during the 1940s and 1950s. T ­ hese proj­ ects ­were pertinent ­because of the extensive use of immigrants as domestic

102    Chapter 4

workers in con­temporary Spain. Other proj­ects consisted of collating posters of trade ­union and immigrant campaigns throughout Eu­rope. Very few—if any—­studies on immigration and trade ­unions address t­ hese issues, partly due to a masculine view of industrial relations. In the case of the UGT agricultural section, a traveling exhibition of a town’s experience of emigration in the 1960s and 1970s was used to sensitize Spanish p­ eople directly to their (perhaps fading) memory of that experience. Hence, Spanish trade u ­ nions have been highly innovative in making t­ hese types of connections, even if activism from immigrant communities has been a challenge in trade u ­ nion terms, and autonomous special bodies have not been a feature of the strategy they have developed. Structures and alliances have focused on specific like-­for-­like strategies in terms of trade ­union officers and the development of internal departments focusing on immigration. Yet ­these cultural interventions are an essential feature of trade ­union responses b­ ecause they contextualize action and ideas within a wider historical framework. They also sensitize the trade ­union and the workforce to the broader question and experience of immigration, especially in a context of fading memories of the Spanish diaspora. Cultural intervention shows a commitment to inform strategy with po­liti­cal and historical sensitivities and extend not just the reach of the trade ­union, but its a­ ctual social focus.

Co­ali­tions and Social Movements: Voice and Repre­sen­ta­tion In addition to t­hese internal bureaucratic initiatives t­here was a systematic attempt to open a dialogue with immigrant organ­izations. In the case of the CCOO, ­there ­were formal alliances with organ­izations in such communities through periodic meetings and mutual exchanges of information. T ­ hese approaches ­were clearly apparent in our work as joint protocols ­were signed and open assemblies held in immigrant communities through ­these bodies. During the twenty-­four-­hour general strike of 2011 ­these links ­were used to connect and convey messages to vari­ous parts of the local immigrant communities, as in the case of Madrid. Latin American communities tended ­toward the CCOO, with Eastern Eu­ro­pe­ans being less pres­ent, although Romanian bodies had links with the UGT. The once power­ful anarcho-­ syndicalist tradition has not been able to recapture its dominant position of the early part of the c­ entury, although it exerts an influence on social mobi-

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    103

lization and alternative views (e.g., on issues such as immigration and the support of undocumented workers) as expressed through the National Confederation of Workers and the General Confederation of Workers. In the Basque country a series of left-­oriented trade u ­ nions are linked to the nationalist movements. Sectors such as the port industry still have strong in­de­pen­dent trade ­unions with a preference for mobilization, although the repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrants in this case is limited due to the nature of the ­labor market. This more direct, specific campaign-­based alliance-­building pro­cess has been a key feature of ­these trade ­unions that have worked through very specific campaigns and mobilizations that have drawn attention to the hidden workforce (Martínez Lucio 2011). Direct forms of action such as hunger strikes and the occupation of churches have been common and impor­tant in establishing the background and pressure for some of the more institutionalized approaches. Therefore, smaller, radical trade u ­ nions play a crucial role (see Roca Martínez 2013), and we can see that the gaps left by the majority trade ­unions regarding direct mobilization have been picked up to some extent by more radical and mobilizing trade u ­ nion movements and traditions. ­There ­were dialogues between immigrant organ­izations and the trade unions—­partly underpinned by national and local tripartite forums in the state—­although individual links and networks remained impor­tant to t­ hese. Part of the challenge facing this relationship was that many immigrant organ­ izations also had real sustainability issues. The most stable dialogue between the majority trade ­unions and immigrant community representatives was with established bodies that had a strong role in international development. In some re­spects, this link went back to an earlier transnational set of links with the respective regions of the world and the role of UNESCO bodies in Spain. A final point about representation—­which was e­ ither individual or institutional, although rarely internally network based—­was that the question of immigration can only be understood if the question of emigration is discussed. One interviewee in the UGT agricultural section mentioned a colleague involved in his department who as a teenager would catch the train in Valencia with the workers traveling to France for the vendange and go through the train showing them the salary scales and ­going rates for the grape-­picking work. He would get off at the border and come back to Valencia and repeat the journey again. This activity was assisted by the Spanish UGT and the French trade ­unions. In effect, he was the carrier (the Mercury)

10 4    Chapter 4

of the regulatory pro­cess. As he matured, he then developed his work into supporting immigrants. Both the CCOO and the UGT had emigrant departments for Spanish workers abroad in countries such as France, the UK, and Belgium. They would assist with vari­ous proj­ects and link trade u ­ nion politics with the then diaspora of the post–­civil war Spanish population. This was eventually transformed into the orga­nizational platform for the immigrant sections, which would be driven by leading immigrant activists and individuals from the employment, social, and ­women’s sections of the trade ­union. This link between emigration and immigration is an impor­tant point of reference for personnel, politics, and intervention on questions of mobility. It creates an internal sensitivity to the issue of immigration that is embedded structurally—at least in the formal apparatus of the trade u ­ nions. The Spanish case is in­ter­est­ing ­because of the manner in which the trade ­unions have engaged immigrants and addressed their needs. This is partly driven by a realization that employers may use immigration to undercut the working conditions of the Spanish population and that tensions may arise around local housing and employment issues. The response has been framed in vari­ous ways and uses vari­ous innovative approaches in attempting to represent the immigrant workforce (Cachón and Valles 2003). First, it has been framed in terms of a class discourse that considers it essential to locate immigrants within the regulatory pro­cesses of the Spanish industrial relations system. The argument is that the gains and benefits of the working-­class strug­gle are best defended by ensuring that t­ hese are not undermined by working conditions that are below the negotiated rates, themselves an outcome of past strug­gle. In addition, the framing of such strategies in terms of class is an attempt to link the question of immigration within a broader framework where differences are understood in terms of the recent arrival (documented or undocumented) of workers, and not their ethnic or racial differences. In our interviews we detected a desire not to segregate the immigrant issue so as to avoid creating splits within the working class and new social tensions—­hence, for example, the apprehension about British trade ­union support for black workers’ sections. The aim is to pull immigrant workers into the regulatory reach of the trade ­union and into the trade ­union itself—­although how successful this has been is another ­matter.

Trade Unions and Immigration in Spain    105

Second, the trade ­union relation with the state and the referencing of social rights has been a major mediating f­actor in this re­spect. That Spain does not have a strong neocorporatist model or trade u ­ nion role vis-­à-­vis the state has not always hindered policy work in this area, although some would argue that ­there is a strong dialogue between the state and ­labor at vari­ous levels (Guillén Rodriguez, Gutiérrez Palacios, and González Begega 2008). The trade ­unions have worked with the state on vari­ous aspects of immigrant policy, social and welfare ser­vices, and learning and training. Forums have developed at many levels of the state—­albeit with variable outcomes and structures. ­These have allowed the dif­fer­ent social stakeholders to coordinate their roles. They have also had a po­liti­cal effect in creating spaces for dialogue and reflection. In addition, ­there has been extensive state support for the development of vari­ous features of trade ­union work in relation to immigration. In this re­spect, the emphasis of the trade ­unions has been based on broader social solidarity strategies in terms of the workforce and the state. We could explain this based on the sensitivity to regulation and the nature of social dialogue and resourcing that exists in Spain. Yet we can also see it as integral to the identities of the two major trade ­unions, which, while partially dif­fer­ent, emphasize the sociopo­liti­cal dimension in terms of the CCOO and the social welfare dimension in terms of the UGT. In addition, we can see how internal legacies and historical practices of emigration forged practices within t­hese trade ­unions that became the basis for the development of innovation in regard to immigration issues. This has been central to the servicing of ­these new strategies, their staffing and their underpinning in ideological terms. Trade u ­ nions have almost become a link between the past ­trials and tribulations of the Spanish working class and the new immigrant communities. The CCOO proj­ect on emigrant memory was just such a case in point. In addition, at a key point in their development, trade u ­ nions have used their structures within the locality, the city, and the region—­the territorial presence—to underpin the organ­izing and spatial interventions relevant for immigration and immigrants’ needs. The structure of the l­abor movement has allowed it to work beyond sector, occupation, and work, and to look at local ­labor markets and local urban (and rural) issues with relevant structures. In addition, the social and equality (mainly gender) dimensions have acted as a point of reference for supporting ­these developments. Hence, the regulatory

10 6   Chapter 4

structures of Spain have been supplemented by the po­liti­cal and cultural  structures of the trade u ­ nions in the way immigration has been perceived and understood. Yet ­these have been framed within what could be called a defensive-­ inclusion strategy (see Martínez Lucio, Marino, and Connolly 2013). The reaching out to immigrant workers in collective terms has been the main challenge to trade u ­ nion renewal and has led to uneven forms of individual immigrant worker inclusion in the trade ­union movement and sporadic or uneven sets of alliances with immigrant-­based social movements. This has two features: one is the absence of a strong collective immigrant voice within the majority trade u ­ nions and to an extent the minority trade ­unions on the left, and the other is the limitations of the main left trade ­unions to re-­create the types of social and community strategies for which they ­were known from their oppositional years during the last de­cade of Franco’s dictatorship to the 1980s.

Chapter 5

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK Equality and Immigrant Worker Engagement without Collective Rights

This chapter examines the responses of UK trade u ­ nions to immigrant workers and their role in integrating them into both trade ­unions and the wider society. In the UK, the dominant strategies and responses have focused on the organ­izing of immigrant workers and support for the inclusion of immigrant and black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers, particularly in terms of self-­organization and inclusion through learning and training strategies. The tradition of voluntarism in the UK, where the state has a lesser role in ­labor relations more broadly, has resulted in a lack of collective regulation and state-­led inclusion strategies in relation to the social inclusion and integration of immigrants. Trade u ­ nion responses have therefore tended to rely on par­tic­u­lar sets of circumstances, such as strong trade u ­ nion branches and activists committed to immigrant workers organ­izing themselves successfully, without being able to draw on broader institutional power sources, which tend to be weaker in the UK than in the Netherlands and Spain. Nonetheless, from the late 1990s to the early 2010s, some innovative practices regarding immigrant workers, ­whether implicitly or explic­itly,

108   Chapter 5

have been linked to certain aspects of government programs related to the modernization of the trade ­union movement and the role of learning in the workplace. Our research in the UK captures the period from 2008 to 2013, when we observed programs and activity coming from t­ hese government initiatives. However, with changes in government from 2010 and a context of economic crisis and austerity came pressures and reduced funding for progressive programs and activities in this area. Trade ­unions have therefore been operating in an even less conducive environment since the Co­ali­tion Government of 2010. The further politicization of immigration and immigrant workers due to austerity and the referendum to leave the EU in 2016 has exacerbated the challenges of responding effectively to immigrant workers and promoting social inclusion.

British Trade Unions and Migration: A General Overview During the 1960s and 1970s the debate around race and immigration focused on par­tic­u­lar episodes of conflict—­namely, the Bristol Bus Boycott (1963), Courtlaulds Red Scar Mills (1965), Coneygre Foundry (1967), Mansfield Hosiery (1972), Imperial Typewriter (1974), and Grunwick (1976). Black and Asian workers led a number of high-­profile strikes and actions against discriminatory employment practices, at times in the face of official trade u ­ nion 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 antiracist policies and practices. In the public sector in par­tic­u­lar, high u ­ nion density and a large number of ethnic minority workers facilitated the growth of self-­representation within workplaces and u ­ nion structures. ­After 1979, the decline in trade u ­ nion power—­and the ongoing significance of equality policies—­contributed to a radicalization of policy; as power and involvement in the collective regulation of work have declined, ­unions have recognized the need for a more inclusive strategy. In the early 1980s the Trades Union Congress (TUC) 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: particularly in the material disadvantage experienced by BAME groups (Grint 1998).

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    109

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 antiracist statements. Many ­unions created national officer positions to take responsibility for issues affecting black members, for encouraging participation and furthering equal opportunities. A survey of twenty-­one u ­ nions (Wrench and Virdee 1996) found that ten had national committees 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. Hence, the initial debates on immigration and trade ­unions in the UK ­were concerned with ­whether institutions of regulation and repre­sen­ta­tion such as trade ­unions could adjust to the needs and demands of immigrants—­ and ­whether immigrants could be brought into a more influential role within the orga­nizational and po­liti­cal culture of the ­labor movement. In the 1980s this led many trade u ­ nions to support self-­organizing and to set up structures and committees to deal with racism and equal opportunities issues. From the 1990s onward t­ here was a strong upward trend of immigration, particularly from 2004 when the UK opened its borders to nationals from the A8 countries. During this period a steady evolution of inclusion strategies emerged within trade u ­ nions, but also a move t­ oward strategies of organ­ izing and learning. This brought further sets of challenges and created an even broader set of issues. As we w ­ ill discuss l­ ater, learning and training strategies w ­ ere initiated by the government through setting up the Union Learning Fund (ULF) in 1998 and this, among other ­things, was used as a way to approach immigrants and integrate them (Rainbird and Stuart 2011). Also, strategies for organ­izing immigrants ­were often driven by proj­ects funded by the Union Modernization Fund (UMF)—­a government-­funded proj­ect scheme established in 2005 to provide financial assistance to trade u ­ nions in support of innovative modernization proj­ects. The UMF engaged with issues such as inclusion and equality among o­ thers, for example, Unison’s Mi­grant Worker Participation Proj­ect (Stuart, Martínez Lucio, and Robinson 2011). While t­ here have been successes in learning and organ­izing, the integration of immigrant workers into the wider trade u ­ nion is still tentative.

110   Chapter 5

Challenges of Self-­Organizing and Antiracist Work in a New Era of Migration One of the hallmarks of the British trade u ­ nion movement’s response to racism in the l­abor market and society has been the development of committees and conferences or­ga­nized around and by BAME workers within trade ­unions since the 1980s. T ­ hese have varied according to the trade u ­ nion in question, but over time ­there has been an array of black worker conferences and sections in the TUC and affiliated trade ­unions. ­These have played a major role in trade ­unions in ensuring that issues of race and ethnicity have been articulated and developed within the policymaking pro­cesses and orga­ nizational structure of the trade ­unions in question, for example, Unison, the public and commercial ser­vices trade u ­ nion PCS, and Unite. Self-­organized structures and initiatives have in some cases managed to audit, formally and informally, the activities of the trade ­union in relation to the equality agenda. They act as a quasi-­autonomous voice and space around and through which debates develop in a way that is not easily bypassed by trade u ­ nion structures and interests. In addition, they provide a space within which trade u ­ nionists from t­ hese constituencies can develop confidence and mutual support networks and links. They allow for activist and leadership development to emerge and to develop formally and, more impor­tant, informally. Such networks and sections can form a part of the policymaking pro­ cess of trade u ­ nions whereby they are allowed to submit a number of annual conference resolutions and engage with the pro­cess in general. Many black worker sections in trade ­unions link with the TUC’s equivalent structures, forming a national level of interest. Many of ­these structures are linked together around broader external-­facing networks such as Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC), which have focused attention within the l­abor movement on the racial and ethnic effects of government spending cuts and austerity mea­sures following the 2010 General Election. Our research with individuals involved in black self-­organized groups has revealed an emerging set of issues indicating that many of ­these historically impor­tant structures and initiatives have been to an extent marginalized and in some cases increasingly disconnected from new issues and debates on immigration. A black officer in Unison stated:

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    111 I believe in self-­organisation as a means to an end and not a means in itself . . . ​ for it to succeed p­ eople have to get involved in the mainstream of the u ­ nion. Policy-­making lies in the mainstream of the ­union. What frustrates me is if the same ­people attend meetings but d ­ on’t seem to make any pro­gress . . . ​[they] have got no trade ­union perspective, they go and sit and have a moan but ­they’re not very strategic and d ­ on’t do anything. And I think they could be a force to be reckoned with . . . ​just ­because y­ ou’re black or y­ ou’re gay or y­ ou’re a ­woman or ­you’ve got a disability d ­ oesn’t necessarily mean you have po­liti­cal understanding of what the issues are. (Male, BAME trade ­union officer, Unison)

­ here was a sense that trade ­unions have not always continued to nourish T major initiatives and innovation in their equality politics, but at the same time ­there ­were also ongoing demands for such groups to have a deeper role and say in the trade u ­ nions and for trade u ­ nions to more effectively tackle the rise of far-­right groups, such as the British National Party (BNP) and institutional racism, as one black TUC officer stated: I think ­there’s a real kind of enthusiasm sometimes to tackle the BNP but I think that’s quite, quite dif­fer­ent r­ eally. I just think it’s dif­fer­ent to tackling institutional racism within the workplace. B ­ ecause I think you can have more success in tackling the Fascists if you tackle that institutional racism b­ ecause then you can develop your core of ­people to go out and tackle the Fascists. So I’m disappointed in that. So, I’m obviously quite disappointed with the level of pro­gress that’s been made around that. (Male, BAME trade u ­ nion officer, TUC)

What is more, black worker sections find themselves trying to balance an inclusive role ­toward marginalized and oppressed groups more generally and ensuring the effective repre­sen­ta­tion of the interests of ­those from black racial minority origins, who feel more exploited as a consequence of their background than, say, white Eu­ro­pe­ans. To me it’s a race question. It’s about race; it’s always about race. It ­doesn’t ­matter if t­ hey’re white Polish . . . ​a lot of ­people from ­those communities go back and the ­people staying ­here are the non-­white Eu­ro­pe­ans. We’ve not addressed that question as a wider trade ­union ­labour movement . . . ​­those ­people from . . . ​Eastern Eu­ro­pean countries they stay ­here. The second generation

112    Chapter 5 ­ on’t be seen as any dif­fer­ent . . . ​visibly they w w ­ on’t be any dif­fer­ent. (Female, BAME lay officer, Unison North West)

Some trade ­union activists argued that equality sections including black worker sections ­were disconnected from new immigration issues: So the ­whole time when the trade ­union structures are being built it has not at all thought about integrating structures or facilities to help organise immigrants. So I mean I feel that having come h ­ ere as a mi­grant as somebody who has come h ­ ere anyway, having worked with mi­grant communities and mi­grant organisations, the blur between mi­grant organisations and ethnic minority groups and all that and of course then seeing asylum and refugee communities also, ­there is a lot of interlocking issues ­there and it is difficult to separate one from the other. (Female, BAME trade ­union officer, Unison)

In part the disconnection may be due to the ethnic background of new immigrants (many being from Central and Eastern Eu­rope and thus not identifying with the BAME discourse and identity politics). As one black officer from the TUC argued: I think what has happened for me is that over the years ­there’s been a kind of distinction made between mi­grant workers and immigrant workers which I think is ­really disturbing. So you ­don’t often hear of black workers being called mi­grant workers . . . ​all the meetings I go to within this region . . . ​when they talk of mi­grant workers ­they’re not talking of p­ eople from Somalia or from South Asia or any place of colour. . . . ​What ­they’re actually talking about is ­people from Eastern Eu­rope or Southern Eu­rope ­really. And that’s problematic and I think it’s part of the way the ­whole discourse has developed over the years. Immigrant workers is black, mi­grant workers is not black. (Male, BAME trade u ­ nion officer, TUC)

The question of race and antiracism sits more uncomfortably—or is made to do so—­within the new politics of immigration and social inclusion. Questions of race and ethnicity within the self-­organized groups w ­ ere difficult for some trade u ­ nionists, as one Filipino activist said: Within the black self-­organised group, t­ here are some who are very very rigid about their definition of black. I w ­ ill not be classed as a black person. So they ­wouldn’t want me in ­there ­because I am not black enough . . .

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    113 It is too rigid, all the policies they pass, all the structures and events they hold, it is much geared ­toward the traditional black community. I mean they ­will never accept East Eu­ro­pean mi­grants into that black group. (Female, BAME trade u ­ nion officer, Unison)

Several trade u ­ nions and/or immigrant workers themselves have developed dif­fer­ent strategies in response to finding relevant structures and spaces for immigrant workers. In Unison immigrant networks have developed including the Filipino Activist Network, the African Mi­grant Network and the Polish Activist Network, which more recently, and in response to the UK’s vote to leave the EU, has become the EU Mi­grant Network. In the GMB a separate branch for immigrant workers was set up in Southampton (see Heyes 2009; James and Karmowska 2012). The branch was composed of workers from Poland, Pakistan, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and other countries. The trade u ­ nion was able to or­ga­nize immigrant workers mainly through skills and language educational programs funded by the ULF. The mi­grant branch faced many challenges, including controversy within the trade ­unions about creating a separate branch in lieu of developing a more integrated approach to immigrant workers: It was hugely controversial at the time and this was over debated at Congress in 2006/07. . . . ​What I could see was actually just an age old argument in fighting racism which is the balance between integration and self-­ organisation. . . . ​It was controversial b­ ecause p­ eople w ­ ere engaging with this is right or is this wrong to set up separate structures for Polish workers. . . . You only integrate once p­ eople have got some understanding of the u ­ nion and got some backing, you ­can’t just say to them go and join a general branch and feel somehow they are g­ oing to integrate into the u ­ nion u ­ nless t­ here’s a level playing field. (Male trade ­union officer, GMB)

As well as t­ here being on some occasions a disconnection or difficult balance between equalities issues and immigration, t­ here also appeared to be a disconnect between dif­fer­ent activities. For example, the new activities in relation to trade ­u nion learning or new forms of equality initiatives ­were delivered mainly by white trade u ­ nionists as well as a process—­and mentality—of ser­vice delivery: initiatives of the ULF and the UMF sometimes appeared to be separate from mainstream equality initiatives, whereas UMF proj­ects for organ­izing immigrant and/or vulnerable workers ­were distinct

114   Chapter 5

and not necessarily connected with equality structures and initiatives. This concern with the limited and segmented approach to learning in terms of a servicing logic is also a challenge for the further uses of learning as a form of social inclusion (Perrett et al. 2012; Tapia 2014). Furthermore, within the TUC dif­fer­ent departments ­were driving questions of vulnerability and trade ­union responses to it, which included social inclusion and development and equality (and this was reproduced in vari­ous trade ­unions). Ironically, smaller trade u ­ nions had more integrated approaches to equality and immigrant workers, both linking into their wider equality policies and activities due to their size. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) has a single equalities structure and the GMB has also tried to streamline equality by bringing together a single equality strand with representatives from each self-­organized section. In USDAW, recruitment and organ­izing activity was very much linked with equality structures, as one officer demonstrated: We have two membership weeks a year where . . . ​­really big weeks where we ­really push recruitment and organising and ­every one of the Divisional Equality Forums organises activity in that week along with all of the reps and members in that division. So we do try and make sure they are not seen as separate, that t­ hese are very much part of the organising work of the u ­ nion. (Female trade ­union officer, USDAW)

In interviews with officials from the GMB it was clear that moving from self-­organized groups to a single equalities strand had been challenging: We had a race conference and a ­women’s conference and a lesbian transgender gay conference and it’s [a] quite unwieldy structure . . . ​in a sense I think we felt, and this is an age old debate ­isn’t it, we felt, certainly where me and [full-­time official] w ­ ere coming from and [equality officer] when he was appointed, we felt we’d slipped into that trap of compartmentalising, and having therefore no single unifying concept of what we ­were ­doing, so therefore insofar as that structure was in any way informing organisation and building ­people’s power in the workplace, ­there was no connection for me . . . ​it’s been by no means easy, it’s moving away from that argument; we had a huge structure with lots of delegates for race conference, w ­ omen’s conference, in the end we had to disenfranchise some p­ eople to move on I guess, and it’s been a tricky ­thing to do. (Male trade u ­ nion officer, GMB)

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    115

In spite of ­these internal debates, the trade ­union movement has used this variety of structures and networks to confront racism and social exclusion in highly innovative and po­liti­cal ways. The research collated a range of data on the activities of the British trade ­union movement on antifascist activities. The emergence of the far right in recent years in the form of the BNP and the En­glish Defence League and the rise of the United Kingdom In­de­ pen­dence Party (UKIP) have led to a range of response methods on the part of trade ­unions such as Unison and regional TUC structures in affected areas. A Unison official in the North West of ­England talked about the antiracist work that the trade u ­ nion did in response to the rise of the BNP: Anti-­racist work is at the heart of what a trade u ­ nion believes in. . . . ​I mean we wrote to 28,000 members at the last local elections . . . ​where the BNP was standing councillors . . . ​saying I’m not telling you how to vote but w ­ e’re asking you as a Unison member, not to vote for racists. (Male trade u ­ nion officer, Unison North West)

New forms of immigration have been the subject of a range of tabloid newspaper articles equating “immigration” with criminality and a “drain” on jobs and public ser­vices. This has a long history within sections of the British press and was the subject of vari­ous research initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s on the depiction of Afro-­Caribbean communities with regard to social disorder (Centre for Con­temporary Cultural Studies 1982). The presence of the National Front in the 1970s and 1980s as a far-­right organ­ ization brought a systematic response from the ­labor movement and the British left in the form of vari­ous anti-­Nazi and antiracist organ­izations. Since the mid-1990s the far right has reemerged with a focus on Islam and Eastern Eu­ro­pean migration, in par­tic­u­lar. Many of the trade u ­ nion officials and activists we spoke to w ­ ere aware of and concerned about t­hese types of repre­sen­ta­tions and considered it their responsiblity to help ­these workers integrate: Recruit them, organise them, represent them, negotiate on behalf of them, what a u ­ nion does for anyone e­ lse. (Male trade u ­ nion officer, Unison North West) Our job is to try and integrate mi­grant workers into the workforce, build, get them to experience and express their own power in the workplace, integrate with other workers. (Male trade ­union officer, GMB)

116    Chapter 5

During our research the Lindsay Oil Refinery dispute took place. On the surface, the dispute concerned the posting of EU workers to the UK to fulfill contracts on a multiemployer construction site, but it soon became a symbol for wider issues about freedom of movement within the EU, undercutting, and competition for jobs in a volatile jobs market. It was strongly linked to Gordon Brown’s 2007 conference statement about the need to create “British Jobs for British Workers” by the media and the presence of the BNP at many of the protests (on the trade ­union response, see Connolly and Sellers 2017). When you are talking to your members who are, in the main, not po­liti­cal, they see it as a straightforward Daily Mail issue; ­they’re coming in, ­they’re taking our jobs. So that’s got worse for us as a trade ­union. (Male trade ­union officer, Unison)

Our data suggest that the concerns for the trade u ­ nion movement have been threefold. First, the likelihood and real­ity of attacks on immigrants and vis­i­ble minorities have resulted in a series of initiatives and campaigns or­ ga­nized to ­counter the impact of racist and xenophobic trends. ­These have involved leafleting and local meetings as well as addressing community cohesion and social inclusion structures within the local state (e.g., local authorities). Second, given the social strains on local communities in a range of areas regarding cohesion and intercultural relations, the focus was on emphasizing the fascist tendencies and trends within many of the new far-­right groups and dispelling the myths they ­were perpetuating. This legacy goes back to the 1970s and even the 1930s in terms of the left’s mobilization against the British Union of Fascists led by Oswald Mosley. The third concern relates to the fact that votes for parties such as the UKIP and the BNP can be at the expense of the left and the ­Labour Party in general, and since our research concluded, this has become an even greater threat. Given this, the presence of trade u ­ nion campaigns and materials developed for circulation is extensive in areas such as the North West and London. In addition, within this set of activities has been a range of cultural interventions in the form of local festivals and events. T ­ hese have usually been driven by activists and local representatives. Trade ­unions have developed a range of materials related to such activities and local committees, drawing individuals from across vari­ ous trade u ­ nions in the case of the regional TUC. This feature of the British

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    117

l­ abor movement’s response to racism and social exclusion is rarely studied in ­labor and employment relations.

Working with Communities: The Case of the Living Wage Campaigns The role of community groups has largely been a missing f­actor in mainstream industrial relations and race and ethnicity debates. In research in Yorkshire and the Humber (North East ­England), ­there was uneven contact between community organ­izations and trade u ­ nions: “despite the presence of a large number of BME organisations and networks based within BME communities, trade u ­ nions appear to have done very l­ittle . . . ​to forge alliances or build partnerships, although t­ here are exceptions” (Perrett and Martínez Lucio 2009, 1310–1311). Ian Fitzgerald and John Stirling (2004) conducted some similar research in Northumbria (North East ­England) in order to gauge the extent of community engagement with trade ­unions. The authors found a number of obstacles for black and minority groups in engaging with trade ­unions. First, t­here was a lack of knowledge about trade u ­ nions (from the community groups) and lack of knowledge about BAME groups (from trade ­unions). Second, issues concerning language and culture indicated the feeling on the part of BAME groups that ­unions do not do enough to engage with BAME communities or to understand the dif­ fer­ent culture and language of dif­fer­ent communities. While this has become a highly debated and engaged area within l­abor and employment relations (see McBride and Greenwood 2009), the real­ity is that t­ here are not as many points of engagement between community groups and trade u ­ nions. One area of new dynamics and relations, however, is exemplified by the Living Wage campaign, initially developed in London; it is a key example of trade u ­ nions and community organ­izations working together to improve working conditions for a group composed mainly of immigrant workers. London has had a Living Wage campaign—­led by London Citizens—­since 2001. The organ­izing princi­ples of London Citizens are designed to foster an engagement with civil society, bringing together ­people who have a common stake in their local communities. The model ­adopted by London Citizens is to or­ga­nize ­people where they are already organized—in their churches, community centers, schools, and trade unions—­thereby broadening the

118    Chapter 5

base from which to build strength. The majority of ­people who have become members of London Citizens are immigrant workers—­many of whom have formed tight communities that are used as social and cultural support networks. The campaign spread from hospitals, to the finance h ­ ouses of Canary Wharf and the City, to universities, art galleries, and ­hotels. The campaign also secured agreements that all the new jobs at the Olympic site would be paid a Living Wage, ensuring that the benefits of investment reached at least some of London’s working poor. London Citizens’ mobilization of thousands of immigrant workers—­mainly overlooked by trade ­unions when the campaign began—­exposed the fact that trade ­unions ­were ill-­equipped to recruit and or­ga­nize among t­ hese groups of workers, many of whom ­were working at the margins of the economy. As a civil society organ­ization without a history of ­labor organ­izing, London Citizens has often come into conflict with the trade ­unions, which have objected to the “occupation” of their “turf” (see Holgate 2009 for a detailed discussion on this). As one of the activists said in relation to how the trade ­unions perceived London Citizens: Its territory . . . ​How dare t­ hese p­ eople come and cross the line somehow. Let them do their own community stuff but this is our territory. . . . ​Control, it’s about jealousy . . . ​when London Citizens organised the Olympics deal it was like, “we should have done that.” Yeah they should have except they d ­ idn’t. And then rather than saying this group is ­really good, we should work with them, they bad mouth it ­because it shows them up. ­There is a lot of that. ­There is a real dinosaur mentality about some of the u ­ nions but it’s always about “we.” “It should be us, not them.” It should be . . . ​rather than seeing it as an opportunity they see it as a threat. So what it is ultimately saying is, yeah t­ here is the London Citizens type approach but then we can do it ourselves. (Female trade ­union officer, Unison)

Nonetheless, the broad-­based organ­izing of London Citizens has been successful in bringing new immigrant workers into trade u ­ nion membership (Holgate 2009; Holgate and W ­ ills 2007; W ­ ills 2004). Early successes in the Living Wage campaign saw hundreds of immigrant hospital workers or­ga­ nized into Unison. At the beginning of the campaign in 2001, seven local Unison branches ­were involved, and by 2003 the campaign had succeeded, following a number of strikes and demonstrations, in increasing pay and conditions for t­hese workers. The success of campaigns in London became a

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    119

reference point for other regions in Unison, such as Manchester in the North West and North London: Trade u ­ nions’ links with the community are not g­ reat. T ­ hey’re not as good as they could be. But for London Citizens it has worked and it did lead to the Living Wage in London and w ­ e’re looking at some ideas around the Living Wage for Manchester. (Male trade ­union officer, Unison North West) ­We’re embarking this branch on the North London citizens and that’s why I’m sitting down with . . . ​you know, on Monday I’ll be ­going to a meeting; ­there’ll be a Rabbi, ­there’ll be a nun, ­there’ll be a priest, ­there’ll be a minister, t­ here’ll be a trade ­unionist and I think that’s the way forward for all social campaigning and for getting any change at all. (Male trade ­union lay officer, Unison North London)

Despite the early successes, trade ­union involvement with London Citizens has been limited to a few local branches from dif­fer­ent trade ­unions. In our research we found a mixture of responses and perspectives on community engagement and the London Citizens’ movement. Trade ­unions have been reluctant to work in conjunction with London Citizens in organ­izing immigrant workers using the London Citizens’ approach. We also found that in some trade ­unions, individual branches and trade ­union leaders ­were very active in the London Citizens movement, but some activists stated that at the national and regional levels ­there was ­little support for getting involved for po­liti­cal reasons. One Unison activist argued it was at the regional level that support was lacking: Now, the odd ­thing is that ­we’ve got ­actual buy-in from our se­nior leadership, we have a lot of interest from our grass-­roots membership, it’s that ­middle level, regional level, that are the kind of barons and certainly the TUC. The TUC are useless altogether but SERTUC [Southern and Eastern Regional Trades Union Congress] is particularly useless and they just a­ ren’t into it. (Female trade ­union officer, Unison)

One criticism from the trade u ­ nions is that London Citizens could be viewed as undemo­cratic. Decision making in this community-­based organ­ ization differs from trade ­unions in that it is based on a pro­cess of negotiation, consensus, compromise, and ongoing reflection. Trade ­unions, however, are unused to working in this way, and instead have a dif­fer­ent idea of the

120    Chapter 5

demo­cratic pro­cess that is based on formal representative democracy. So for one Unison official: Our ­union has got clear objectives about what it wants to do. So when you go in alliances or partnership with ­others, my view is that you should do that taking full cognisance of your own objectives. (Male trade u ­ nion officer, Unison North West)

­There is also suspicion about working with an organ­ization made up of faith-­based organ­izations, as the same Unison official stated: I have to be honest with you, I have some anxiety about working with faith groups but . . . ​you know, sometimes you have to work with who you have to work with, ­don’t you? ­Because they w ­ ill have their own agenda, the faith groups. (Male trade ­union officer, Unison North West)

Faith groups tend to use moral authority as a campaign tactic, whereby faith leaders w ­ ill stand up to pronounce the lack of social justice and morality in companies that exploit their employees. This has been used to ­great effect, but it trou­bles many trade ­unionists, who are used to dealing with more rational economic arguments.

Organ­izing Mi­grant Workers as Class Actors In 2002, the TUC published a booklet titled Mi­grant Workers: A TUC Guide (TUC 2002). The aim of this publication was to assist trade ­unions “at all levels” to meet the challenge of bringing immigrant workers into trade ­union membership. Prompted by the enlargement of the EU and new government initiatives aimed at easing access to the British ­labor market, the TUC was concerned that trade ­unions ­were not equipped to challenge the negative perceptions of immigrant workers as portrayed in sections of the national press. The majority of UK trade u ­ nions have rapidly a­ dopted policies on the recruitment and organ­ization of immigrant workers, which has resulted in some membership gains. Our research shows that a variety of dif­fer­ent strategies have been a­ dopted around organ­izing. Some strategies have been top-­down, both at the regional

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    121

and national levels, with the aim of creating organ­izing sections and developing sustainable infrastructures for organ­izing (see the work of Simms, Holgate, and Heery 2012). This was the case in Unison North West, where the trade u ­ nion changed the way it organizes u ­ nder the banner “Meeting the Organising Challenge” by developing a c­ areer path for organizers and moving from a servicing to an organ­izing approach. While this was not specifically related to organ­izing immigrant workers, part of the approach was to make the trade u ­ nion more accessible to t­hese workers, promote good practice, and raise awareness concerning the workers for both members and nonmembers. Other top-­down organ­izing campaigns have attempted to represent the interests and encourage trade ­union involvement of immigrant workers—­ examples include Unison’s national-­level Mi­grant Worker Participation Proj­ ect and Unite’s Mi­grant Worker Support Unit. The UMF funded both of ­these proj­ects. Activists criticized some of the proj­ects for not having achieved much in terms of organ­izing workers, for example, this activist in Unison is worth quoting at length: It’s been g­ oing for years on a big bud­get. What have we done? I mean w ­ e’ve got some resources, it’s not r­ eally out t­ here organising in the grass roots and yeah, it does its bit of outreach. I think it is a lack of understanding where organising is . . . ​in the trade u ­ nion movement we start with servicing and then we go to issues and campaigning and policy and then maybe to bargaining and organising is way down the list. And t­hese organisations [London Citizens] start with organising. So the issues come out of the groups who organise, the campaigns come out of who ­you’ve organised. . . . ​The core of it is organising so you start by saying . . . ​one to one meetings, lots of one to one meetings, find out who ­people are, find out what ­they’re about, find out what they want, find out where their common interests are, how you build relationships between ­people, individuals, and out of ­those relationships you are one: breaking the barriers between ­these dif­fer­ent groups that are often pitted against each other in dif­fer­ent spheres, and building strong alliances that ultimately give you power. And in the pro­cess of building t­ hese relationships, out of t­hese, ­people begin to talk about what m ­ atters to us, what would make a real difference, and when it’s their issue then they come together around that issue. One: you identify leaders—it may not be the top leaders—­you identify leaders, you develop leaders, you build skills by ­people ­doing ­things around issues that m ­ atter to them, something that is quite small, quite achievable and then that builds up onto the big big stuff. (Female trade ­union officer, Unison)

122   Chapter 5

Some trade u ­ nions, notably the GMB and Unite, were actively using their organ­izing campaigns to bring immigrant workers into the trade ­union, focusing on ­those sections of the ­labor market that have seen the largest rise in immigrant workers since the early 2000s. Yet integration into the wider trade ­union is still only tentative. Unite’s organ­izing strategy has been to target sectors or subsectors of the economy. According to one of the officials we interviewed, an organ­izing campaign often begins with a five-­year economy map in sectors that have large numbers of precarious (or vulnerable) workers. It focuses on areas with precarious workers generally rather than par­tic­u­lar groups such as immigrant workers. Another Unite official said that it needed to adopt a sector approach— to target bargaining units rather than groups—­and she felt that Unite had been very successful ­because of the sector focus of all aspects of its campaign: “Vulnerable workers do not have to be mi­grant workers. T ­ here are vulnerable workers everywhere” (Female trade ­union officer, Unite). According to Unite, the organizers first ask: “What does a win look like?” One example was in the meat packing sector, where the trade u ­ nion had a campaign for five years. The sector consisted predominantly of immigrant and agency workers. T ­ hese workers w ­ ere used to undercut directly employed and indigenous workers. However, the Unite officials argued that it was not just about comparing immigrants with nonimmigrants and that issues facing immigrant workers w ­ ere also facing the indigenous workers. Unite has for some time been gathering evidence and r­ unning campaigns using tactics and practices from US-­style organ­izing campaigns. The strategy for a sector is a long-­term strategy; thus, investing five years in a campaign improves membership conditions through an industrial strategy around “parity and permanency.” Other types of organ­izing in Unite that consist of many immigrant workers include the cleaners’ campaign in Canary Wharf in east London. The leverage for the u ­ nion was in effect shaming companies, as is common in organ­izing campaigns. Again the ­union or­ga­nized around key issues and an industrial strategy—­workers are workers, ­whether they are undocumented, immigrant, or native workers. However, some organizers still had difficulties in understanding the relevance for trade ­unions in ­going out and organ­ izing in the community, as one Unison officer stated: So they had a very successful campaign, for example, organising ­people in [private com­pany] in Westminster and it was public con­ve­niences and ­there

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    123 ­ ere a lot of Moroccan . . . ​workers. So they had done well, they had En­glish w classes, a good solid group, but it fell apart. So I said “Look, you have built your relationship with t­hese guys. ­They’re Moroccan. Find out where they go to Mosque. Chances are ­there are two or three Mosques in a concentrated area. Find out where they go to Mosque, see if you can build a relationship with t­ hose Mosques through them. T ­ hey’ve already got a relationship with you, ­there is a trust relationship and then you w ­ ill prob­ably find, b­ ecause contract workers tend to work word of mouth, that t­here are o­ thers in their Mosque who work in other places. So instead of ­going workplace to workplace follow the relationship. They may work in a health ser­vice, they may work in local government, they may work in a dif­fer­ent sector altogether and we c­ an’t touch them but we could suggest that one of the other u ­ nions pick them up. But use that relationship as your root to find other groups to organise.” He looked at me like I was nuts! I mean it’s like I’m talking Urdu ­here. And to me, it makes so much sense. I mean that’s when w ­ e’ve done that work with mi­grant workers. That is so obvious that ­there is a relationship between them and their colleagues through t­ hose sorts of organisations. (Female trade ­union officer, Unison)

In all the trade ­unions covered by the research we found top-­down and bottom-up responses to organ­izing immigrant workers, but ­these did not add up to an integrated strategy, tending to rely on a par­tic­u­lar set of conditions including key individuals driving the campaigns. One Unison officer summed this up: I think t­ here are good branches, I think t­ here are branches d ­ oing good ­things, ­there are prob­ably regions ­doing good ­things and I think ­there are regional TUCs that are much better than o­ thers, who are d ­ oing good ­things. The prob­lem is it is fragmented and it’s not . . . ​you d ­ on’t get a strong sense of what the strategy is out of the mi­grant worker participation. It feels quite limited ­really. . . . ​It’s not a very organising focus. So ­those branches that are good are ­doing good ­things but they are d ­ oing them off their own bat. (Female trade ­union officer, Unison)

Institutional Relations with the State When discussing the issue of trade ­union responses to immigration and social inclusion in the UK, it is unusual to include any discussion of how the

124    Chapter 5

trade ­union approaches the state-­and national-­level employers’ associations on t­ hese subjects. Most studies tend to focus on company-­or workplace-­level responses—­and on occasion, responses in relation to the community or local authorities. It is rare to see any discussion of how l­abor organ­izations and immigrant bodies actually engage with state institutions, especially at the national level. Questions of regulation are addressed insofar as trade ­unions do raise issues related to equality and social rights with re­spect to immigrant communities. However, interest is not much focused on how ­these issues are directly pursued in relation to the state. Part of the challenge is that many rights or ser­vices related to immigrant communities can be quite generic (e.g., equality at work, the development of learning ser­vices, and access to housing), so it is difficult to extrapolate the relevant aspects that are related to immigration.

The Role of ­Legal Repre­sen­ta­tion and Advice The main vehicle for the regulation of workers’ rights in relation to minority communities—­including immigrant communities—­has tended to be the pursuit of ­legal rights on an individual basis, and to some extent a collective one, through a range of relations between trade u ­ nionists and social demo­cratic politicians. ­These relations may be direct, as with ­women’s networks and committees of trade ­union officials and ­Labour Party Members of Parliament, for example. Through t­hese networks (formal and informal) equality issues are raised and engaged with in terms of their dissemination with public policy circles. ­There are also strong lobbies involving immigrant representatives within po­liti­cal parties, especially the ­Labour Party (e.g., Pakistani representatives in the local state, especially in local city and town councils, and in broader po­liti­cal networks, as seen with the development of legislation on religious tolerance). Hence, t­hese relationships can be quite significant in the framing of equality and inclusion questions. The po­liti­cal and representative spheres of the state are impor­tant in their approaches to constructing dialogues within vari­ous relevant organ­izations and institutions. To take this further, we need to appreciate Bob Jessop’s (1982, 1990) thesis on the state, which sees it as an institutional ensemble of forms of repre­sen­ta­tion and intervention—­with dif­fer­ent dimensions relating to each other in dif­fer­ent ways: across ­these spheres orga­ nizational networks related to race and equality issues engage with policy and raised the profile of racism and discrimination issues.

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    125

In the UK, however, significant doubts exist over the consistency of such relationships within the sphere of repre­sen­ta­tion (see MacKenzie and Martínez Lucio 2014 for a broader discussion of t­ hese limitations). The forms of dialogue remain structured around specific established immigrant groups within dominant parties—­especially the ­Labour Party—­and ­these are normally representative of only part of the immigrant community. ­These tend to formalize themselves around networks within a se­lection of geographic areas. In addition, newly arrived communities tend to be underrepresented in t­ hese dominant social demo­cratic circles. This means that while specific trade ­unions have specific sections with internal systems of repre­sen­ta­tion for “black workers,” their relations with the L ­ abour Party and other dominant parties w ­ ere inconsistent and not directly related to any po­liti­cal or parliamentary forums during the period of our research. In many re­spects such internal trade ­union bodies appear to have been disconnected from the broader discussions on immigration. In some cases this is due to the manner in which the question of immigration, in regard to new constituencies of immigration, has been addressed by the state through dif­fer­ent service-­ oriented ave­nues and broader social policies.

The Role of the State in Modernizing L ­ abor Relations Our research highlighted some indirect forms of relations and roles insofar as developments in terms of substantive collective rights w ­ ere limited. In some ways the state was a vehicle of support for innovation and change. Through forms of networking and knowledge sharing (providing forums or funding for forums and local activities), developing benchmarks or facilitating the development of benchmarks (funding “best practice” proj­ects and innovation), and through setting targets and objectives (by setting guidelines and informal reference points), the state can indirectly intervene (Martínez Lucio and Stuart 2011). This role has become more impor­tant as the classical role of the state has been restricted (Martínez Lucio and Stuart 2011), and in regard to the role of trade ­unions, it has led to a more discreet, albeit fragmented, role. In social inclusion, one major area of state intervention u ­ nder the New ­Labour government was the UMF, as mentioned earlier, which provided resources to trade u ­ nions to enhance and modernize internal management, for example, communication and equality repre­sen­ta­tion (see Stuart, Martínez

126   Chapter 5

Lucio, and Charlwood 2009; Stuart, Tomlinson, and Martínez Lucio 2013). As the UMF developed across its three rounds of funding, from 2005 to 2011, the emphasis moved from general modernization to equality and then to the repre­sen­ta­tion and support of vulnerable workers. This linked to the work of the L ­ abour government on vulnerable workers through a range of commissions. Some saw the need to widen the agenda of immigration and ethnicity into a broader tapestry that involved age and other ­factors as a way of bringing a broader constituency of ­people into the inclusion agenda. It had been perceived—so went the argument—as being related mainly to the question of BAME workers. This line of argument was not uncommon in some of the interviews at more official levels b­ ecause “vulnerability” as a concept appeared to offer opportunities for widening the agenda of intervention and avoiding a focus on specific groups. We would argue that this was partly a response to the immigration agenda set by the tabloid press and growing Islamophobia. However, many initiatives that we encountered in our research w ­ ere actually funded by the UMF, for example, Unison’s work on immigrant repre­sen­ta­tion and the Vulnerable Workers Unit of the construction trade ­union UCATT (Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians). T ­ hese initiatives w ­ ere able to use funds to train individuals, establish information networks and ser­vices, and develop representatives in relation to the challenges of vulnerability. They ­were constrained by the amount and time limits of the funding, but they w ­ ere able to produce a network of individuals focused on linking trade ­unions into immigrant communities (and other groups of workers). However, one of the challenges involved moving the initiatives onto a more stable footing once the funding terminated. Another challenge is that the main body of BAME worker networks—as we have demonstrated above—­was to a certain extent disconnected from this phenomenon and development, although in some cases equality departments within trade ­unions did play roles.

The Role of Trade Unions in Relation to Learning and Training Dimensions The subject of learning and the role of trade ­union strategies as a vehicle for social inclusion has become a principal debate within the British academic industrial relations tradition (Rainbird, Fuller, and Munro 2004; Stuart 2007).

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    127

The lit­er­a­ture on this is vast, and includes a range of individuals engaging with the changing nature of learning and the role of trade ­unions in developing learning and training strategies through u ­ nion learning representatives (ULRs) in the workplace (Stuart 2007) and the role of learning centers and local strategies. Some of this lit­er­a­ture has addressed reliance on the state for relevant funding (McIlroy 2008) and the failure of the trade u ­ nions to combine learning strategies with a community and locally based approach in a systematic way (Perrett and Martínez Lucio 2008). The research in our proj­ect has once more confirmed the finding that learning centers and ULRs form an integral part of the response of trade ­unions to the question of immigration and social inclusion. One TUC regional officer stated: The learning agenda has been very impor­tant for u ­ nions and the mi­grant workers, particularly ESOL courses. And then that brings p­ eople into ­union education programmes as well. My organising strategies have been refined to meet mi­grant workers’ needs or to appeal to them and that’s the obvious stuff, like leaflets in languages or g­ oing to places where you might find mi­grant workers coming together, be they churches or community halls or social groups or what­ever. (Female trade u ­ nion officer, SERTUC)

The importance of learning centers—­for instance, ­those run by trade ­ nions such as UCATT in places like the Olympic Stadium construction u site—­appear to be validated as they help workers on the site access vari­ous short courses and training schemes. In addition, unemployed workers’ centers in the North West (which now appear to be fewer in number at the national level than in the 1980s) also provide ele­ments of training and access to courses. In the North West, one UCATT local proj­ect worker, when visiting construction sites, was able to draw the attention of individuals he met to the ser­vices and centers the trade ­union had in relation to learning. Language courses, basic computing courses, and ­others ­were established and made accessible through vari­ous means. UCATT very much had a strategy of seeking funding for learning facilities in specific areas and new building sites. The objective was to link learning into the workplace on an ongoing basis. Vari­ ous employers with a longer-­term and more trade-­union-­friendly view tended to support such initiatives, although they ­were not always the main funders. In a local council in the north of London a Unison branch developed

128   Chapter 5

a Living Wage campaign as the basis for an immigrant worker inclusion campaign based around the cleaners in a local school. They also linked this to the development of a parallel learning strategy with the aim of assisting the development of workers and maintaining a link with them on a range of employment issues. However, the research supported findings from other proj­ects that the challenge was to link the learning agenda to the daily work and activism of the trade ­union (Moore 2009). Organ­izing strategies, for example, are rarely linked to learning strategies. T ­ here tends to be a level of segmentation in the way the trade u ­ nion strategies are elaborated. In addition to this prob­lem, we have also found that learning appears to be geo­graph­i­cally uneven in offering ser­vices in specific workplaces or in learning centers that are not always accessible or at an enclosed site (see Perrett and Martínez Lucio 2008). ­There also seems to be a lack of coordination between trade ­unions, although the TUC appears to attempt to provide an umbrella structure for learning initiatives to network by being a major link to the funding. Yet the learning initiatives taken through trade ­unions, by repre­sen­ta­tion and ser­ vice provision, have become a major initiative for linking to vulnerable workers and especially immigrant workers. The continuation of key ele­ ments of funding related to this area ­under the post-2010 Conservative–­ Liberal Demo­crat co­ali­tion government—­while many other streams ­were reduced and even terminated—­reflected the extensive lobbying and pressure the TUC has conducted to ensure that this dimension of trade u ­ nion activity was sustained. This in turn suggests that strategically this has become a central part of the portfolio of trade ­union activity and organ­ization.

The Absence of Forums for Debating Migration and Social Policy National bipartite (­labor–­state) and tripartite (­labor–­state–­employer) relations on questions of immigration in the UK have been unusual. In the 1970s t­ here ­were initiatives during the L ­ abour government to open policymaking to trade ­unionists, but t­ hese w ­ ere very much a corporatism of crisis and not growth (Howell 2008) and ultimately an unsuccessful po­liti­cal experiment. The 1980s to the mid-2010s (the Thatcher/Major Conservative and Blair/Brown ­Labour governments) saw no systematic return to formal and structured state–­labor dialogue and repre­sen­ta­tion.

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    129

In this context, immigration issues (at best seen as secondary in policy circles) have therefore not been debated by the “social partners” in any serious or formalized manner. Interviews with leading figures related to equality, immigration, and international relations inside the TUC confirmed that ­there ­were no real developments in terms of ongoing dialogues and structures. Immigration-­related issues of rights and social ser­vices are very much linked institutionally as a secondary set of themes within the broader questions of culture and equality. Trade u ­ nions such as Unite, Unison, the GMB, and o­ thers have no direct relationship with state committees on subjects such as immigration. Hence the dominant response has involved lobbying for ser­ vices and rights in relation to housing and employment rights on an ad hoc basis. Interviews with BAME organ­izations at the national level confirmed that their relations with the state worked through meetings convened by specific state departments (e.g., the Department for Work and Pensions) on certain topics. T ­ here was no permanent forum. T ­ here have been attempts to set up regional forums linked to the Regional Development Agencies, which the Conservative and Liberal co­ali­tion government, elected in 2010, dismantled, but ­these proved to have a checkered history (see Perrett and Martínez Lucio 2009). Voice4Change ­England, which brings together a range of BAME organ­izations, confirmed that they would attend informal support committees but t­ here was no permanent forum or structure across and between specific government departments. In this re­spect, the dialogue with the state would emerge based on calls from specific departments for focused consultations on new policies, although t­ hese w ­ ere minimal as a mode of consultation. Questions of equality and welfare ser­vices at the governmental level do consist of an array of policy arenas and feedback mechanisms, but the research did not find t­ hese referenced in many of the interviews with national officers in trade ­unions and BAME organ­izations. In addition, the national-­ level relationships between immigrant and ethnicity-­based organ­izations ­were very poor, regardless of TUC attempts in 2010 onward to develop more formal relations with such bodies. The main state level forums for discussions on dealing with immigration from non-­EU countries, and the link between skills and qualifications gaps within the UK and the skills and qualification levels of immigrants, has had very ­little trade u ­ nion influence. Interest in, and knowledge about, this on the part of trade ­unionists is also low. In fact, the main committee in question

130    Chapter 5

tends to view immigration in an instrumental manner in relation to “needs” as determined by the home nation. Other national structures that deal with resourcing additional housing and educational costs at the local authority level through local government structures have been invisible in terms of the research, and trade u ­ nion presence appears to be non­ex­is­tent or negligible. The absence of formalized state structures and institutions has meant that trade u ­ nions has not had a direct influence on policy and have not been able to articulate a common policy and systematic framework on immigration issues. In addition, it has not been pos­si­ble to raise issues around the advantages of regulation and inspection in the areas of immigration and l­abor market change in a formalized manner. In fact, this has also contributed to the fact that trade ­unions have not been compelled to formulate positions and policies on immigration beyond generic references to the right to good employment conditions and equal and fair treatment by the state. Specifics have not always been clearly formulated and developed, and employers have not been confronted with counterpositions by such forums, due to their absence in the structures. The UK example shows a much more fragmented, informal, and network-­based approach to such ­matters, which relate mainly to the trade union–­immigrant relationship. If anything, parts of the research detected that this was not always lamented by trade ­unionists, given the perceived tensions that some could see emerging as a consequence of the systematic elaboration of immigration policy. In one interview a se­nior national official argued that the question of immigration (especially Eastern Eu­ro­pean migration to the UK) raised difficult and even xenophobic responses from sections of the membership. This was repeated in relation to the North West of ­England, where a se­nior Unison official informed us of the complaints and communications he had received from members b­ ecause of the equality-­ related work of the trade ­unions. This sensitivity to the alarmist aspects of immigration (much elevated by the right-­wing tabloid press) caused issues of equality and inclusion to be elevated in the trade ­union discourse in a more general manner that did not always highlight immigration. This is ironic, given the importance of antiracist activity and antifascist activity by the British trade ­union movement, which is much more apparent in dealing with the anti-­immigration discourse of the far right. Our research shows that the trade u ­ nion movement has had some success engaging with immigrant workers in the workplace, through organ­izing and

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    131

learning strategies, and has also engaged in campaigns aimed at forwarding the rights and position of black and minority ethnic workers in trade u ­ nions and in the workplace. T ­ here has been much innovation and change with regard to trade ­unionists. However, much of the activity is reliant on par­tic­ u­lar sets of circumstances—­such as a strong regional trade ­union branch, dedicated trade u ­ nion officers, or external funding. Also, trade ­unions in the UK are much more cautious about, and indeed wary of, working outside their own structures and have been ambivalent to the setting up of alternative worker organ­izations for immigrants, such as US workers’ centers. Internal po­liti­cal tensions in trade u ­ nions concern w ­ hether to support organ­izations such as London Citizens and what role the trade ­union should play in ­these campaigns. The Living Wage campaign in fact seems to reflect weaknesses in the UK trade ­union movement in relation to collective rights and regulation. B ­ ecause of the lack of state involvement and influence—as compared to other Eu­ro­pean countries, such as the Netherlands and Spain—in the collective regulation of the employment relationship, organ­izations outside the trade u ­ nion movement (community groups, e­ tc.) have been the significant d ­ rivers of campaigns such as the Living Wage campaign. The London Living Wage campaign has been an attempt aimed at greater regulation from the community, and employers and the state have been increasingly forced to listen to the campaign in the city to the extent that the British Right has attempted to hijack such campaigns and use the terminology as part of its own policies, albeit in a more minimalist sense. However, as Chris Howell (2007) has argued, while t­ here is state support for individual rights in the UK, t­ here is a lack of support from the state to develop collective rights and a deeper engagement through social dialogue. Hence regulation and how it is structured in the UK helps us in part to understand the way trade ­unions have embraced the issue of inclusion and immigration. In this re­spect a path-­dependent approach has some uses. Trade ­unions cannot rely on the state and have had to seek alternative approaches. Many of t­ hese approaches are institutionally fragmented and/or decentered due to the pattern of repre­sen­ta­tion and trade u ­ nion structures in the UK, which are a reflection of the historical context of weak regulation. Yet, curiously, this lack of reliance on the state configures needs for continuous innovation and new forms of repre­sen­ta­tion, which our study has outlined. A prob­lem has emerged in that a failure of locally and community-­based relations and external alliances have meant that such innovation has not

132   Chapter 5

always been supported by consistent structures at the territorial level and in civil society. In the UK, the dominant frame of reference for trade u ­ nions has been class and race/ethnicity; therefore, we can place the UK between ­t hese two points of the triangle. We see that the dominant modes of action have been attempts aimed at 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 immigrant workers. While this approach has had some success and has recognized the specific sets of issues experienced by immigrant 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 broader coordinated action, long-­term strategies t­oward greater collective regulation and greater support from the state, much of the work done by trade ­unions, which is often more progressive than in other countries, remains small-­scale and fragmented, and rests on precarious foundations. The London Living Wage emerged as a campaign that re­orients the trade u ­ nion movement t­ oward establishing collective rights and social regulation, but its reach is limited within the dominant regulatory framework. In a context of austerity in the UK in the post–­economic crisis period, the discourse about immigration has hardened and made it increasingly politicized as an issue for trade ­unions to confront.

Postscript: The Changing Climate of Policy and National Discussions and the Emerging Response of Or­ga­nized ­Labor In the context of growing unease around the issue of immigration, a questioning of EU membership, and the 2016 Brexit vote, national bodies of or­ga­nized ­labor in the UK have been relatively s­ilent on the issue of immigration. The trade ­unions appear to be experiencing dilemmas in the way they respond, reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s when they strug­gled to take a stance and to respond effectively to the issue of immigration and racism in UK society (Virdee 2014). One positive trade ­union lobbying campaign concerning immigration policy has been Unison’s response to restrictions on work permits for Filipino care workers and nurses in 2007 and 2015. The trade u ­ nion’s main tactic has been lobbying of the Members of Parliament

Trade Unions and Immigration in the UK    133

to achieve substantial change in immigration policy. B ­ ecause of intense lobbying in 2007, the government changed its policy, and Filipino care workers, who ­were threatened with deportation, ­were able to stay in the UK to work, and many became members of the trade ­union (Tapia 2014). The legacy of this campaign has been the establishment of a Filipino Activist Network in Unison, which has been active in campaigning and lobbying about immigration status of Filipino workers. In April 2016, the government implemented changes to the immigration policy that directly affected non-­European immigrants who entered the UK ­after April 2011 u ­ nder the Tier 2 visa. The immigrants who fall in this category are ineligible to apply for settlement ­unless they are paid £35,000 per annum or if their current post is listed on the Shortage Occupation List. Almost a third of the health-­care workforce, in par­tic­u­lar nurses, may be affected. T ­ hese changes distress the personal and f­ amily life of individual immigrants and further cripple both the National Health Ser­vice as well as private health-­care institutions. With the government imposing more bud­get cuts and strict metric targets since the mid-2000s, the health-­care system in the UK is already struggling to provide quality ser­vices. Unison’s Filipino Activist Network has campaigned to raise awareness and to oppose ­these changes. However, increasingly the changing national climate has tested and restrained the ability of trade ­unions, at a national, more vis­i­ble level, to engage with the issue of immigration in positive terms. The extent of lobbying on immigration issues has declined and the anxiety about visibly representing ­these issues was tested especially ­toward the end of our research and ­after.

Chapter 6

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope Policy, Politics, and the Crafting of Social Inclusion across Borders

This chapter explores the challenges of developing trade u ­ nion responses to immigration at the Eu­ro­pean level. We consider the way framing such responses is a complex and shifting dynamic. It is the outcome of a range of po­liti­cal and orga­nizational calculations concerning feasibility, as well as a response to emerging social realities and institutional constraints and opportunities. In the post–9/11 period, and in the context of economic crisis and stagnation since 2008, t­ here has been a growing politicization of the issue of immigration in many Eu­ro­pean countries—­leading to stricter immigration policies, particularly in relation to third country immigration—­and a backlash against multicultural policies in countries such as the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany. Accompanying this has been a rise in ultranationalism within the EU and in more recent times growing reservations about the princi­ple of freedom of movement within the EU, evidenced by the UK’s vote for Brexit in 2016. The issue of immigration is exacerbated at the Eu­ro­pean level by the search for a common framework of meaning and initiatives in the context of dif­fer­ent national experiences and responses.

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    135

This chapter draws on interviews with trade u ­ nion officials at the Eu­ro­ pean level and participant observation of initiatives concerning immigration to consider the way in which trade ­union policy on immigration has developed. Our research demonstrated that initiatives in Eu­ro­pean trade u ­ nionism ­were mainly aimed at increasing awareness of the issues surrounding immigration and sharing and developing good practice responses in trade u ­ nions and benchmarking t­ hese responses. One initiative that we document, the Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation’s (ETUC’s) Workplace Eu­rope proj­ ect, used innovative methods to map trade u ­ nion activities with an aim to develop common responses about immigration through cross-­border sharing of experiences and understandings of immigration.

The Context of Trade Union Strategy in the Eu­ro­pean Union Immigration Context in the Eu­ro­pean Union In Western Eu­rope, immigration has played a vital role in modernization and industrialization (­Castles and Miller 2009). ­After World War II, foreign workers w ­ ere employed in the efforts of the postwar reconstruction in ­those Eu­ro­pean countries that had been more affected by the war. The fast period of economic growth that followed—­between 1960 and 1973—­saw a continued influx of immigrant workers from Mediterranean countries, often recruited through bilateral agreements between sending and host countries, which filled the demand for unskilled and semiskilled workers. The immigration and employment of ­these guest workers was viewed as a temporary mea­sure and their repatriation was encouraged following the economic slowdown from the mid1970s, even through specific repatriation incentives. However, by the mid-1980s it become clear that a large proportion of t­ hese guest workers had become permanent residents and formed a structural part of the Western Eu­ro­pean ­labor markets. Discussions about the need for the regulation of immigration had already started in the mid-1960s. However, they became more central over time and restrictive mea­sures ­were put in place to limit immigration soon ­after the first oil crisis of 1973. Since the mid-1970s the main aim of immigration policies in Eu­rope has been to prevent the entry of immigrants, even though this is at odds with the EU l­abor market’s need for more workers. In spite of restrictive immigration

136    Chapter 6

policies, immigrant populations in all major Western Eu­ro­pean countries have grown, mainly through f­ amily reunion and increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. The EU framework on ­free movement removed internal bound­aries in the 1980s and became increasingly concerned about strengthening external bound­aries to prevent influxes from the south and the east. In 1995 the Schengen Agreement came into force with the removal of internal borders between Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Portugal, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands initially, followed by Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. The UK and Ireland refused to join the Schengen Agreement at first, but eventually agreed to some aspects. The predominant idea in many North West Eu­ro­pean countries was to flank restrictive immigration policies with policies aimed at the social integration of t­ hose already pres­ent in the country. Yet, in many countries, the vision of immigration that has increasingly been supported by governments views it as a threat to the host society. Since the 1990s the mobilization of extreme right groups over immigration in Eu­rope has brought issues to the center of the po­ liti­cal stage. More recently, increasing support for populist right-­wing anti-­ immigration parties in many EU countries, the growing refugee crisis, the challenges presented by international terrorism, and the questioning of freedom of movement within the EU all further politicize immigration policies.

Eu­ro­pean Union Policy Context In response to po­liti­cal and economic shifts in Eu­rope, immigration policies have evolved. At the Eu­ro­pean level, immigration comes ­under the Directorate of Freedom, Security and Justice—­whereas issues of diversity, nondiscrimination, and mobility come ­under the Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Directorate. The increasing number of immigrant workers alongside undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers required a new approach to managing immigration. At the October 1999 Eu­ro­pean Council in Tampere (Finland), the leaders of the EU set out the ele­ments for a common EU immigration policy. The approach agreed on was confirmed in 2004 with the adoption of The Hague Programme, which set the objectives for strengthening freedom, security, and justice in the EU for the period 2005–10. The Hague Programme highlighted integration policy as a priority linked to the EU’s emerging immigration policy and created eleven Common Basic

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    137

Princi­ples for Integration—­a framework of guidelines for member states to develop their national policies—­which became the cornerstone of integration policy at the EU level. The ­free movement of workers is a pillar of the EU, and the majority of policy coming out of Eu­rope has involved regulation of the movement of EU citizens and the management of forced migration from outside the EU. The enlargement of the EU eastward in 2004 opened discussions on the issue of ­labor mobility and immigration, with some “old” member states (Germany and Austria) supporting transitory periods and greater restrictions on immigration more broadly. Lydia Morris (1997) argues that immigration policy in the EU has been a “cluster of contradictions” with the policies to strengthen border controls and national policies on immigration contradicting commitments ­toward integration and nondiscrimination. Also the emphasis on ­labor market access does not always clearly correspond to l­ abor market and workplace justice. The immigration pact in Stockholm in 2008 reinvigorated the debate on developing a common immigration and asylum policy. However, the focus of this pact was on strengthening external borders, which intensified the challenge for trade ­unions of navigating relations between the national and transnational state and the politics of their members. Immigration is also linked to employment, mobility, and social exclusion policies. Articles 136 and 137 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which came into force in 1999, state that the fight against social exclusion should be one of the EU social policy goals. The Lisbon Eu­ro­pean Council decision in March 2000 ­adopted the goal for the next de­cade of becoming “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-­based economy . . . ​with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.” At the Lisbon Summit it was also agreed to advance social policy based on the “open method of co-­ordination” (common objectives, national action plans, a joint Eu­ro­pean Commission—­European Council report), an approach recognizing that, u ­ nder the princi­ples of subsidiarity, social policy remains the responsibility of member states. This resulted in National Action Plans for Social Inclusion in which Eu­ro­pean guidelines ­were translated into national and regional policies, setting targets and adopting mea­sures that would be monitored and evaluated. It was deci­ded that each member state should implement a national two-­year action plan for combating social exclusion. In December 2000, at the Nice Eu­ro­pean Council, the member states agreed to four objectives to be accomplished in the framework of national action plans for social inclusion, namely: to

138   Chapter 6

promote participation in employment and access for all to resources, rights, goods, and ser­vices; to prevent risks of social exclusion; to act in ­favor of the most vulnerable in society; and to mobilize all actors. The “open method of co-­ordination” recognizes that the way to increase regulatory congruence is through a steady form of soft and indirect prompting for longer-­term objectives. However, it is actually an acknowl­edgment of the limitations of the EU. In fact, some would go so far as to argue that the EU follows such weaker paths due to the emerging dominance of a neoliberal framework (see Davies 2016; Streeck 2016). The embedding of a neoliberal agenda in broad terms means that the social agenda reverts to a secondary plane within the EU and is reliant on indirect methods such as ­those just outlined. This echoes historical concerns about the social dimension as presented by Harvie Ramsay (1995). The EU 2020 strategy, which supersedes the Lisbon strategy, was launched in 2010 amid the financial and sovereign debt crisis. The launching of a novel Eu­ro­pean strategy for “smart, sustainable and inclusive growth” signaled a significant step in the Eu­ro­pean coordination strategies for tackling poverty and social exclusion. Crucial in this re­spect is the unpre­ce­dented prominence accorded to a quantified goal in poverty reduction across the EU, to be achieved by 2020, along a supranational governance pro­cess that sets the ambitious aim of bringing the social field within the framework of EU financial and economic governance. T ­ here are strong disagreements and opposing normative visions of poverty and social exclusion among EU countries. ­These erect serious barriers to social inclusion, greatly accentuated by the dwindling public support for the EU and rising Euroskepticism in the early 2000s, which accelerated ­after the financial crash in 2008. Data have shown that more p­ eople live in poverty and social exclusion than was the case precrisis, and in­equality within member states and across the EU has increased significantly. The new governance framework has triggered multistakeholder engagement at vari­ous levels (regional, national, supranational) with regard to the antipoverty target. This is a positive development for increasing the visibility of the social field in the EU. Yet it can hardly guarantee meeting the antipoverty target, as long as social considerations remain subordinate to economic and fiscal priorities in the EU. As long as the “Eu­ro­pean Pillar” articulates social rights as general princi­ples rather than as enforceable rights, it is highly unlikely that the Commission’s initiative ­will encourage a grow-

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    139

ing momentum in the EU t­ oward delivering on the social targets of the EU 2020 (Hyman 2011; Petmesidou 2017). Public policy in Eu­rope in general continues to view social exclusion from a perspective of individual deficits rather than institutional or socially constructed obstacles. Social policy tends to focus on the supply-­side notion of economics, which states that through training and “work-­for-­welfare” programs the prob­lems of the ­labor market can be overcome. At the level of the EU, the White Papers on Eu­ro­pean Social Policy point to integration in terms of paid work. Yet such a prioritization of the ­labor market as a solution to social exclusion fails to account for the structural inequalities within the l­ abor market and direct and indirect discrimination. Since the year 2000, the EU has introduced directives committed to fighting discrimination. The passing of Council Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the princi­ple of equal treatment between ­people irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing the general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation represent major advances in promoting equal opportunities. In addition, the Employment Directive implemented in 2006 extends the range of employees against whom it is illegal to discriminate (gender, race, disability, sexuality, age). Yet, even in countries with highly progressive legislation and policies to tackle discrimination, in­equality of opportunities and outcomes remains a significant feature of ­labor markets. The EU 2020 strategy reinvigorated the social dimension of the EU, for example, with quantified goals for tackling poverty. Yet, at the same time, on this issue of immigration t­ here is a discourse at the Eu­ro­pean level concerning borders and security and issues of illegal immigration. Trade u ­ nions at the Eu­ro­pean level are therefore confronted with tensions in language and policy addressing social inclusion inside the Eu­ro­pean policy pro­cess, which also includes tensions with their own members in relation to levels of support for immigration and integration. This sensitivity to orga­nizational differences has increasingly framed the way responses have evolved and—since the early 2000s—­has become increasingly acute. At the Eu­ro­pean level, the continued role of the social dimension—at least in rhetorical terms—­and the language of social inclusion and cohesion has encouraged and supported trade ­union activity to develop in a coordinated way in the area of immigration. However, EU member states vary in the extent to which social inclusion has been a core part of their own development of social, po­liti­cal, and

14 0    Chapter 6

economic institutions. If we look at the debates on va­ri­e­ties of capitalism (Hall and Soskice 2001) and welfare state regimes (Esping-­Andersen 1990) we soon begin to understand that issues of social inclusion are understood and experienced differently in Eu­ro­pean countries. T ­ here has also been a tendency in the EU t­ oward minimum regulation (see Martínez Lucio 2017b). For example, the systematic propagation of social dialogue and worker rights has not been as central to the main policy frames of the EU, and this was even more the case post-2008 (see Koukiadaki, Tavora, and Martínez Lucio 2016). Furthermore, the focus for combating social exclusion has been the reintegration of the long-­term unemployed into the ­labor market, which ignores the social and cultural dimensions of social exclusion (Atkinson and Davoudi 2000). Questions of repre­sen­ta­tion and active ­labor market interventions and obligations have been very much left to the national level.

Trade Unions and Immigration: Developments at the Level of the Nation-­State and the Dif­fer­ent Responses of Trade Unions Trade u ­ nions in Eu­rope, despite pronouncements of internationalism and the need for action beyond national bound­aries, are mainly focused on national-­ level issues (Gumbrell-­McCormick and Hyman 2013). John Wrench (2000b) has shown that Eu­ro­pean countries differ in the way they define issues and in regard to the policies they deem appropriate. Many northern Eu­ro­pean countries (e.g., the UK and the Netherlands), with long histories of immigration, have been more concerned with racial discrimination, its implications for the opportunities of an established second or third generation of postwar immigrant origin, and the equal opportunities strategies to combat discrimination. The UK still has a largely voluntarist tradition in employment regulation, but it is strong on individual rights in the area of equality although with increasingly limited welfare rights. In the Netherlands, the trade ­union movement is relatively more centralized than in the UK in that it has clearer sectoral structures and its main confederation has a greater strategic presence internally and externally in relation to the state, which has helped with the coordination of policies at a national level. The Netherlands is positive on equality in collective and individual terms and is also somewhat

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    141

corporatist/welfarist. However, the Dutch union has tended to be detached from workplace realities. This has caused some quarters of the Dutch l­ abor movement to look ­toward the organ­izing model as a way of connecting to groups of vulnerable immigrants through focused wage campaigns and partial mobilization. However, this has not always sat well with the trade ­unions officially, not only bringing out tensions in terms of how to represent immigrant workers but also questioning the very model of Dutch trade ­unionism (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). In contrast, southern Eu­ro­pean countries (e.g., Spain) have tended to be preoccupied with the issues of a relatively recent influx of immigrants, working precariously on short-­term work permits, and with a large prob­lem of undocumented workers suffering from extreme exploitation—­legalization and information have therefore been major features of t­ rade ­union strategies in Spain. Immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon and issues of race and ethnicity are not as much a part of trade ­union discourse as in other countries with longer histories of immigration. Yet the sheer extent of the change since the early 1990s has seen Spain become one of the countries with the highest levels of immigration having been one of the lowest. Formally Spain has strong collective rights but they are sometimes uneven in reach and the welfare state is uneven in terms of social support. Hence, trade ­union responses, as noted in previous chapters, have worked in a more uneven regulatory and social context. Differences in national-­level trade ­union responses has impor­tant implications for the study of trade u ­ nion responses at the Eu­ro­pean level given the challenges of bringing together and coordinating responses from countries that have a diversity of contextual and historical trajectories. It is not that some trade u ­ nions are ahead of o­ thers in terms of immigrant-­related issues: it is more a case of dif­fer­ent ways in which trade u ­ nions deal with the issue and understand the challenges. Dif­fer­ent dimensions of social inclusion exist and trade u ­ nions appear to be emphasizing dif­fer­ent ones in each context, as we have outlined in our national case studies in chapters 3, 4, and 5. Trade ­unions respond in dif­fer­ent ways due to a range of circumstances (regulation, the nature of state relations, and traditions in strategy making). If we are to understand the responses of trade ­unions to immigration at the supranational level we need to look at European-­level developments in relation to immigration and other contextual ­factors. The prob­lem is that the Eu­ro­pean space is relatively fragmented and the common themes of social

142   Chapter 6

dialogue and worker rights of a collective nature are nationally bounded as are traditions of welfare and social inclusion through the social state. To a great extent creating a common set of reference points and templates in structural terms across national systems of industrial relations is restrained by ­these quite dif­fer­ent national structures and by the absence of an EU-­wide commitment to attaining the levels of the stronger systems of l­abor relations. So the EU framework is not necessarily facilitative of a greater degree of progressive coordination and policy on questions of worker repre­sen­ta­tion, trade ­union roles, and social inclusion in relation to immigration.

Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Responses: Building Coherence in a Context of Uneven Resources and Engagement The Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), founded in 1973 with 17 affiliates in 15 countries, now represents 45 million members and comprises 89 organ­izations from 39 countries, with 10 industrial federations representing industrial sectors ranging from journalism to manufacturing to public ser­vices and the police. As the pro­cess of Eu­ro­pean integration intensified, the ETUC developed an increasingly impor­tant role in Eu­ro­pean industrial relations. The Treaty of the Eu­ro­pean Union (TEU) (1992) established the ETUC as the official social partner alongside the employers’ associations Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne—­ BusinessEurope since 2007—­and the Eu­ro­pean Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public Ser­vices and Ser­vices of general interest (more commonly known as CEEP). The TEU placed an obligation on the EU to consult the social partners prior to the implementation of new social policy mea­ sures. Pro­gress has been limited by the unwillingness of employer organ­ izations to enter negotiations and the desire from employers to maintain collective bargaining at the national level. The ETUC is also constrained by its commitment to Eu­ro­pean integration, which has made it difficult for it to oppose its specific trajectory, even where this has had a negative impact on employment and social protection (Taylor and Mathers 2002). The task of creating a common program in response to immigration, the context of which has changed substantially since 2004 with the accession of central and eastern Eu­ro­pean States, has proved to be a significant, if not overwhelming, challenge. This shifting immigration context sits alongside

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    143

the growing diversity of interests, experiences, and traditions of national trade ­union movements within the ETUC, and shrinking resources with a heavy reliance on subsidies from the Eu­ro­pean Commission. Some argue that for effective responses to occur at the Eu­ro­pean level, the ETUC needs to go through a pro­cess of “social dialogue” within the l­abor movement itself, including a reinvigoration of trade u ­ nion democracy, in order to increase the accountability of trade ­union leaders to the rank and file. This pro­cess of “internal renewal” mirrors the “internal organising” strategies some trade u ­ nions at the national level have been engaged in (Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017; Hurd 2004). This section draws on lit­er­a­ture and empirical data to develop a discussion on two sets of challenges for the Eu­ro­pean trade u ­ nion movement in the area of social inclusion and immigration. The first set of challenges relates to the institutional structures for dealing with immigration at the Eu­ ro­pean level and the relationship and level of influence that Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions have with t­hese institutions. The second set of challenges concerns the internal workings of the Eu­ro­pean trade u ­ nion movement focused on specific proj­ects and explicit initiatives related to immigration and trade ­union roles.

Coping with External EU Policy Structures In considering the context within which the Eu­ro­pean trade ­union movement deals with immigration, it is impor­tant to restate that the issue of immigration comes u ­ nder the Directorate of Freedom, Security and Justice—­ whereas issues of diversity, nondiscrimination, and mobility come ­under the Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Directorate. Therefore one strategy for the ETUC has been targeted at the directorates, to lobby for the softening of the language surrounding illegal immigration in Eu­rope. The ETUC’s position is that “illegal employment of irregular mi­grants” should be an issue not only for the Directorate-­General for Freedom, Security and Justice but also for the Directorate-­General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, as it has “a strong connection to the functioning of ­labor markets and to undeclared work in general, and cannot be solved by focusing only on sanctions for employers” (ETUC 2007a). The ETUC contested the labeling of ­people as illegal immigrants and called for the EU to

14 4   Chapter 6

provide bridges to exit from irregular situations and stated that “­every person—­ with proper documents or not—is to be valued and respected as a ­human being and should be entitled to the basic h ­ uman rights and minimum l­ abour standards (including decent working conditions, freedom of association and protection against forced ­labour) that all citizens should enjoy” (ETUC 2005). In a joint statement in 2007 with PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Mi­grants) and Solidar (a European network of Civil Society Organisations), commenting on the commission’s proposals to fight illegal employment, the ETUC argued that EU institutions should “adopt a language that is consistent with the standards set by international and regional organ­izations and many civil society actors in referring to undocumented immigrant workers and refrain from using terminology such as ‘illegal workers’ and ‘illegal migration’ ” (ETUC 2007b). The ETUC took up the language of “social integration” and “social cohesion” which has evolved from Eu­ro­pean Commission discourse, to soften the legalistic and protectionist discourse of border control and security. Moreover, ­there has been a shift to using terms such as “vulnerability” and “decent work” in order to provide a basis for addressing the common prob­ lems of immigrant and nonimmigrant ­labor—­and to underpin a common reference point between divergent trade ­union views and experiences. This move ­toward a more generic understanding of “vulnerability” is common in employment policies as a way of developing a broader understanding of the risks facing workers (O’Reilly et al. 2009). Yet it also appears to respond to the desire to downplay race and ethnicity issues due to the dif­fer­ent levels of sensitivity and engagement with them throughout the Eu­ro­pean ­labor movement. One could argue that a relative depoliticization of the language used to engage with issues of race and immigration has been manifested, for example, in the use of terminology such as “mobility” and “mobile workers” to describe intra-­EU immigration—­with migrant/immigrant workers and immigration referring to third country immigration. At the Eu­ro­pean level, a separation is developing between mobility and immigration. At a national level, debates continue to use the term “mi­grant” and “migration” to describe nonnationals. The separation of language reflects a form of “Eurospeak”—­a shared language developed at the EU level that distances professional Eu­ro­pe­ans from the citizenry of Eu­ro­pean states (Christensen et al. 1999, cited in Hyman 2003). In the context of enlargement, the ETUC a­ dopted the position that open borders and transnational mobility can be beneficial for workers if embed-

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    145

ded in a proper protective framework that provides them with equal treatment and social protection. Yet the Eu­ro­pean trade ­union movement has limited influence in the EU po­liti­cal pro­cess. Corinne Gobin and Ann Dufresne (2009) have argued that ­there is a dynamic of consensus rather than confrontation at the EU level, and that the ETUC and Eu­ro­pean sectoral-­level federations have participated in the social dialogue pro­cess mainly to enable them to enter the EU po­liti­cal pro­cess and acquire some subsequent legitimacy (see also Hyman 2005). In discussing the ETUC’s role in forwarding the issue of equal treatment for “mi­grants,” one British trade ­union official said: “It’s all very well for the EU to say they have mobility of ­labour and talk about equal treatment but they actually need to do some positive t­ hings and I think, as trade u ­ nions, we o­ ught to be putting that demand to the Eu­ro­pean Union” (Male International officer, TUC). The ETUC has developed structures and proj­ects dealing with issues surrounding social inclusion and immigration, many of which are subsidized or funded by the EU Commission. For example, the Working Group on Migration and Inclusion was set up in 2003 (which was previously the Working Group on Mi­grants and Ethnic Minorities and is currently the Mobility, Migration and Inclusion Committee). The EU Commission provided funding for one representative per country to attend meetings of such working groups and committees. T ­ hese large, mainly consultative committees meet approximately twice a year and can consist of over fifty individuals: the level of dialogue is therefore normally quite limited in terms of the time and scope of the meeting. This is one example, but it indicates some of the difficulties the ­labor movement has in developing a more systematic presence within the structures of the EU state. The ETUC is heavi­ly reliant on “borrowed resources” (Martin and Ross 2001) in the form of funding from the EU commission to support much of its work. Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions are able to obtain funding for proj­ects that run u ­ nder headings prioritized by the Eu­ro­pean Commission. Much of the funding is short term and proj­ect based, fitting with the culture of the open method of coordination. So trade u ­ nions in Eu­rope face the challenge of having to work in a complex and minimalist framework of EU policy and pro­cesses. It is in all senses a symbolic and minimalist mode of tripartite po­ liti­cal negotiation. In addition, in the EU, immigration and mobility have been separated into dif­fer­ent high-­level tripartite committees that create a

14 6   Chapter 6

thematic separation with security/control issues tending to dominate in relation to immigration. Interestingly, while ­there is guaranteed repre­sen­ta­ tion from the ­Women’s Committee and the Youth Committee in the ETUC’s constitution, no other special interest/identity groups are represented (ETUC 2015), including immigrant and black and minority ethnic groups, which do exist as special-­interest or self-­organized groups in some countries (e.g., the UK).

Coping with Internal Trade Union Structures and Differences ­ here are also internal challenges within the Eu­ro­pean trade ­union moveT ment in relation to the coordination of varying national (and sectoral) responses and understandings of the issues surrounding immigration and social inclusion. A range of “internal” ­factors cast doubt on the ability of the European-­wide ­labor movement to create systematic structural and strategic responses as opposed to broad rhetorical ones. The ETUC’s policy of promoting “managed migration” is “based on the princi­ple of equal wages and working conditions for equal work in the same territory” (ETUC 2005). On the positive side ­there have been initiatives to support this princi­ple and the inclusion of immigrant workers within the trade ­union movement. The German trade u ­ nions set up a Eu­ro­pean Mi­grant Workers Union in 2004 aimed at organ­izing posted and seasonal workers in all countries. The setting up of this trade ­union suggests that even reticent trade u ­ nions have accepted that t­ here is a need for special structures for immigrant workers. Other initiatives at the Eu­ro­pean level include the setting up of Interregional Trade Union Councils (IRTUCs), which bring together the regional trade u ­ nion organ­izations of national ETUC-­affiliated confederations in cross-­border regions. In 2013, 45 IRTUCs aimed to develop greater cooperation between trade u ­ nions within dif­fer­ent regions, with a par­tic­u­lar focus on issues of immigration and the f­ree movement of l­abor within t­hese par­tic­u­lar regions. T ­ here have also been initiatives from the Eu­ro­pean industry federations, including the Eu­ro­pean Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF) “Solidarity Pact,” which aims to support the rights and or­ga­ nization of immigrant workers. The increased importance of the immigration issue in the late 1990s led the ETUC to adopt the resolution “Trade Unions without Borders” concerning the mutual recognition of trade u ­ nion mem-

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    147

bership at the ETUC congress in Helsinki in 1999. In Seville for the 2007 congress, the ETUC reiterated its commitment to work t­ oward achieving a Eu­ro­pean trade u ­ nion movement that overcomes borders. The ETUC recognized the need to develop a Eu­ro­pean trade ­union membership card to provide workers who are members of an ETUC-­affiliated trade u ­ nion in one country to obtain easy access and support from an ETUC trade ­union in another country. The Eu­ro­pean membership card is far from becoming a real­ity, but the EMF’s “Solidarity Pact,” for example, allows workers belonging to an EMF-­affiliated trade u ­ nion in one member state to access help and ser­vices from another affiliated trade u ­ nion if posted to another member state. More recently, UnionMigrantNet was launched in 2015, and comprises a network of trade ­union contact points across the EU, where new arrivals and their families can obtain information and support on issues like employment, documentation, housing, and integration. The UnionMigrantNet portal offers ser­vices and information in dif­fer­ent languages, and real-­time advice from experts. The network also provides a forum for the cross-­border exchange of best practice. Despite t­ hese initiatives, t­ here are tensions and varying degrees of support for freedom of movement (and its extension) and migration from individual member states. Some trade ­union movements in Eu­rope have supported calls for stricter immigration, which acts against the ETUC argument favoring a need for “managed” immigration. This is evident if we look at the national-­ level reactions to the enlargement of the EU to include ten Central and Eastern Eu­ro­pean countries (CEEC). Existing EU countries differed regarding restrictions to freedom of movement of workers from ­these countries. In 2004, in the first round of enlargement, transitional arrangements w ­ ere in place in the majority of countries, and only the British, Irish, and Swedish governments did not impose transitional mea­sures. In 2007, during the second round of enlargement, when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, the Finnish and Swedish governments ­were the only two not to impose restrictions on access for l­abor mi­grants. National trade ­union confederations ­were also divided in their responses to the f­ ree movement of l­ abor, particularly ­those countries on the borders of CEECs. In Germany, trade ­unions agreed with their Polish counter­parts not to demand transitional arrangements, but did not object when the German government imposed limitations. In Austria, the Österreichische

14 8   Chapter 6

Gewerkschaftsbund (ÖGB) ­adopted the most restrictive position, arguing that ­free entry should only be permitted when wage levels in the country of origin reached 80 ­percent of ­those in Austria (Gumbrell-­McCormick and Hyman 2013; Meardi 2002). Other trade u ­ nion movements argued that the best way to protect employment standards was by the enforcement of rights, and not restrictions, but German and Austrian trade ­unions continued to question unrestricted movement (Krings 2009). A common feature of European-­level trade ­union responses to immigration has been a series of mapping exercises and proj­ects with an under­lying aim to share good practice. Our research identified prob­lems of coordination at the Eu­ro­pean strategic level and in the way that proj­ects are funded and developed, evidenced in the replication of proj­ects across ETUC and Eu­ro­pean sector-­level federations. For example, during our initial research from 2008 to 2012, three trade union–­led proj­ects took place that attempted to map u ­ nion responses to immigrant workers at around the same time; the individuals responsible ­were unaware of other proj­ects taking place. This has impor­tant implications for trade ­union perceptions of activities occurring at the Eu­ro­ pean level insofar as some national-­level trade u ­ nion activists frequently received questionnaires or information from such pan-­European ETUC-­led proj­ects but with l­ittle follow up or engagement. To an extent the Eu­ro­pean level ­appeared disconnected or linked to individuals at the national level who ­were not always the main voices for immigration and trade union–­related issues. In 2009 the ETUC obtained funding from the Eu­ro­pean Commission to conduct the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect to provide information and training to trade u ­ nion activists. We w ­ ere able to observe closely this proj­ect through attendance and participation in a number of meetings. The Workplace Eu­ rope proj­ect exemplified the internal challenges for the Eu­ro­pean trade ­union movement in developing common responses to immigration.1 The proj­ect aimed first to provide tools and instruments for u ­ nion activity to support “mi­ grant” and “mobile” workers and their families, increasing their chances and opportunities for access to decent jobs and inclusion and integration in workplaces and host socie­ties, thereby facilitating positive ­labor market mobility. The second aim was to develop cross-­border cooperation, mutual support systems, and innovative approaches to organ­izing and collective bargaining, and to solve prob­lems related to trade u ­ nion membership, which is often com­pany or sector based and not geared ­toward the movement of workers across regions and borders.

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    149

More practical ele­ments included the search for innovative ways of informing, supporting, protecting, and organ­izing “mi­grant” and “mobile” workers and their families; to help migrant/mobile workers (including temporary and posted workers) to overcome barriers and obstacles to participating fully and equally in l­abor markets across Eu­rope; to inform trade u ­ nions across Eu­rope about good practices and to take up similar actions and activities in other countries/sectors; and to develop a model (or several good practice models) that could be disseminated and duplicated throughout Eu­rope (ETUC 2011). Much of the proj­ect was about information gathering, including a questionnaire sent out to national trade ­unions to map their activities in relation to mi­grant (or mobile) workers. For the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect six seminars ­were held in par­tic­u­lar regions within the EU, and representatives from the trade ­unions ­were invited. The proj­ect culminated in a final conference in September 2010. The pro­cess of gathering information for the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect provided an insight into the complexities for trade ­unions of dealing with issues of immigration. The main prob­lems tended to be on a practical level, including issues of terminology and simply whom to ask for information on trade ­union activities concerning immigration at national centers. The ETUC deals with confederations at the national level, which is not necessarily the most appropriate level. The example of the UK is telling. For example, one British official said: It’s hard to know who to send t­ hings to . . . ​if you just send them to the [TUC] head office t­ hey’ll never re-­emerge again . . . ​­they’re not clear even within their own trade u ­ nion who’s responsible for t­ hese issues. (Male, TUC International Officer)

Another issue for the trade u ­ nions participating in the proj­ect was the attempted distinction between “mobile” and “mi­grant” workers, as illustrated when participants in a workshop as part of the proj­ect had to ask for an explanation about what the ETUC was referring to by the distinction. For many countries within the EU, they d ­ on’t even like their nationals referred to as mi­grants in other EU countries. T ­ hese are workers exercising their right to mobility and h ­ ere w ­ e’re not talking about justifying why a Polish worker wants to go to Ireland or Britain or what­ever, ultimately it’s ­because it is their right to do so and one ­doesn’t have to justify that. So I think that we

150   Chapter 6 have to bear that in mind. T ­ here are t­ hose big differences about talking about migration from outside and inside the EU and perhaps we d ­ on’t want to go into big debates about ­whether migration from outside the EU is actually justified. It’s about how we look a­ fter t­ hose workers and make sure t­ hose workers’ rights are respected when ­they’re actually in our country working. (Female, ETUC officer)

The regional seminars undertaken during the proj­ect showed that “mi­ grant” and “mobile” workers ­were being used to describe the same situation. According to the proj­ect report, this repeated confusion revealed: (1) the lack of differentiation in trade u ­ nions regarding their activities backing foreign workers; (2) the lack of assumption that mobile workers are like national workers in terms of rights and l­ egal status; (3) the need for a consensus on fundamental terms (ETUC 2011, 14). The ETUC was making an obvious attempt to encourage national trade ­unions to substitute the term “mi­grant worker” for “mobile worker” when the latter was from another EU member state. The Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect demonstrated the ETUC’s commitment to the issues surrounding immigration. The proj­ect supported the commitments set out in the Helsinki and Seville congresses to build up cross-­border recognition of trade u ­ nion membership and to achieve a Eu­ro­pean trade ­union movement that overcomes the challenges of national borders for developing trade ­union strategy and action. However, the proj­ect highlighted that the internal challenges w ­ ere g­ reat especially in relation to developing common policies and language at the Eu­ro­pean level. A key aim of the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect—­along with many proj­ects taking place at this level—­ was to identify and share “good practices,” and implicitly the aim was to identify transferable “best practices.” As one ETUC official said: It is about the most brave achievements that we got with our actions, t­hose achievements that we are most proud of or that w ­ ere a g­ reat success. And also taking into account that we have to share ­these with the rest of the trade ­unions so we need to show other trade ­unions that this is good practice, this is working ­here and this can be transferred to other countries. (Female ETUC official)

A limitation of such an approach is summed up by a secretary of a Eu­ro­ pean Sector Federation:

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    151 Our prob­lem is actually what can we do beyond the good practice . . . ​we have attained good practice, and I think ­there we have a prob­lem. B ­ ecause once we have given, you know, the line, and even some good practice, it’s very much up to the local ­unions to decide what is the best way for them. So it is a prob­ lem for an organisation like ours to go beyond good practice. . . . ​So, you know, beyond the awareness, exchange of good practices, it is difficult for us to do a lot more. (Female secretary, Eu­ro­pean Sector Federation)

Sustainability and continuity are also issues that emerged from the research. T ­ hese types of proj­ects are short, in this case one year. They involve proj­ect officers who shift between proj­ects and do not carry the authority of a recognized official with a specific responsibility: some se­nior ETUC trade ­unionists formally oversee ­these proj­ects but they carry very broad policy briefs and are underresourced. In addition, tensions emerge due to the funding criteria and focus of the EU. Again, this reflects the prob­lem for the ETUC in relying on “borrowed resources.” The Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect aimed to develop shared understandings through the exchange of experiences, and the pro­cess appeared to be beneficial for the trade u ­ nions taking part in the proj­ect. However, many of the specific initiatives that w ­ ere looked at w ­ ere actually very fragmented or to an extent only relevant to a par­tic­u­lar national context. The Spanish experience of community-­based information centers was seen as impor­tant—­arguably it was viewed as a best practice initiative. However, it was perceived by many national activists outside Spain as impossible to reproduce due to the specificities of the case. Yet the ETUC proposed that “national administrations must provide the creation of information structures/centres where the mobile and mi­ grant workers w ­ ill have access to useful information and advice concerning dif­fer­ent aspects of social and work life in the host country” (ETUC 2011, 54). Given that trade ­union structures, traditions, and repertoires of action differ, as do national patterns of ethnicity and immigration, diversity of trade ­union responses is inevitable (Connolly, Kretsos, and Phelan 2014). In examining the interface between Eu­ro­pean and national levels of trade u ­ nionism, the effort to develop common responses involves tensions between two conceptions: “best practice” and “good practice.” The former implies “one best way” ­toward which national movements can and should converge; the latter, that dif­fer­ent options may be chosen according to context.

152   Chapter 6

This brings to the fore the conflating of good practice and best practice. The aim of sharing good practice at a national level actually appeared to be more about identifying best practices, which ­were initiatives or activities that should be transferred to other national contexts. Another example was that of trade u ­ nions promoting “multilateral dialogue with governments and employers so as to establish good working conditions, fair remuneration, transparency, and re­spect for ­human rights” (ETUC 2011, 53). A laudable proposal, but in the UK context, for example, as discussed in chapter 5, access points and institutional structures for engaging in or even promoting this kind of proposal are lacking.

Building Coherent Policy in a Context of Po­liti­cal Difference and Competing Systems of Regulation At the Eu­ro­pean level we see dif­fer­ent experiences and challenges, and ­these illustrate the difficulty of developing consistent and progressive trade u ­ nion responses. In spite of the internationalization of economic pro­cesses, which means that trade u ­ nions in dif­fer­ent countries are confronted with the same kinds of dilemmas and situations, this has not led to a convergence of attitudes and responses in dif­fer­ent countries (Krings 2009). The responses at the Eu­ro­pean level, however limited, help provide the resources for trade ­unions across Eu­rope to share practices and compare possibilities and challenges concerning immigration and social inclusion. The work of trade ­unions at the national level is “a sort of ­labour of Sisyphus, which is nevertheless indispensable” (Rosa Luxemburg, quoted in Hyman 2005, 24). This is also true at the EU level, where developing common understandings and positions poses an even greater challenge. To bridge the gap between the debates at the nation-­state and Eu­ro­pean levels, the depoliticization and underemphasizing of more challenging terminology related to exploitation, racism, and xenophobia have arisen in approaches to immigration within formal EU-­level institutions, which in turn has influenced European-­level responses. In our research this has been most notably demonstrated in the separation between the issues of intra-­EU migration—­referred to in terms of “mobility”—­and third country immigration, for example. This leads to a redefining of the notion of immigration, with a more proactive positive view of mobility and a more security, border-­

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    153

driven view of third country immigration. Other examples in this re­spect are provided by the focus of policies and actions on “vulnerability” or “diversity” rather than on “migration” or “racism” (see also Marino, Roosblad, and Penninx 2017a). Significant challenges in developing common responses and the consensus model of trade ­unionism at the Eu­ro­pean level have arguably led to the incorporation of “­labor diplomats” within an elitist policy community largely detached from ­those it claims to represent—­this contributes to the adoption of more minimalist and managerialist policies around migration, and to trade u ­ nions taking the “line of least re­sis­tance” (Hyman 2005), which does not go far enough in challenging the under­lying issues of exploitation, in­equality, and xenophobia. It is becoming apparent that trade ­union responses evolve in terms of par­ tic­u­lar arguments, concerns, and contexts. We cannot simply think in terms of a trade union–­immigrant nexus and dif­fer­ent ways the latter can be or­ ga­nized by the former (Martínez Lucio and Connolly 2009). Calculations are made about the development of trade ­union policies that need to be appreciated as we see common transnational templates of action emerge. First, trade ­unions are marked by internal and external prob­lems of coordination: that is, the existence of po­liti­cal and sectoral cleavages means that challenges regarding immigration are read and understood in a variety of ways. ­There are dif­fer­ent stages in the impact of immigration and the ways immigrants are assimilated, which in turn means that creating a coherent response is always challenging. Hence, the emergence of a cohesive trade u ­ nion model on questions of social inclusion is expected to be difficult: differences are in ­great part crystallized in the dif­fer­ent national contexts that remain and continue to play an impor­tant role in mediating strategies (Lange, Ross, and Vannicelli 1982; Locke and Thelen 1995). Second, issues involve the uneven presence of immigrants and immigrant representatives within trade unions—as well as the uneven po­liti­cal spaces they are provided with. Trade u ­ nions in the UK have historically addressed this since the 1970s through specific worker sections and conferences involving immigrant or black and minority ethnic workers in some cases. Spain has responded to the issue of voice through a new wave of officers strategically located in each sector and regional federation. So nationally very dif­ fer­ent approaches to immigrant inclusion remain. In addition, the presence of immigrant trade ­unionists is fairly uncommon at the EU level. Hence, the focus becomes an adaptation of a managerialist approach based on “proj­ect

154   Chapter 6

management,” “best practice,” and “benchmarking” as a way of exchanging institutional praxis and activities in relation to immigrants (e.g., the use of advisory centers, the role of education and learning). T ­ hese managerialist approaches tend to look at practices in isolation of the context of ­labor relations and input of immigrant activists, thus being at times quite generic in nature. Third, alongside ­these contextual ­factors, the institutional pro­cesses and idiosyncrasies of the EU state appear as a partially evolved and uneven state system. It is a state system with a variety of rituals and highly truncated forms of engagement that absorb po­liti­cal resources and require plasticity in the language and strategies of the social actors engaged with it. In effect, the language and components of social inclusion are therefore the outcome of po­liti­cal contingencies (Ferner 1987) insofar as they are rational and strategic calculations in the face of specific challenges. Fourth, a major response is to attempt to forge a language that links the question of immigration into a broader context of exploitation and vulnerability that can downplay some of the specific challenges facing immigrants and interworker exploitation and racism. A series of concepts and terms have evolved within Eu­rope, in part due to the diverse context and politics of institutions, and to the way demo­cratic pro­cesses within the state and social partners are compromised by complex bureaucratic and legitimation prob­lems. Consequently, the pa­norama of trade u ­ nion responses is diverse and fragmented, and, in all fairness, is unevenly supported by the Eu­ro­pean state in any substantive manner. The inability to forge a common language, terminology, and strategy set in relation to immigration brings out some of the challenges of a diverse set of welfare systems and forms of employment regulation. This is related to the national context, dif­fer­ent trade u ­ nion traditions, the structure of the EU state and its policies, and the manner in which “convergence through benchmarking” has been developed. Ironically, the above-­mentioned plasticity of the language developed by trade u ­ nions can be seen as the first step to creating a common framework, but in itself the initiatives discussed h ­ ere risk creating a vision of social inclusion that is highly technocratic and based on ser­vice delivery. Initiatives appear locked in the idiom of proj­ects and specific forms of best practice, and the impossibility of an overarching response is resolved by attempts at a minimal dialogue and sharing of ideas and activities. Yet, t­ hese attempts gener-

Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope    155

ate the basis for greater strategic coherence and a sharing of good practice, which, while being limited, shows that trade ­union officials acknowledge the need to create a common strategy and set of structures—­and deeper policies and discourses—of a solidaristic nature in relation to worker immigration and mobility. This leads us to our final chapter on the question of solidarity and the politics of trade ­unions in relation to social inclusion.

Chapter 7

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses to Immigration and the Politics of Inclusion The Challenge of Solidarity

Discussions on trade u ­ nions and their responses to changing social and economic developments must pay attention to context, including institutional and cultural ­factors (see, e.g., Kerr et al. 1960; Schmitter and Lehmbruch 1979). Trade u ­ nion revitalization theories (Bronfenbrenner et al. 1998; Kelly 1998) are informed by this concern. Such an approach focuses on the conditions u ­ nder which innovative strategies emerge (or fail to emerge) as well as on the effects of strategic innovation in renewing organ­izations (Turner 2005, 392). This approach absorbs many insights from institutionalism since it treats exogenous variables (the specific national context) as influential and constraining, but not determinant of trade ­union choices. Organ­izations make their choices on the basis of external and internal circumstances, which also comprise internal conflicts, leadership, and orga­nizational politics (Turner 2005). We are also aware that the interest in context can often ignore the dynamics of global capitalism shared by dif­fer­ent contexts and the way countermovements in dif­fer­ent countries learn from each other (Tapia and Turner 2013; Tapia, Turner, and Roca-­Servat 2014). However, we maintain that

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    157

issues of context are still fundamental (perhaps unfortunately) for any analy­ sis, even in terms of the cross-­referencing of other countries, as we have seen in the Dutch case of organ­izing (see above and Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). Carola Frege and John Kelly’s (2003) model of the analy­sis of trade u ­ nion revitalization in cross-­national research is based on t­hese assumptions and includes social and economic changes, strategies of the state and employers, industrial relations institutions, trade ­union structure, and the framing or cognitive pro­cess. Cognitive approaches refer to the ways in which trade ­unionists may perceive changes as threats or opportunities, and it expresses ele­ments of trade ­union identity and historical legacies reflected in the choices of actions, the so-­called repertoires of contention (Tilly 2006). Frege and Kelly, therefore, provide a useful map for explaining the dimensions of trade ­union strategies and renewal by incorporating variables that are widely used in the institutionalist approaches with new insights coming from mobilization theory (Kelly 1998). One of the most impor­tant empirical outcomes of their comparative research is that no single strategy works well for all the trade ­union movements considered (the UK, the United States, Germany, Italy, and Spain), irrespective of national context. Instead, the same strategy is likely to produce dif­ fer­ent results in dif­fer­ent countries, thus confirming that trade ­union strategies are embedded in nationally specific historical and po­liti­cal contexts (Frege and Kelly 2004). However, the authors observe how trade ­union strategies are closely linked with the institutional resources available, including access to the policymaking sphere. “In this re­spect, the major difference among our five countries (a difference that appears to account for much of the variation in trade ­union strategy) lies in the degree of institutional embeddedness of national ­labour movements. . . . ​Trade u ­ nions whose primary source of strength is in their membership base appear more likely to seek expanded external support by organ­izing and mobilizing the unor­ga­nized” (Baccaro, Hamann, and Turner 2003, 121). Ed Heery, John Kelly, and Jeremy Waddington (2003) support the centrality of the institutional context in explaining why organ­izing activities are central to Anglo-­Saxon countries such as the UK and the United States and less central to the renewal efforts in countries like Germany, Italy, and Spain. One criticism of this approach is that the explanations it provides are still not able to fully overcome the determinism of the institutionalist approaches.

158   Chapter 7

Actor-­related variables included in the framework, such as identities and repertoires of contention, in fact, are still seen as the result of historical legacies and they can be considered “institutions” in themselves. This means that the model cannot explain changes that are not (or seem not to be) path-­dependent, for instance, such as the introduction and increasing importance of organ­ izing strategies in the corporatist Dutch model discussed in chapter 3 (see also Connolly, Marino, and Martínez Lucio 2017). While the influence of the mentioned variables is fundamental to understanding trade ­union strategies, attention must also be paid to the role (and perceptions) of actors within the organ­izations and to internal microdynamics. In reflecting on institutional change, Peter Hall and Kathleen Thelen (2005) consider institutions as resources that actors can use to achieve their goals. Institutions can not only determine actors’ actions but also be the object of such actions when t­ hese institutions no longer satisfy actors’ self-­defined interests. Hence, we need to add a po­liti­cal, reflective, and contingent ele­ment to the analy­sis of orga­nizational strategies and pro­cesses of renewal and draw especially from studies that examine the importance of po­liti­cal ele­ments (Simms and Holgate 2010).

Context, Renewal, and Gaps One way of explaining the developments discussed in this book is to relate them to the regulatory context of trade u ­ nion activity. This would allow us to explain why trade ­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 trade ­union repre­sen­ta­tion and resources. The Netherlands has had a deeper tradition of formal social dialogue at the national level. This has encouraged the development of a state-­ oriented discourse of welfarism and multicultural policies, involving trade ­unions more closely than in Britain, which does have a similar set of policies in relation to ethnicity. In Spain the system of industrial relations has a dual expression: that is, traditional class trade u ­ nionism linked to narratives of class solidarity, which is balanced by a more strategic and institutional link to the state. While not as embedded as the Dutch model, this has had vari­ous neocorporatist characteristics, although the recent politics of deregulation have been challenging this model.

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    159 Class/Organizing

UK

Race Ethnicity/Community

ES

NL

Social Rights/Social and Institutional Regulation

Figure 7.2.  Dynamics of national trade union logics of action

Our analy­sis adds a dynamic dimension to this path-­dependent narrative. Drawing on the evidence presented above, we can place the three trade u ­ nion movements within the triangular repre­sen­ta­tion of trade ­union strategies and resources, as we illustrate in figure 7.1. We have observed that trade ­unions’ logic of action and strategy have tended to coalesce around two points of the triangle. The missing logic—­relating e­ ither to class, race/ethnicity, or social rights—­represents the weak point in each context. Hence, we argue that the trade ­union’s position along one of the dimensions of the triangle implies that the opposite pole is the challenge (the gap) that the trade u ­ nion has to face. In the Netherlands, the empirical data show that trade u ­ nions have focused on their traditional role of engaging in tripartite and bipartite bargaining in order to develop collective and social rights and institutional regulation. Trade ­unions have included specific claims aimed at promoting the rights of immigrant workers when negotiating with counterparties, for instance, on issues related to l­abor market discrimination or access to training. At the same time, they have developed strategies concerning equality and diversity in the ­labor market and within the trade ­union organ­ization

16 0    Chapter 7

and have developed links with communities. T ­ hese strategies follow specific logics of action, as seen in two points of the triangle: (1) social rights/social and institutional regulation; and (2) race/ethnicity/community. We can place Dutch trade ­unions between ­these two points. However, ­there have been tensions and pressures on the dominant framing logic (social rights, and race and ethnicity) and instruments of action (institutional social partnership and community engagement). Trade ­unions in the Netherlands, in fact, are facing challenges of low membership and issues within specific sectors (including cleaning, retail, agriculture, and domestic work). Especially in sectors characterized by a high presence of immigrant workers, traditional logics of action and instruments are proving more difficult to implement and less able to promote regulation in comparison with the past. In t­ hese sectors, trade u ­ nions are increasingly experimenting with new strategies based on class as a framing logic. Rather than focusing on the specific issue of the immigrant or ethnic minority status of the predominant groups of workers in this sector, trade ­union activists have been 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 analytical terms, this represents a move from the two sides of the triangle delimited by social rights and race/ethnicity ­toward the third apex that is class. This move identifies trade u ­ nion renewal that is evident not only in the engagement with new strategies and orga­nizational practices but also in the presence of a new emphasis in the internal trade ­union debate. In Spain, the dominant framing logic has been between class and social rights. Trade ­unions have viewed the issue of immigrant workers as part of a broader class-­based approach to representing workers. Traditional grassroots activities have tended to include immigrant workers not as immigrants but as workers based on class identity. At the same time, trade u ­ nions have an impor­ tant role as institutional/social actors through involvement in some form in relevant tripartite bodies, and also the development in workplace activity through elections and mobilizing. Wide action in providing ser­vices specifically addressed to immigrants, or­ga­nized on a territorial basis, is founded on the impor­tant relationship between l­abor organ­izations and the state. In the Spanish case, therefore, it is pos­si­ble to observe a dualism between specific actions aimed at addressing the social rights of immigrants as a specific component of the workforce (immigrants as immigrants), and a rather

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    161

color-­blind approach when trade ­union action aims at representing immigrants’ rights in the ­labor market and workplaces (immigrants as workers). What begins to emerge is a problematic lack of focus on specific questions of race and ethnicity. This is the result when trade u ­ nions risk not defending specific needs of immigrants when representing them in the ­labor market and not paying adequate attention to the distinctive forms of exploitation and racism experienced by immigrant workers. Even though the service-­driven information centers have engaged with immigrant workers, integration of race or ethnic minority issues has been lacking in the broader trade u ­ nion movement. Missing in the Spanish approach has been an engagement with the community and a focus on specific issues relating to race and ethnicity, although this has been done in general through a servicing logic. In the UK, the dominant frame of reference for trade u ­ nions has been class and race/ethnicity, hence we can place the UK between t­ hese two points of the triangle. Trade ­unions in this country have displayed several initiatives aimed at engaging with communities alongside a commitment to recruitment and workplace-­based repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrant workers. Furthermore, an impor­tant tradition of strategies and actions aimed at promoting the integration of immigrant and ethnic minority workers within the trade ­union structure is pres­ent. Self-­organized bodies and networks (such as black worker self-­organizing) are widely pres­ent across dif­fer­ent trade u ­ nions and thus provide a voice for t­hese workers. While this approach has had some success and has recognized the specific sets of issues experienced by immigrant workers and ­those from ethnic minority backgrounds, the lack of state support for collective rights and regulation has been a major challenge for trade u ­ nions. Without the development of social regulation, the trade u ­ nions’ approach remains fragmented. The London Living Wage campaign and trade u ­ nion lobbying around the status of immigrants have emerged, which attempt to re­orient the trade ­union movement t­ oward establishing collective rights and social regulation, but its reach is limited within the dominant regulatory framework. To reiterate, dif­fer­ent national trade u ­ nion responses to immigration may reflect regulatory structures and industrial relations traditions. T ­ hese can give rise to dif­fer­ent ways in which trade ­unions work with the state, employers, their members, and the immigrant worker community. Consequently, dif­ fer­ent 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 immigration to a certain extent reflect the specific

162    Chapter 7

regulatory contexts and hence involve a certain degree of path-­dependency, trade ­unions have an active role in building their own strategies and responding to ­these external f­ actors. Our proposed model identifies three dominant responses to immigration that have emerged from our research, t­ hose of class, race, and social rights. We have observed, following Richard Hyman (2001), that the responses of a trade ­union often shift between two points on a triangle. It emerges from our analy­sis 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/ethnicity, or social rights—­represents the weak point of trade ­union action ­toward immigrant workers. This shapes how trade ­unions frame questions of immigration and the under­lying logics of their responses ­toward immigrant workers. We have been able to understand the gaps that exist within trade ­union perspectives and how t­ hese vary across countries: how in some cases the absence of a state role limits trade ­union resources (UK), how the absence of a direct repre­sen­ta­tion of immigrants minimizes their capacity for voice (Spain), and how institutionalized approaches may lead to a disconnection from immigrants’ work situations (Netherlands). In some cases, t­ hese 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 trade ­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 tends to simplify 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 are the ways in which strategies are translated into effective mea­sures and actions. We are also aware that the strategies of some trade u ­ nions are more clearly focused on race and ethnicity (and immigration) in some countries than in o­ thers, but we argue that the debate on immigration and trade u ­ nions 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, immigration questions, but in a variety of forms.

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    163

Questions of Class and Repre­sen­ta­tion The relevance of our approach is that it points to the complexity and challenges of repre­sen­ta­tion. The ways in which groups of workers are represented and in what intermediary bodies and forms are open to an array of permutations dependent on the context of regulation and the ­labor market but also on the deliberate choices and decisions made (correctly or even incorrectly). The way in which new groups of workers are represented alongside more established and incumbent groups raises serious po­liti­cal issues. The question of class does not easily lend itself to a singular narrative or strategic orga­nizational approach. T ­ here is no clear overarching narrative or approach to repre­sen­ta­tion. Much depends on how interests are understood, reflected on, and then aligned or represented within specific traditions and strategic choices. Hence, although our work suggests that we use the se­lection of choices and spaces that we do, we do not suggest that this is some universal or static panacea for understanding questions of repre­sen­ta­tion and immigration. ­There may be further developments and formulations just as we have reformulated Hyman’s approach. More broadly though the contention is that we need to problematize the issues we study and the question of solidarity and how this can be forged in vari­ous ways. That we may have our own views as to what is effective and how demo­cratic engagement is impor­tant is not the case. We argue is that ­there is no overall congruence as to how the systems of repre­ sen­ta­tion align interests and how they then create commonalities. The prob­ lem is that this is an even greater challenge than we already imagined. Once we have reviewed ­these challenges and choices we must therefore locate common princi­ples and issues that are able to create a more inclusive and antagonistic approach that challenges the broader roots of the issues of racism and exclusion. It is also not a case of falling into the relativism of intersectionality. Many have commented on the lack of linkage between dif­fer­ent trade ­union strategies such as learning and organ­izing approaches, although in some cases trade u ­ nions attempt to establish links with alternative mobilizing agendas (Moore 2011). Yet, looking beyond how specific trade ­union activities match up, trade ­union strategies (e.g., organ­izing) appear to be a bureaucratic and disconnected approach, meaning that the specific issues faced by the most affected and vulnerable workers in the new economic context and social

16 4   Chapter 7

real­ity are not always at the center of the campaigns (Alberti, Holgate, and Tapia 2013). The emergent debates on organ­izing challenges and prob­lems focus on an inability to interconnect issues across dif­fer­ent types of vulnerable workers, thereby creating a broader approach to questions of workforce interests: “Central to this is an understanding of the complexities of social identities and how the adoption of categories (if any) has its own prob­lems and limitations. Similarly, by placing p­ eople into fixed analytical categories, ­there is a tendency to become too focused on a par­tic­u­lar classification, which may neglect or marginalise the impact of other aspects of an individual’s identity” (Alberti, Holgate, and Tapia 2013, 4136). Hence, Gabriella Alberti, Jane Holgate, and Maite Tapia (2013) argue that trade ­unions need to understand the intersectional aspects of mobilizing communities and building bridges, while also remaining sensitive to more complex sets of experiences and identity. Any analy­sis of organ­izing must build on this impor­tant set of insights, understanding that organ­izing precarious or vulnerable workers requires greater sensitivity to difference. At the same time, the challenge and even risk of focusing on and legimitizing par­tic­u­lar diversity-­oriented debate raises issues about how to then create common alliances and strug­gles. In this re­spect, it is not just a question of being alert or sensitive to intersectional issues and the balance between universal and particularistic interests (Alberti, Holgate, and Tapia 2013) but also of po­liti­cally managing differences in such a way as to build up unity in diversity. It is also impor­tant to understand the competing nature of such universality and the dynamics and complexities of repre­sen­ta­tion and its competing spheres. This balancing of par­tic­u­lar and universal interests is a common challenge partly ­because of internal bureaucratic inertia and partly ­because of the way vari­ous responses are seen as being fundamentally about ser­vices and acting on immigrants (Martínez Lucio and Perrett 2009). Furthermore, building up forms of collective action involves practical challenges due to the difficulty of balancing dif­fer­ent interests in the workforce without more systematic commitments to justice and fairness—­and even then tensions may remain evident. Moreover, the possibility of directly including diverse workers in filtering and prioritizing par­tic­u­lar interests to build up a universal voice is rarely considered (Hyman 1997). Our model, we believe, helps to interpret our findings from a comparative perspective that is sensitive to such issues. The analy­sis of current developments in each country has also confirmed the tendency of trade u ­ nions

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    165

that are engaged with the issue of renewal to move ­toward the neglected apex of the triangle in an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of existing approaches. The move t­oward organ­izing by the Dutch trade u ­ nions, despite their strong corporatist traditions, is a good example. The possibilities but also impossibilities of consistent approaches should be discussed without falling into a fatalistic analy­sis of the nature of path-­dependency. The question of solidarity is an organic one (Hyman 1999) and is therefore more challenging and yet more po­liti­cal and open than closed narratives would have us believe. We have observed that dif­fer­ent responses to immigration to a certain extent reflect the dif­fer­ent regulatory contexts and involve a degree of path-­ dependency, but we have also observed that trade ­unions retain an active role in developing their strategies. This is especially true if we break down the analy­sis to specific sectors (e.g., organ­izing in the ser­vice sector in the Netherlands) or regions (the Living Wage Campaign in London). The explanatory variables underlined in the lit­er­a­ture ­either overlap or complement each other. Contextual variables including social and economic f­ actors, institutional frameworks, the positions of governments and employers’ associations, and po­liti­cal rhe­toric certainly influence trade ­union responses ­toward immigrant workers. However, this influence is mediated by a set of internal trade ­union ­factors such as orga­nizational resources (the presence of decentralized representative structures or strong institutional power) and historical legacies (also including trade ­union identity) that frame the logic of renewal and repre­sen­ta­tion. The way in which trade ­unions therefore seek to engage back into their class constituencies practically and ideologically, or seek alliances with immigrant groups and related social movements, or link to the state and seek a broader regulatory approach, may be driven by the perceived weaknesses within the extant approaches—­that being the reliance on specific dimensions of engagement and the realization that they are limited in themselves in dealing with new challenges in relation to supporting immigration. It may also be driven by agents within the trade u ­ nion movement who begin to create a rationale and vision of how trade u ­ nion renewal can be broadened: the role of w ­ omen activists and social identities in Spain, the emergence of a new dynamic among younger activists and officers in the Netherlands in seeking to reach out through organ­izing and class discourses (broadly speaking), and what was the growing interest in learning and modernizing officers in

16 6   Chapter 7

the UK who used vari­ous features of state funding. It is not simply a path-­ dependent ­matter but one of how a constituency of activists and officers of the trade u ­ nions was able to create new dimensions of solidarity in recognition of weaknesses or limitations within existing approaches. In this re­spect, ongoing reflections on what strategies to use, which ones to focus on and to complement more embedded approaches, w ­ ere significant. In the UK and Spain, however, we find that such initiatives and constituencies of activists are beginning to take place outside the more formal bound­aries of the established trade ­union movement. Existing and new approaches in dif­fer­ent national contexts w ­ ere discussed in chapter 6. The variety of approaches and views across dif­fer­ent Eu­ro­pean contexts brought challenges as they w ­ ere embedded in very dif­fer­ent regulatory systems and understandings of solidarity and renewal. The response to such approaches sometimes meant that the Eu­ro­pean coordinating structures of or­ga­nized l­ abor found it more feasible to take on a managerialist view based almost on a proj­ect management approach (Bernaciak and Kahancová 2017). This was managerialist, not in the sense of being business-­oriented but in being oriented to the information exchange of the best orga­nizational trade u ­ nion practices in relation to immigrant workers in dif­fer­ent national contexts. This approach is common to such trans-­European institutional approaches to innovation more generally within trade ­unions given the interest in looking at strategy from a “bricolage” approach (Bernaciak and Kahancová 2017, 233). The Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect discussed in chapter  6 brought to the fore the limitations of the Eu­ro­pean model in terms of trade ­union input into mobility and immigration issues at the Eu­ro­pean level. The significance of this chapter is that creating a universal model of class responses is very difficult and suggests that we are still locked in the par­tic­u­lar structures, approaches, and choices of national contexts each with very dif­fer­ent views of the implications and question of immigration, let alone class and ­matters of social inclusion. The prob­lem becomes one of establishing a global view of immigration and worker rights and of transcending particularly national responses often based on the format or form of the relation of the state and civil society. The question of composition and change within the working class raises a series of challenges for our understanding of solidarity broadly speaking and of social inclusion especially. The issue of immigration and how it evolves pres­

The Geometry of Trade Union Responses    167

ents challenges and opportunities to the ­labor movement as a ­whole. It is becoming the subject of extensive discussion and engagement po­liti­cally, or­ gan­i­za­tion­ally, and academically. In this book we have tried to outline the way the trade u ­ nions in a small sample of cases engage very differently with this issue in part reflecting their national and institutional context but also the way they have developed and redeveloped their strategies of social inclusion and politics of solidarity. In a way, trade ­unions remain wedded to a range of par­tic­u­lar and local frameworks related in part to the nature of the nation-­ state as well. Questions of renewal in relation to immigration have to be understood in terms of class, ethnic and social structure, and also the politics and form of the state (see Martínez Lucio and MacKenzie 2017 for a discussion of theories of the state in l­abor and employment relations). Trade ­unions engage across dif­fer­ent dimensions in dif­fer­ent ways and this may determine responses to specific issues, but in turn it shapes how renewal is understood. Moreover, the issue of change, as in the case of immigration, creates traditions and new forms that become part of portfolios of strategies of transformation. The issue is that choices concerning social engagement and renewal suddenly become significant moments of reflection and internal politics. To that extent an ele­ment of indeterminacy is pres­ent in the question of solidarity. A strategic space opens at specific moments, contingent on a range of f­ actors, but its outcomes cannot be easily determined. This is rarely discussed in the lit­er­a­ture, which ­either assumes causal ­factors (singular or multiple ones) or just prefers questions of technique and specific practices of inclusion within a theoretical void. Hence the moment of change and the politics of change is impor­tant (Simms and Holgate 2010) but, even then, choices and approaches may be contradictory. In our view ­there is no clear path to renewal and inclusion—­and hence to solidarity. It may be that po­liti­cal narratives underpinning developments and how they help frame common responses are impor­tant, but the idea of a uniform, standard response or apo­liti­cal solution concerning a par­tic­u­lar view of organ­izing, for example, is not the way forward. We need to look much more closely at how the nature of the state and proj­ects of social inclusion are framing responses and facilitating trade ­union roles in relation to immigration or creating new views and points of development through agitation or radical approaches (see Connolly, Kretsos, and Phelan 2014). One of the prob­lems of the European-­level initiatives was that such proj­ects of information sharing assumed the possibility of achieving a universal best practice approach at best

16 8    Chapter 7

or at least the sharing of an ele­ment of best practice. This does not clearly account for the po­liti­cal differences in the Eu­ro­pean tradition, which, as is well-­known in the l­ abor movement and study of ­labor relations, constitute an ongoing challenge. Hence, solidarity and innovation remain largely a localized experience. ­There are vari­ous po­liti­cal, orga­nizational, and social traditions in the Eu­ro­pean ­labor space, and how they envelop and sustain positive approaches to the issue of immigration, let alone learn from questions of immigration and immigrants, need further exploration. Our cases ­were in some way progressive responses broadly speaking and yet even then we found very distinct views and strategies. ­Whether one can find a synthesis is a m ­ atter of opinion but a greater emphasis is needed on building a more direct link to the voice of immigrants and their own representative dynamics, a more robust ability to link dif­fer­ent groups of workers together, and the development of international strategies and linkages around this issue that transcend the national space. The development of a proactive class strategy that works at vari­ous levels and a greater critique of the nature of the socioeconomic system, which has ­shaped immigration in highly problematic ways through very precarious forms of work, is an impor­tant feature of such responses, if they are to avoid being focused only on social amelioration. Broader social and class links are an impor­tant feature of this—as are broader views of worker representation—­ which are in part encapsulated in debates on community trade ­unionism (see McBride and Greenwood 2009). Yet such broader views must include the role of worker activists across dif­fer­ent segments of the l­ abor market. In this re­spect we may be reaching the limits of understanding social and economic change through the established structures and roles of repre­sen­ta­tion. To this extent the widening of strategic bound­aries and roles becomes very impor­tant. ­Future research ­will therefore have to look at t­hese dynamics in relation to the more porous and flexible bound­aries between established trade u ­ nions and newly emerging worker and social organ­izations in this field; yet, even then, the issue of balancing the dif­fer­ent dimensions of solidarity ­will remain a challenge.

Notes

Preface 1. This is particularly the case in the UK which has recently seen the emergence of a number of in­de­pen­dent movements, largely made up of immigrant workers, including the In­de­pen­dent Workers Union of G ­ reat Britain and the Industrial Workers of the World.

1. Understanding and Framing the Questions of Trade Union Responses to Immigration and Social Inclusion 1. Wrench (1996, 1999) draws attention to the question of employers and their roles in relation to immigration. ­Some of the dilemmas facing trade ­unions emerge as employers in many cases resist the equality agenda—­and this frames the trade u ­ nion response as it provides extra obstacles to overcome. Part of the prob­lem appears to be that many studies on trade ­union responses fail to locate debates on employer responses and their influence, although t­ here are exceptions (MacKenzie and Forde 2009). 2. Once more the gender debate has tackled ­these issues—­albeit less so within the ­labor and employment relations arena. Jennifer Tomlinson (2007) points to how dif­fer­ent

170     Notes to Pages 23–66 institutions mediate the question of work, especially part-­time work, in the EU in relation to ­women. She draws on Sylvia Walby’s (2004) work, which points to the dif­fer­ent initiatives that exist and the varied institutions that intervene. The way ­these link together and address issues of exclusion coherently is itself a challenge. The purpose of vari­ous welfare and social ser­vices and how are they constructed links to the question of intersectionality and the way regulation appears to mirror social diversity and overlaps—­ consequently creating prob­lems such as complexity and complementarity.

2. Uncovering the Nature and Tensions of Inclusion and ­Labor Relations 1. http://­ec​.­europa​.­eu​/­eurostat​/­statistics​-­explained​/­index​.­php​/ ­Migration​_ ­and​_ ­mig​ rant​_­population​_­statistics. 2. J. Visser, ICTWSS Database, version 5.0. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced L ­ abour Studies AIAS. October 2015. Open access database at: www​.­uva​-­aias​ .­net​/­nl​/­data​/­ictwss.

3. Trade Unions and Immigration in the Netherlands 1. The term allochtonen has been used by the Central Bureau of Statistics ­until 2016. A distinction was made between first-­and second-­generation newcomers. A first-­ generation allochtoon (immigrant) was a person living in the Netherlands but born in a foreign country, and who had at least one parent who was also born abroad. The “country of origin” was the country the person was born in. A second-­generation allochtoon was a person born in the Netherlands with at least one parent born in a foreign country. When both parents w ­ ere born abroad, the country of origin was taken to be that of the ­mother. If one parent was born in the Netherlands, the country of origin was taken to be the other parent’s country of birth. A further distinction was made between “Western” and “non-­Western” allochtonen. A non-­Western allochtoon was someone whose country of origin was or lied in Turkey, Africa, Latin Amer­i­ca, or Asia, with the exception of Indonesia (or the former Dutch East Indies) and Japan. The Central Bureau of Statistics has now a­ dopted the term “person with a mi­grant background.” 2. The term “black” is used ­here as a po­liti­cal rather than a racial category, in line with con­temporary practice in the l­ abor movement. 3. FORUM (Instituut voor Multiculturele Ontiwikkeling—­Institute for Multicultural Development) is the largest nongovernmental actor in the field of integration policy in the Netherlands and is especially concerned with ethnic minorities. LBR is also an impor­tant nongovernmental organ­ization that is especially active in the field of education. 4. The FNV claimed to be against illegal employment, but not illegal workers. According to the FNV, u ­ nionizing illegal workers might result in a decrease in illegal employment. 5. The Dutch Association for Personnel Management and Organisation Development is a network for ­human resources professionals with over five thousand members.

Notes to Pages 71–148    171 The purpose of the NVP-­sollicitatiecode is to provide a norm for a transparent and fair recruitment and se­lection procedure. 6. The campaign also won the international award for the best ­union campaign offered by the global ser­vices sector ­union UNI. Increasingly ­unions are attempting to use benchmarking exercises to allow for innovative practices to be shared. 7. Obviously, the FNV drew a clear distinction between the illegal status of mi­grants and the criminal rec­ords of mi­grants; mi­grants with criminal rec­ords ­were excluded.

6. Trade Union Responses to Immigration in Eu­rope 1. The ETUC produced a video on the Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect for the 2007 congress in Lisbon, which can be found at www​.­youtube​.­com​/­watch​?­v​=­mHqpBE7​_ ­aJw.

References

Adler, L. H., M. Tapia, and L. Turner. 2014. Mobilizing against In­equality: Unions, Im­ migrant Workers, and the Crisis of Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Agudelo-­Suárez, A., D. Gil-­González, E. Ronda-­Pérez, V. Porthé, G. Paramio-­Pérez, A. García, and A. Garí. 2009. “Discrimination, Work and Health in Immigrant Populations in Spain.” Social Science & Medicine 68 (10): 1866–74. Alberti, G., J. Holgate, and M. Tapia. 2013. “Organising Mi­grants as Workers or as Mi­ grant Workers? Intersectionality, Trade Unions and Precarious Work.” International Journal of H ­ uman Resources Management 24 (22): 4132–48. Alonso, L. 2007. La crisis de la ciudadanía laboral. Barcelona: Anthropos. Aragon Medina, J., L. Alba Arteaga, M. A. Haidour, A. Martinez Poza, and F. Rocha Sanchez. 2009. Las políticas locales para la integración de los inmigrantes y la partici­ pación de los agentes socialies. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata. Atkinson, R., and S. Davoudi. 2000. “The Concept of Social Exclusion in the EU: Context, Development and Possibilities.” Journal of Common Market Studies 38 (3): 427–48. Baccaro, L., K. Hamann, and L. Turner. 2003. “The Politics of ­Labour Movement Revitalization: The Need for a Revitalized Perspective.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 119–33. Bacharach, S. B., P. Bamberger, and W. J. Sonnenstuhl. 2001. Mutual Aid and Union Re­ newal: Cycles of Logics of Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

174   References Bassett, P. 1986. Strike ­Free: New Industrial Relations in Britain. London: Macmillan. Bernaciak, M., and M. Kahancová. 2017. “Conclusion.” In Innovative Union Practices in Central-­Eastern Eu­rope, edited by M. Bernaciak and M. Kahancová. Brussels: ETUI: 219–36. Berntsen, L. 2015. “Agency of L ­ abour in a Flexible Pan-­European L ­ abour Market: A Qualitative Study of Mi­grant Practices and Trade Union Strategies in the Netherlands.” PhD diss., University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. Berntsen, L., and N. Lillie. 2016. “Hyper-­mobile Mi­grant Workers and Dutch Trade Union Repre­sen­ta­tion Strategies at the Eemshaven Construction Sites.” Economic and Industrial Democracy 37 (1): 171–87. Bevan, V. 1986. The Development of British Immigration Law. Beckenham: Croom Helm. Bhavnani, K. K., and R. Bhavnani. 1985. “Racism and Re­sis­tance in Britain.” In A So­ cialist Anatomy of Britain, edited by D. Coates, G. Johnston, and R. Bush, 146–59. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boonstra, K., M. Keune, and E. Verhulp. 2010. Trade Union Responses to Precarious Em­ ployment in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced L ­ abour Studies. Bourne, J., and A. Sivanandan. 1980. “Cheerleaders and Ombudsmen: The Sociology of Race Relations.” Race and Class 21: 331–52. Bronfenbrenner, K., S. Friedman, R. W. Hurd, R. A. Oswald, and R. L. Seeber, eds. 1998. Organ­izing to Win: New Research on Union Strategies. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Brown, W. 1972. “A Consideration of “Custom and Practice.” British Journal of Indus­ trial Relations 10 (1): 32–61. Bruquetas-­Callejo, M., B. Garcés-­Mascareñas, R. Morén-­Alegret, R. Penninx, and E. Ruiz-­Vieytez. 2008. “Immigration and Integration Policy Making in Spain.” IMISCOE Working Paper, no. 21 (April). Bruquetas-­Callejo, M., B. Garcés-­Mascareñas, R. Penninx, and P. Scholten. 2007. “Policymaking Related to Immigration and Integration: The Dutch Case.” IMISCOE Working Paper: Country Report, WP15. Cachón, L. 2007. “Diez Notas Sobre la Inmigración en España 2006.” Vanguardia Dos­ sier, no. 22 (January/March), Barcelona. Cachón, L., and M. S. Valles. 2003. “Trade Unionism and Immigration: Reinterpreting Old and New Dilemmas.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Research 9 (3): 469–82. Calavita, K. 2005. Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Eu­rope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Car­ter, B. 2006. “Trade Union Organ­izing and Renewal: A Response to De Turberville.” Work, Employment and Society 20 (2): 415–26. ­Castles, S. 1995. “How Nation-­States Respond to Immigration and Ethnic Diversity.” New Community 21 (3): 293–308. ­Castles, S., and G. Kosack. 1973. Immigrant Workers and Class Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ­Castles, S., and M. J. Miller. 2009. The Age of Migration: International Population Move­ ments in the Modern World. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

References   175 CBS. 2010. “Annual Report on Integration 2010.” Accessed May 10, 2015. https://­www​ .­cbs​.­nl​/­en​-­gb​/­publication​/­2010​/­47​/­annual​-­report​-­on​-­integration​-­2010​-­summary. CBS. 2013. “Population; Key Figures.” April 5, 2013. Accessed October 5, 2014. http://­ statline​ .­cbs​ .­n l ​ /­S tatWeb​ /­publication ​ /­​ ?­V W​=­T&DM​= S­ LEN&PA​=­37296eng&D1​ =­a&D2​= 0­ ,10,20,30,40,58​-­59&HD​= 0­ 90302​-­1045&LA​=E ­ N&HDR​= ­G1&STB​=­T. Centre for Con­temporary Cultural Studies. 1982. The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Rac­ ism in 70s Britain. London: Hutchinson. Clayton, G. 2010. Textbook on Immigration and Asylum Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coates, D. 2000. Models of Capitalism: Growth and Stagnation in the Modern Era. Cambridge: Polity Press. Colectivo IOE. 2001. “Política migratoria española en el marco europeo.” Studi Emi­ grazione 38 (144): 855–68. Connolly, H., L. Kretsos, and C. Phelan. 2014. Radical Unionism in Eu­rope and the F ­ uture of Collective Interest Repre­sen­ta­tions. Oxford: Peter Lang. Connolly, H., S. Marino, and M. Martínez Lucio. 2017. “Justice for Janitors’ Goes Dutch: The Limits and Possibilities of Unions’ Adoption of Organ­izing in a Context of Regulated Social Partnership.” Work, Employment and Society 31 (2): 319–35. Connolly, H., and B. Sellers. 2017. “Trade Unions and Mi­grant Workers in the UK: Organising in a Cold Climate.” In Marino, S., J. Roosblad, and R. Penninx. Trade Unions and Mi­grant Workers. New Context and Challenges in Eu­rope, 224–243. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar/ILO. Cousins, C. 1998. “Social Exclusion in Eu­rope: Paradigms of Social Disadvantage in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.” Policy and Politics 26 (2): 127–46. Cremers, J. 2015. “EU Economic Freedoms and Social Dumping.” In Market Expansion and Social Dumping in Eu­rope, edited by M. Bernaciak, 173–98. Abingdon: Routledge. Cremers, J., J.E. Dølvik, and G. Bosch. 2007. “Posting of Workers in the Single Market: Attempts to Prevent Social Dumping and Regime Competition in the EU.” Industrial Relations Journal 38 (6): 524–41. Davies, W. 2016. “The New Neoliberalism.” New Left Review 101: 121–36. Davis, M., R. Mc­Ken­zie, and W. S­ ullivan. 2006. Working against Racism: The Role of Trade Unions in Britain. London: TUC. De Beer, P. 2013. “Dutch Trade Union Confederation in Crisis.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Research 19 (1): 129–32. De Haan, A. 1998. “ ‘Social Exclusion’: An Alternative Concept for the Study of Deprivation?” IDS Bulletin 29 (1): 10–19. Dickens, L. 1997. “Gender, Race and Employment Equality in Britain: Inadequate Strategies and the Role of Industrial Relations Actors.” Industrial Relations Journal 28 (4): 282–91. Dummett, A., and A. Nicol. 1990. Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and ­Others. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Ebbinghaus, B., and J. Visser. 1999. “When Institutions M ­ atter: Union Growth and Decline in Western Eu­rope, 1950–1995.” Eu­ro­pean So­cio­log­i­cal Review 15 (2): 135–58. Entzinger, H. 2014. “Voortgaande Immigratie en Nieuwe Maatschappelijke Scheidslijnen. Een Verkenning van Mogelijke Ontwikkelingen.” WRR webpublicatie. Ac-

176    References cessed March  8, 2014. http://­www​.­wrr​.­nl​/­fileadmin​/­nl​/­publicaties​/ ­PDF​-­Working​ _­Papers​/ ­WP1​_­ Voortgaandeimmigratie_Web.pdf. Esping-­Andersen, G. 1990. Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. London, Polity Press. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2002. Our Priorities: Promoting Social Inclusion and Combating Poverty. Brussels. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2005. ­Towards ­Free Movement of Work­ ers in an Enlarged EU. Brussels. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2007a. ETUC’s Observations on the Com­ mission’s Consultation Concerning a New Initiative to Prevent and Combat Discrimina­ tion outside employment. Brussels. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2007b. Joint Comments of ETUC, PICUM and SOLIDAR on Expected Commission Proposals to Fight “Illegal” Employ­ ment and Exploitative Working Conditions. Brussels. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2011. Workplace Eu­rope: Trade Unions Supporting Mobile and Mi­grant Workers. Brussels. Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). 2015. ETUC Constitution. Brussels. Accessed August  15, 2016. https://­www​.­etuc​.­org​/­sites​/­default​/­files​/­publication​/­files​/­ces​ -­congrecs​_ ­2015​-­statuts​-­uk​-­ld​_­def​_­0​.­pdf. Eurostat. 2013. “Migration and Mi­grant Population Statistics.” Accessed August 10, 2015. http://­epp​.­eurostat​.­ec​.­europa​.­eu ​/­statistics ​_­explained ​/­i ndex​.­php​/ ­M igration ​_ ­a nd​ _­migrant​_­population​_­statistics. Evans, M. 1998. “­Behind the Rhe­toric: The Institutional Basis of Social Exclusion and Poverty.” IDS Bulletin 29 (1): 42–49. Fernandez Rodríguez, C. J., R. Ibañez Rojo, and M. Martínez Lucio. 2016. “Austerity and Collective Bargaining in Spain.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 22 (3): 267–80. Ferner, A. 1987. “Public Enterprise and the Politics of Commercialisation.” Work, Em­ ployment and Society 1 (2): 179–203. Ferner, A., and R. Hyman, eds. 1998. Changing Industrial Relations in Eu­rope. Oxford: Blackwell. Fine, J. 2006. Worker Centers: Organ­izing Communities at the Edge of the Dream. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Fine, J., and J. Holgate. 2014. “The Countermovement Needs a Movement (and a Counterstrategy).” In L. Adler, M. Tapia, and L. Turner, Mobilizing against In­equality: 127–145. Fine, J., and D. J. Tichenor. 2012 “An Enduring Dilemma: Immigration Organised ­Labor in Western Eu­rope and the United States.” In The Oxford Handbook on the Poli­ tics of International Migration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://­www​ .­oxfordhandbooks​.­com ​/­view​/­10​.­1093​/­oxfordhb​/­9780195337228​.­0 01​.­0 001​/­oxfordhb​ -­9780195337228​-­e​-­22. Fitzgerald, I., and J. Stirling.2004. Black Minority Ethnic Group’s Views of Trade Unions. Newcastle: TUC: Northern Region. Flanders, A. 1974. Management and Unions: The Theory and Reform of Industrial Rela­ tions. London: Faber. Frege, C., and J. Kelly. 2003. “Union Revitalization in Comparative Perspective.” Eu­ro­ pean Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 7–24.

References   177 Frege, C., and J. Kelly, eds. 2004. Va­ri­e­ties of Unionism: Strategies for Union Revitaliza­ tion in a Globalizing Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gobin, C., and A. Dufresne. 2009. “The Social Dialogue as Eu­ro­pean Union Philosophy for L ­ abour Collective Relations: T ­ owards a Single and Undemo­cratic Pattern for Eu­rope?” British Journal of Industrial Relations Conference in Honour of Richard Hyman. London School of Economics, May 28–29, 2009. González-­Enríquez, C. 2009. “Spain, the Cheap Model: Irregularity and Regularisation as Immigration Management Policies.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Migration and Law 11 (2): 139–57. González Begega, S., and D. Luque Balbona. 2014. “¿Adiós al Corporatismo Competitivo en España? Pactos Sociales y Conflicto en la Crisis Económica.” Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 148: 79–102. Goodman, J., J. Earnshaw, M. Marchington, and R. Harrison. 1998. “Unfair Dismissal Cases, Disciplinary Procedures, Recruitment Methods and Management Style: Case Study Evidence from Three Industrial Sectors.” Employee Relations 20 (6): 536–50. Gorodzeisky A., and A. Richards A. 2013. “Trade Unions and Mi­grant Workers in Western Eu­rope.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 19 (3): 239–54. Gray, B. 2008. “Putting Emotion and Reflexivity to Work in Researching Migration.” Sociology 42 (5): 935–52. Greenwood, M. R. 2002. “Ethics and HRM: A Review and Conceptual Analy­sis.” Jour­ nal of Business Ethics 36 (3): 261–78. Grint K. 1998. “Race, Ethnicity and L ­ abour Markets: Recruitment and the Politics of Exclusion.” In The Sociology of Work, edited by K. Grint, 237–81. Cambridge: Polity. Guillén Rodriguez, A., R. Gutiérrez Palacios, S. González Begega. 2008. “Pactos Sociales en España.” Cuadernos de Información Económica 203 (marzo–­abril): 173–81. Guiraudon, V., K. Phalet, and J. Ter Wal. 2005. “Monitoring Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands.” International Social Science Journal 57 (183): 75–87. Gumbrell-­McCormick, R., and R. Hyman. 2013. Trade Unions in Western Eu­rope: Hard Times, Hard Choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gunaratnam, Y. 2003. Researching Race and Ethnicity: Methods, Knowledge and Power. London: Sage. Hagima, R. 2013. “How the Financial Crisis has Affected the Economic Indicators in the Netherlands.” CES Working Papers. Accessed January 16, 2014. www​.­ceswp​.­uaic​ .­ro​/­articles​/­CESWP2013​_­V2​_ ­HAG​.­pdf. Hall, P., and D. Soskice. 2001. Va­ri­e­ties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, P. A., and K. Thelen. 2009. “Institutional Change in Va­ri­e­ties of Capitalism.” Socio-­ economic Review 7 (1): 7–34. Healy, G., H. Bradley, and N. Mukherjee. 2004. “Individualism and Collectivism Revisited: A Study of Black and Minority Ethnic W ­ omen.” Industrial Relations Journal 35 (5): 451–66. Heery, E. 2005. “The British Journal of Industrial Relations: Position and Prospect.” Brit­ ish Journal of Industrial Relations 43 (1): 1–9.

178    References Heery, E., and H. Conley. 2007. “Frame Extension in a Mature Social Movement: British Trade Unions and Part-­time Work, 1967–2002.” Journal of Industrial Relations 49 (1): 5–29. Heery, E., and C. Frege. 2006. “New Actors in Industrial Relations.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 44 (4): 601–4. Heery, E., J. Kelly, and J. Waddington. 2003. “Union Revitalization in Britain.” Eu­ro­ pean Journal of Industrial Relations 9 (1): 79–97. Hemerijck, A. C. 1995. “Corporatist Immobility in the Netherlands.” In Or­ga­nized In­ dustrial Relations in Eu­rope: What F ­ uture? edited by C. J. Crouch and F. Traxler, 183– 224. Aldershot: Avebury. Heyes, J. 2009. “Recruiting and Organising Mi­grant Workers through Education and Training: A Comparison of Community and the GMB.” Industrial Relations Journal 40 (3): 182–97. Hiemstra, N. 2009. “Immigrant ‘Illegality’ as Neoliberal Governmentality in Leadville, Colorado.” Antipode 41: 74–102. Holgate, J. 2004. Black and Minority Ethnic Workers and Trade Unions: Strategies for Organisation, Recruitment and Inclusion. London: Trades Union Congress. Holgate, J. 2005. “Organising Mi­grant Workers: A Case Study of Working Conditions and Unionisation at a Sandwich Factory in London.” Work Employment and Society 19 (3): 463–480. Holgate, J. 2009. “Contested Terrain: London’s Living Wage Campaign and the Tension Between Community and Union Organising.” In The Complexity of Community Unionism: A Comparative Analy­sis of Concepts and Contexts, edited by J. McBride and I. Greenwood. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 49–74. Holgate, J., and J. ­Wills. 2007. “Organ­izing ­Labor in London: Lessons from the Living Wage Campaign.” In ­L abor in the New Urban Battlegrounds: Local Solidarity in a Global Economy, edited by L. Turner and D. B. Cornfield. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Howell, C. 2006. “The State and the Reconstruction of Industrial Relations a­ fter Fordism: Britain and France Compared.” In The State ­after Statism: New State Activities in the Age of Globalization and Liberalization, edited by J. D. Levy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 139–184 Howell, C. 2007. Trade Unions and the State: The Construction of Industrial Relations In­ stitutions in Britain, 1890–2000. Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University Press. Howell, C. 2008. Trade Unions and the State. Prince­ton, NJ: Prince­ton University. Hurd, R. 2004. “The Rise and Fall of the Organ­izing Model in the US.” In Trade Unions and Democracy: Strategies and Perspectives, edited by M. Harcourt and G. Wood, 191–210. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hyman, R. 1994. “Changing Trade Union Identities and Strategies.” In New Frontiers in Industrial Relations, edited by R. Hyman and A. Ferner, 108–39. Oxford: Blackwell. Hyman, R. 1997. “The F ­ uture of Employee Repre­sen­ta­tion.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 35 (3): 309–36. Hyman, R. 1999. “­Imagined Solidarities: Can Trade Unions Resist Globalization?” In Globalization and L ­ abour Relations, edited by P. Leisink. Cheltenham: Elgar: 94–115.

References   179 Hyman, R. 2001. Understanding Eu­ro­pean Trade Unionism: Between Market, Class and So­ ciety. London: Sage. Hyman, R. 2003. “Trade Unions and the Ambiguities of Social Eu­rope.” IIRA World Congress, Berlin, September. Hyman, R. 2005. “Trade Unions and the Politics of the Eu­ro­pean Social Model.” Eco­ nomic and Industrial Democracy 26 (1): 9–40. Hyman, R. 2011. “Trade Unions, Lisbon and Eu­rope 2020: From Dream to Nightmare.” LSE “Eu­rope in Question” Discussion Paper, no. 45. London: LSE. Hyman, R., and A. Ferner. 1994. “Introduction.” In New Frontiers in Eu­ro­pean Indus­ trial Relations, edited by R. Hyman and A. Ferner, 1–14. Oxford, Blackwell. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). 2015. “Self-­employment in Eu­rope.” Accessed January 10, 2016. http://­www​.­ippr​.­org​/­files​/­publications​/­pdf​/­self​-­employment​-­Europe​ _­Jan2015​.­pdf​?­noredirect​=1­ . James, P., and J. Karmowska. 2012. “Unions and Mi­grant Workers: Strategic Challenges in Britain.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Research 18 (2): 201–12. Jessop, B. 1982. The Cap­i­tal­ist State. Oxford: Blackwell. Jessop, B. 1990. State Theory: Putting the Cap­i­tal­ist State in its Place. Cambridge: Polity. Jessop, B. 2002. The F ­ uture of the Cap­i­tal­ist State. Oxford: Polity. Jódar, P., R. Alós, Á. Boso, J. G. Payà, and D. Garrell. 2014. “La afiliación sindical de la población inmigrante El Caso de CCOO de Cataluña.” Cuadernos de Relaciones Lab­ orales 32 (1): 135–63. Jordana, J. 1996. “Reconsidering Union Membership in Spain, 1977–1994.” Industrial Re­ lations Journal 27 (3): 211–24. Kelly, J. 1998. Rethinking Industrial Relations: Mobilization, Collectivism and Long Waves. London: Routledge. Kerr, C., J. T. Dunlop, F. H. Harbison, and C. A Myers. 1960. Industrialism and Indus­ trial Man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keune, M. 2013. “Trade Union Responses to Precarious Work in Seven Eu­ro­pean Countries.” International Journal of L ­ abour Research 5 (1): 59–78. Kirton, G., and A. M. Greene. 2015. The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach. 4th ed. London: Routledge. Kloosterboer, D. 2007. Innovative Trade Union Strategies. Amsterdam: FNV. Kooiman, J. 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage. Koopmans, R., and P. Statham. 2001. “How National Citizenship Shapes Transnationalism: A Comparative Analy­sis of Mi­grant Claims-­making in Germany, G ­ reat Britain and the Netherlands.” Revue Eurohernne des Migrations Internationales 17 (2): 63–100. Koukiadaki, A., I. Tavora, and M. Martínez Lucio. 2016. “Joint Regulation and L ­ abour Market Policy in Eu­rope during the Crisis: A Seven-­Country Comparison.” In Joint Regulation and ­Labour Market Policy in Eu­rope during the Crisis, edited by A. Koukiadaki, I. Tavora, and M. Martínez Lucio. Brussels: Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Institute. Accessed January 10, 2017. http://­www​.­etui​.­org​/ ­Publications2​/­Books​/­Joint​-­regulation​ -­and​-­labour​-­market​-­policy​-­in​-­Europe​-­during​-­the​-­crisis. Kranendonk, M., and P. De Beer. 2016. “What Explains the Union Membership Gap between Mi­grants and Natives?” British Journal of Industrial Relations 54 (4): 846–69.

18 0   References Krings, T. 2009. “A Race to the Bottom? Trade Unions, EU Enlargement and the ­Free Movement of L ­ abour.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 15 (1): 49–69. Lange, P., G. Ross, and M. Vannicelli. 1982. Unions, Change and Crisis: French and Ital­ ian Union Strategy and the Po­liti­cal Economy, 1945–1980. London: Allen and Unwin. Lash, J., and J. Urry. 1987. The End of Organised Capitalism. Oxford: Polity. Lehmbruch, G. 1979. “Consociational Democracy, Class Conflict, and the New Corporatism.” In Trends T ­ owards Corporatist Intermediation: Organ­izing Interests in Western Eu­rope, edited by P. C. Schmitter and G. Lehmbruch, 53–61. New York: Cambridge University Press. Locke, R., and K. Thelen. 1995. “Apples and Oranges Revisited: Contextualised Comparisons and the Study of Comparative ­Labor Politics.” Politics and Society 23 (3): 337–67. Lorber, J. 1975. “­Women and Medical Sociology: Invisible Professionals and Ubiquitous Patients.” So­cio­log­i­cal Inquiry 45 (2–3): 75–105. Lucassen, J., and R. Penninx. 1997. Newcomers, Immigrants and Their Descendants in the Netherlands 1550–1995. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Lüthje, B., and C. Scherrer. 2001. “Race, Multiculturalism, and ­Labour Organ­izing in the United States: Lessons for Eu­rope.” Capital and Class 82: 141–71. MacEwen, M. 1995. Tackling Racism in Eu­rope. Oxford: Berg. MacKenzie, R., and C. Forde. 2009. “The Rhe­toric of the ‘Good Worker’ versus the Realities of Employers’ Use and the Experiences of Mi­grant Workers.” Work, Employ­ ment and Society 23 (1): 142–59. MacKenzie, R., and M. Martínez Lucio. 2005. “The Realities of Regulatory Change: Beyond the Fetish of Deregulation.” Sociology 39 (3): 499–517. MacKenzie, R., and M. Martínez Lucio. 2014. “The Colonisation of Employment Regulation and Industrial Relations? Dynamics and Developments over Five De­cades of Change.” ­Labor History 55 (2): 189–207. Marinelli, V. 2005. Current Immigration Debates in Eu­rope: A Publication of the Eu­ro­pean Migration Dialogue—­The Netherlands. FORUM (Institut voor Multikulturele Ontwikkeling). Marino, S. 2012. “Trade Union Inclusion of Mi­grant and Ethnic Minority Workers: An Italy–­Netherlands Comparison.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 18 (5): 5–20. Marino, S. 2015. “Trade Unions, Special Structures and the Inclusion of Mi­grant Workers: On the Role of Union Democracy.” Work, Employment and Society 29 (5): 826–42. Marino, S., J. Roosblad, and R. Penninx, eds. 2017a. Trade Unions and Mi­grant Workers: New Contexts and Challenges in Eu­rope. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar/ILO. Marino, S., J. Roosblad, and R. Penninx. 2017b. “Introduction: How to Study Trade Union Action T ­ owards Immigration and Mi­grant Workers?” In Trade Unions and Mi­g rant Workers. New Context and Challenges in Eu­rope, edited by S. Marino, J. Roosblad, and R. Penninx, 1–19. Martens, A. 1999. “Migratory Movements: The Position, the Outlook. Charting a Theory and Practice for Trade Unions.” In Mi­grants, Ethnic Minorities and the ­Labour Mar­ ket: Integration and Exclusion in Eu­rope, edited by J. Wrench, N. Ouali and A. Rea, 219–228. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

References   181 Martin, A., and G. Ross. 2001. “Trade Union Organ­izing at the Eu­ro­pean Level: The Dilemma of Borrowed Resources.” In Contentious Eu­ro­pe­ans, edited by D. Imig and S. Tarrow, 53–76. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Martin, C., and F. J. Velázquez. 1996. “Una Estimación de la Presencia de Capital Extranjero en la Economia Española y Alguna de sus Consecuencias.” Papeles de Econo­ mia Española 66: 160–75. Martin Valverde, A. 1991. Eu­ro­pean Employment and Industrial Relations Glossary: Spain. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the Eu­ro­pean Communities. Martínez Lucio, M. 1998. “Spain: Regulating Employment and Social Fragmentation.” In Changing Industrial Relations in Eu­rope, edited by A. Ferner and R. Hyman, 426–58. Martínez Lucio, M. 2008. “¿Todavía organizadores del descontento? Los retos de las estrategias de renovación sindical en España.” Arxius, Summer: 119–133 Martínez Lucio, M. 2010. “Dimensions of Internationalism and the Politics of the L ­ abour Movement: Understanding the Po­liti­cal and Organisational Aspects of ­Labour Networking and Co-­ordination.” Employee Relations 32 (6): 538–56. Martínez Lucio, M. 2011. “From Action to Communication? Explaining the Changing Context of Worker Occupations as Direct Forms of Action with Reference to the Case of Con­temporary Spain.” Employee Relations 33 (6): 654–69. Martínez Lucio, M. 2016. “Incertidumbre, Indecisión y Neoliberalismo Emergente El Papel Dual y Complejo del Estado Español en las Relaciones Laborales y de Empleo.” Sociología del Trabajo 87: 68–88. Martínez Lucio, M. 2017a. “Organising without Knowing It? The Curious Case of Para-­ Organising-­Style Campaigns in Southern Eu­rope and the Case of Trade Union Elections in Spain.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Research 23 (1): 89–94. Martínez Lucio, M. 2017b. “Unhinging Social Dialogue: A Review of the Politics of Pacts and the Diverse Uses and Transformations of the Concept of Social Dialogue.” In Em­ ployment Relations in an Era of Change, edited by V. Pulignano, K. Holm-­Detlev, and P. Stewart. Brussels: ETUI: 207–227. Martínez Lucio, M., and H. Connolly. 2009. “Employment Relations, Migration and Politics: Issues in the Study of Mi­grant Communities in the Eu­ro­pean Union.” LERA (ASSA) Conference San Francisco, January 3–6. Martínez Lucio, M., and H. Connolly. 2012. “Transformation and Continuities in Urban Strug­gles: Urban Politics, Trade Unions and Migration in Spain.” Urban Studies 49 (3): 669–84. Martínez Lucio, M., and R. MacKenzie. 2004. “Unstable Bound­aries? Evaluating the ‘New Regulation’ within Employment Relations.” Economy and Society 33 (1): 77–97. Martínez Lucio, M., and R. MacKenzie. 2017. “The State and the Regulation of Work and Employment: Theoretical Contributions, Forgotten Lessons and New Forms of Engagement.” International Journal of H ­ uman Resource Management 28 (21): 2983– 3002. Martínez Lucio, M., S. Marino, and H. Connolly. 2013. “Broadening and Reimagining Regulation: Trade Unions ‘Active Servicing’ and Immigration in Spain since the Early 1990s.” Journal of Industrial Relations 55 (2): 190–211. Martínez Lucio, M., S. Marino, and H. Connolly. 2017. “Organising as a Strategy to Reach Precarious and Marginalised Workers: A Review of Debates on the Role of the

182    References Po­liti­cal Dimension and the Dilemmas of Repre­sen­ta­tion and Solidarity.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Research 23 (1): 31–46. Martínez Lucio, M., and R. Perrett. 2009. “The Diversity and Politics of Trade Unions’ Responses to Minority Ethnic and Mi­grant Workers: The Context of the UK.” Eco­ nomic and Industrial Democracy 30: 324–47. Martínez Lucio, M., S. Skule, W. Kruse, and V. Trappmann. 2007. “Regulating Skill Formation in Eu­rope: German, Norwegian and Spanish Policies on Transferable Skills.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 13 (3): 323–40. Martínez Lucio, M., and M. Stuart. 2011. “The State, Public Policy and the Renewal of HRM.” International Journal of H ­ uman Resource Management 22 (18): 2661–771. Mayhew, K., and J. Addison. 1983. “Discrimination in the L ­ abour Market.” In Indus­ trial Relations in Britain, edited by G. Bain. Oxford: Blackwell. McBride, J., and I. Greenwood. 2009. Community Unionism: A Comparative Analy­sis of Concepts and Contexts. London: Palgrave. McGovern, P. 2007. “Immigration, L ­ abour Markets and Employment Relations: Prob­ lems and Prospects.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 45 (2): 217–35. McIlroy, J. 2008. “Ten Years of New ­Labour: Workplace Learning, Social Partnership and Union Revitalization in Britain.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 46 (2): 283–313. Meardi, G. 2002. “The Trojan Horse for the Americanisation of Eu­rope?” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 8 (1): 77–99. Meardi, G. 2007. “The Polish Plumber in the West Midlands: Theoretical and Empirical Issues.” Review of Sociology 13 (2): 39–56. Meardi, G. 2012. “Union Immobility? Trade Unions and the Freedoms of Movement in the Enlarged EU.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 50 (1): 99–120. Meardi, G., A. Martín, and M. L. Riera. 2012. “Constructing Uncertainty: Unions and Mi­grant ­Labour in Construction in Spain and the UK.” Journal of Industrial Rela­ tions 54 (1): 5–21. Menz, G. 2009. The Po­liti­cal Economy of Managed Migration. New York: Oxford University Press. Mi­grant Health. 2006. A Baseline Report 2006 Appendix One: The History of Migration to the UK. London: Health Protection Agency. Miguélez, F. 1991. “Las Organizaciones Sindicales.” In Miguélez and Prieto, Las Rela­ ciones Laborales en Espana, Madrid: Siglo XXI 213–32. Miguélez, F., and C. Prieto, eds. Las relaciones laborales en España. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Miguélez, F., and A. Recio. 2008. “Spain: Large-­scale Regularisation and Its Impacts on ­Labour Market and Social Policy.” Transfer: Eu­ro­pean Review of L ­ abour and Re­ search 14 (4): 589–606. Milkman, R. 2000. Organ­izing Immigrants: The Challenge for Unions in Con­temporary California. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Milkman, R. 2006. L.A. Story: Immigrant Workers and the F ­ uture of the U.S. ­Labor Move­ ment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Miravet, P. 2005. “Trabajadores immigrantes, sindicatos y participación.” Cuadernos Elec­ trónicos de Filosofía del Derecho 12: 1–23. Moore, S. 2009. Integrating Trade Union Learning and Organising Strategies. Unionlearn Research Paper Series. TUC Unionlearn, London.

References   183 Moore, S. 2011. New Trade Union Activism: Class Consciousness or Social Identity? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Morris, L. 1997. “A Cluster of Contradictions: The Politics of Migration in the Eu­ro­ pean Union.” Sociology 31 (2): 241–59. Newman, J. 2005. Remaking Governance: ­Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere. Bristol: Policy Press. Nissen, B., and G. Grenier. 2001. “Union Responses to Mass Migration: The Case of Miami, USA.” Antipode 33 (3): 567–92. Oakley, A. 1981. “Interviewing ­Women: A Contradiction in Terms.” In ­Doing Feminist Research, edited by H. Roberts, 30–62. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Olesen, V. 1994. “Feminism and Models of Social Research.” In Theories of ­Women’s Stud­ ies, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. London: Routledge. O’Reilly, J., J. MacInnes, T. Nazio, and J. M. Roche. 2009. “The United Kingdom: From Flexible Employment to Vulnerable Workers.” In Gender and the Contours of Precari­ ous Employment, edited by L. F. Vosko, M. MacDonald, and I. Campbell. London: Routledge: 122–140. Ortiz, L. 1996. “Union Response to Team Work: The Case of Opel Spain.” Industrial Relations Journal 29 (1): 42–57. Pardo, R., and J. Fernández. 1991. “Las Organizaciones Empresariales y la Configuración del Sistema de Relaciones Industriales en la España Democrática, 1977– 1990.” In Miguélez and Prieto, Las relaciones laborales en Espana, 147–84. Madrid: Siglo XXI. Pemberton, S., and C. Stevens. 2010. “The Recruitment and Retention of Central and Eastern Eu­ro­pean Mi­grant Workers in the United Kingdom: A Panacea or a Prob­lem ­under the New Policies of ‘Managed Migration’?” Regional Studies 44 (9): 1289–300. Penninx, R. 2005. “Bridges between Research and Policy? The Case of Post-­War Immigration and Integration Policies in the Netherlands.” International Journal on Multicultural Socie­ties 7 (1): 33–48. Penninx, R. 2006a. “­After the Fortuyn and van Gogh Murders: Is the Dutch Integration Model in Disarray?” In ­Going Places: Neighbourhood, Ethnicity and Social Mobil­ ity, edited by S. Delorenzi, 127–38. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Penninx, R. 2006b. “Dutch Immigrant Policies before and ­after the Van Gogh Murder.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 7 (2): 241–54. Penninx, R., and J. Roosblad. 2000. Trade Unions, Immigration, and Immigrants in Eu­ rope, 1960–1993. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Perrett, R., and M. Martínez Lucio. 2008. “The Challenge of Connecting and Coordinating the Learning Agenda: A Case Study of a Trade Union Learning Centre in the UK.” Employee Relations 30 (6): 623–39. Perrett, R., and M. Martínez Lucio. 2009. “Trade Unions and Relations with Black and Minority Ethnic Community Groups in the United Kingdom: The Development of New Alliances?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 35 (8): 1295–1314. Perrett, R., M. Martínez Lucio, J. McBride, and S. Craig. 2012. “Trade Union Learning Strategies and Mi­grant Workers: Policies and Practice in a New-­liberal Environment.” Urban Studies 49 (3): 649–67.

184    References Petmesidou, M. 2017. “Can the Eu­ro­pean Union 2020 Strategy Deliver on Social Inclusion?” CROP Working paper. Accessed November 2, 2017. http://­bora​.­uib​.­no​/­bitstream​ / ­handle​/­1956​/­16140​/­GlobalChallengesNo3MP​.­pdf​?­sequence​=5­ &isAllowed​=y­ . Poutsma, F., and G. J. M. Braam. 2004. “Corporate Governance and L ­ abour Management in the Netherlands: Getting the Best of Two Worlds?” In Corporate Governance and H ­ uman Resource Management, edited by H. Gospel and A. Pendleton, 259–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prieto, C. 1991. “Las prácticas empresariales de gestión de la fuerza de trabajo.” In Miguélez and Prieto, Las relaciones laborales en España, 185–210. Purcell, J. 1993. “The End of Institutional Industrial Relations.” Po­liti­cal Quarterly 64 (1): 6–23. Rainbird, H., A. Fuller, and A. Munro. 2004. Workplace Learning in Context. London: Routledge. Rainbird, H., and M. Stuart. 2011. “The State and the Union Learning Agenda in Britain.” Work, Employment and Society 25 (2): 202–17. Ramsay, H. 1995. “Euro-­unionism and the ­Great Auction: An Assessment of the Prospects for the Eu­ro­pean L ­ abour Movement Post-­Maastricht.” ­Labour and Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 6 (2): 13–44. Rigby, M. 2002. “Spanish Trade Unions and the Provision of Continuous Training: Partnerships at a Distance.” Employee Relations 24 (5): 500–515. Roca Martínez, B. 2013. Contrapoder sindical. Madrid: Fundación Anselmo Lorenzo. Rocha, F. 2014. “Crisis and Austerity Policies in Spain: ­Towards an Authoritarian Model of Industrial Relations.” In The New EU Economic Governance and Its Impact on the National Collective Bargaining Systems, edited by F. Rocha, 175–204. Madrid: CCOO. Rojer, M. 1996. Cao-­onderhandelingen: Een Voorspelbaar, Logisch and Rationeel Pro­cess?. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Thesis Publisher. Room, G. 1995. “Poverty in Eu­rope: Competing Paradigms of Analy­sis.” Policy and Pol­ itics 23 (2): 103–13. Roosblad, J. 2000. “Dutch Trade Unions, Immigrants and Immigration: Myopic Policies of Equality.” In Trade Unions, Immigration and Immigrants in Eu­rope 1960–1993: A Comparative Study of the Actions of Trade Unions in Seven West Eu­ro­pean Countries, edited by R. Penninx and J. Roosblad, 91–109. New York: Berghahn Books. Roosblad, J. 2013. “Trade Unions and the Repre­sen­ta­tion of Mi­grant and Ethnic Minority Workers.” In Filling in Penninx’s Heuristic Model, edited by A. van Heelsum and B. Garces-­Mascarenas, 35–49. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Roosblad, J., and L. E. Berntsen. 2017. “The Netherlands: Finding Common Ground in an Increasingly Fragmented Workforce.” In Trade Unions and Mi­grant Workers. New Con­ text and Challenges in Europe, edited by S. Marino, J. Roosblad, and R. Penninx, 178–199. Scharpf, F. W. 1993. “Co-­ordination in Hierarchies and Networks.” In Games in Hier­ archies and Networks: Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of Governance Institutions, edited by F. W. Scharpf. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus. Schierup, C. U., P. Hansen, and S. C ­ astles. 2006. Migration, Citizenship, and the Eu­ro­ pean Welfare State: A Eu­ro­pean Dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmitter, P., and G. Lehmbruch. 1979. Trends t­ owards Corporatist Intermediation. London: Sage.

References   185 Schmitter, P. C., and W. Streeck. 1981. “The Organ­ization of Business Interests.” Discussion Paper IIM/LMP 81–13. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum. Scott, S. 2007. “Coming in From the Cold: Transition in Eastern Eu­rope and L ­ abour Migration to the UK.” Teaching Geography 32 (3): 116–20. Sen, A. 1973. On Economic In­equality. New York: Norton. Shah, P. 2000. Refugees, Race and the ­Legal Concept of Asylum in Britain. London: Cavendish. Silver, H. 1994. “Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms.” International ­Labour Review 133 (5–6): 531–78. Simms, M. 2003. “Union Organ­izing in a Not-­for-­Profit Organisation.” In Union Organ­ izing: Campaigning for Trade Union Recognition, edited by G. Gall. London: Routledge: 115–131. Simms, M. 2007. “Interest Formation in Greenfield Organ­izing Campaigns.” Industrial Relations Journal 38 (5): 439–45. Simms, M., and J. Holgate. 2010. “Organising for What? Where Is the Debate on the Politics of Organising?” Work, Employment and Society 24 (1): 157–68. Simms, M., J. Holgate, and E. Heery. 2012. Union Voices: Tactics and Tensions in UK Organ­izing. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Slomp, H. 2004. “The Netherlands: Resilience in Structure, Revolution in Substance.” In The New Structure of ­Labor Relations: Tripartism and Decentralization, edited by H. C. Katz, W. Lee, and J. Lee. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Spencer, I. 1997. British Immigration Policy since 1945: The Making of Multi-­Racial Brit­ ain. London: Routledge. Streeck, W. 2016. How W ­ ill Capitalism End? London: Verso. Stuart, M. 2007. “Introduction: The Industrial Relations of Learning and Training: A New Consensus or a New Politics?” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 13 (3): 269–80. Stuart, M., M. Martínez Lucio, and A. Charlwood. 2009. “The UMF Round One: Final Evaluation Report.” Employment Relations Research Series, no. 104. London: BIS. Stuart, M., M. Martínez Lucio, and A. Robinson. 2011. “ ‘Soft Regulation’ and the Modernisation of Employment Relations u ­ nder the British L ­ abour Government (1997– 2010): Partnership, Workplace Facilitation and Trade Union Change.” International Journal of H ­ uman Resource Management 22 (18): 3794–812. Stuart, M., J. Tomlinson, and M. Martínez Lucio. 2013. “­Women and the Modernization of British Trade Unions: Meanings, Dimensions and the Challenge of Change.” Journal of Industrial Relations 55 (1): 38–59. Tapia, M. 2014. “The United Kingdom: Dialectical Approaches to Organ­izing Immigrant Workers, Postwar to 2012.” In Mobilizing against In­equality, edited by L. Adler, M. Tapia, and L. Turner, 52–68. Tapia, M., and L. Turner. 2013. “Union Campaigns as Countermovements: Mobilizing Immigrant Workers in France and the United Kingdom.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 51 (3): 601–22. Tapia, M., L. Turner, and D. Roca-­Servat. 2014. “Union Campaigns as Countermovements: ‘Best Practice’ Cases from the United Kingdom, France, and the United

18 6    References States.” In Mobilizing against In­equality, edited by L. Adler, M. Tapia, and L. Turner, 14–31. Tattersall, A. 2005. “­There Is Power in Co­ali­tion: A Framework for Assessing How and When Union-­Community Co­ali­tions Are Effective and Enhance Union Power.” ­L abour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 16 (2): 97–112. Tattersall, A. 2006. “Bringing the Community In: Possibilities for Public Sector Union Success through Community Unionism.” International Journal of ­Human Resource Management 6 (2/3/4): 186–99. Taylor, G., and A. Mathers. 2002. “Social Partner or Social Movement? Eu­ro­pean Integration and Trade Union Renewal in Eu­rope.” ­Labor Studies Journal 27 (1): 93–108. Tilly, C. 2006. Regimes and Repertoires. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Toharia, L. 1988. “Partial Fordism: Spain Between Po­liti­cal Transition and Economic Crisis.” In The Search for L ­ abour Market Flexibility: The Eu­ro­pean Economies in Tran­ sition, edited by R. Boyer, 119–39. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tomlinson, J. 2007. Employment Regulation, Welfare and Gender Regimes: A Comparative Analy­sis of ­Women’s Working-­time Patterns and Work-­Life Balance in the UK and the US.” International Journal of ­Human Resource Management 18 (3): 401–15. Trades Union Congress (TUC). 2002. Mi­grant Worker: A TUC Guide. London. Tros, F. H. 2001. “Arbeidsverhoudingen: Decentralisatie, Deconcentratie en Empowerment.” Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken 17 (4): 304–18. Turnbull, D. 2005. “Organising Mi­grant Workers: The Experience of the TGWU International Catering Workers’ Branch.” In Organising Mi­grant Workers in Trade Unions, edited by S. Gibbons, 12–16. London: International Centre for Trade Union Rights. Turner, L. 2005. “From Transformation to Revitalization: A New Research Agenda for a New Era.” Work and Occupations 32 (4): 383–99. Turner, L. 2014. “Organ­izing Immigrant Workers.” In Mobilizing against In­equality, edited by L. Adler, M. Tapia, and L. Turner, 3–13. van Amersfoort, H. 2004. “Territorial Control and Global Economy: An analy­sis of Dutch Immigration Policy.” Fourth International Immigration Conference. First In­ de­pen­dent University of Warsaw, November 21–23. van der Berg, A. 1995. Trade Unions Growth and Decline in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Thesis Publisher. van der Meer, M., and J. Roosblad. 2004. “Overcoming Marginalisation? Gender and Ethnic Segregation in the Dutch Construction, Health, IT and Printing Industries.” AIAS Working Paper 29. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. van der Meer, M., J. Visser, and T. Wilthagen. 2005. “Adaptive and Reflexive Governance: The Limits of Or­ga­nized Decentralization.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 11 (3): 347–65. van Klaveren, M., and W. Sprenger. 2005. “Boxing and Dancing: Dutch Trade Unions and Work Council Experienced Revisited.” AIAS Working Paper 40. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. van Ours, J. C., and J. M. C. Veenman. 1999. “The Netherlands: Old Emigrants—­Young Immigrant Country.” Discussion Paper 80, IZA Bonn.

References   187 van Walsum, S. 2004. “The Dynamics of Emancipation and Exclusion: Changing F ­ amily Norms and Dutch ­Family Migration Policies.” IMIS-­Beiträge 24: 119–28. Vandaele, K., and J. Leschke. 2010. “Following the ‘Organising Model’ of British Unions: Organising Non-­Standard Workers in Germany and the Netherlands.” Brussels: Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Institute (ETUI). Verloo, M. 2006. “Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the Eu­ro­pean Union.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of W ­ omen’s Studies 13 (3): 211–28. Vermeulen, H., and R. Penninx, eds. 2000. Immigrant Integration: The Dutch Case. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis. Virdee, S. 2014. Racism, Class and the Racialized Outsider. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Virdee, S., and K. Grint. 1994. “Black Self-­Organisation in Trade Unions.” So­cio­log­i­cal Review 42 (2): 202–26. Visser, J. 1993. “Work Council and Unions in the Netherlands: Rivals or Allies?” Neth­ erlands’ Journal of Social Science 29: 64–92. Visser, J. 1998a. “The Netherlands: The Return of Responsive Corporatism.” In Changing Industrial Relations in Eu­rope, edited by A. Ferner and R. Hyman, 283–314. Visser, J. 1998b. “Two Cheers for Corporatism, One for the Market: Industrial Relations, Wage Moderation and Job Growth in the Netherlands.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 36 (2): 269–92. Visser, J. 2002. “Why Fewer Workers Join Unions in Eu­rope: A Social Custom Explanation of Membership Trends.” British Journal of Industrial Relations 40 (3): 403–30. Visser, J. 2015. ICTWSS: Database on Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts in 34 Countries between 1960 and 2014, Version 5. Accessed December 15, 2017. http://­www​.­uva​-­aias​.­net ​/­208. Visser, J., and A. Hemerijck. 1997. A Dutch Miracle: Job Growth, Welfare Reform and Cor­ poratism in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Vranken, J. 1990. “Industrial Rights.” In The Po­liti­cal Rights of Mi­grant Workers in West­ ern Eu­rope, edited by Z. Layton-­Henry, 47–73. London: Sage. Waddington, J. 1995. The Politics of Bargaining. London: Mansell. Walby, S. 2004. “The Eu­ro­pean Union and Gender Equality: Emergent Va­ri­e­ties of Gender Regime.” Social Politics 11 (1): 4–29. Watts, J. R. 1998. “Strange Bedfellows: How Spanish ­Labor Union Leaders and Employers Find Common Ground on Immigration.” Policy Studies Journal 26 (4): 657–75. Watts, J. R. 2000. An Unconventional Brotherhood: Union Support for Liberalized Immi­ gration in Eu­rope. San Diego: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies (CCIS), University of California. White, P. 1998. “Ideologies, Social Exclusion and Spatial Segregation in Paris.” In Ur­ ban Segregation and the Welfare State: In­equality and Exclusion in Western Cities, edited by S. Musterd and W. Ostendorf, 162–181. New York, London: Routledge. ­Wills, J. 2004. “Organising the Low Paid: East London’s Wage Campaign as a Vehicle for Change.” In The ­Future of Worker Repre­sen­ta­tion, edited by E. Heery, P. Taylor, and W. Brown, 264–282. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Windmuller, J. P. 1969. ­Labor Relations in the Netherlands. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

188    References Winstanley, D., J. Woodall, and E. Heery. 1996. “Business Ethics and ­Human Resource Management: Themes and Issues.” Personnel Review 25 (6): 5–12. Wrench, J. 1996. Preventing Racism at the Workplace: A Report on 16 Eu­ro­pean Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the Eu­ro­pean Communities. Wrench, J. 1999. “Employers and Anti-­Discrimination Mea­sures in Eu­rope: Good Practice and Bad Faith.” In Mi­grants, Ethnic Minorities and the L ­ abour Market: Migration, Minorities and Citizenship, edited by J. Wrench, A. Rea, and N. Ouali, 229–251. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Wrench, J. 2000a. “Trade Unions, Mi­grants and Ethnic Minorities in an Intercultural Eu­rope.” In Intercultural Eu­rope: Cultural Diversity and Social Policy in the Eu­ro­pean Union, edited by J. Gundara and S. Jacobs, 315–331. Aldershot: Ashgate. Wrench, J. 2000b. “Combating Employment Discrimination in Eu­rope: National Variation and the Dawn of ‘Good Practice.’ ” In Combating Racial Discrimination: Affir­ mative Action as a Model for Eu­rope, edited by E. Appelt and M. Jarosch. Oxford: Berg. Wrench, J. 2004. “Trade Union Responses to Immigrants and Ethnic In­equality in Denmark and the UK: The Context of Consensus and Conflict.” Eu­ro­pean Journal of Industrial Relations 10 (1): 7–30. Wrench, J., A. Rea, and N. Ouali. 1999. Mi­grants, Ethnic Minorities and the L ­ abour Mar­ ket: Integration and Exclusion in Eu­rope. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Wrench, J., and S. Virdee. 1996. “Organising the Unorganised: ‘Race’, Poor Work and Trade Unions.” In The New Workplace and Trade Unionism, edited by P. Ackers, C. Smith and P. Smith, 240–278. London: Routledge. Zorlu, A., and J. Hartog. 2001. “Migration and Immigrants: The Case of the Netherlands.” Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 01–042/3, Tinbergen Institute.

Index

Page numbers in italics refer to figures. 2020 strategy (EU), 138–39 activism: British trade u ­ nions and, 107, 110, 116, 118; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 83, 89–90, 92–96, 98 actors, 7–9, 13, 22; variables related to, 158 (see also identities). See also trade ­unions advisory/information centers (Spain), 82, 92–96, 151, 161 African Mi­grant Network (UK), 113 Afro-­Caribbean immigrants, 115. See also black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers; Ca­rib­be­an/West Indian immigrants agricultural sector: in Netherlands, 73, 75, 160; in Spain, 41, 80, 87–88, 93, 97, 99–100 Alberti, Gabriella, 164 Alien ­Labour Law (1995, Netherlands), 31 Aliens Resolution (2000, Netherlands), 31

allochtonen (immigrants in Netherlands), 30, 59–60, 170n1(ch.3) Amicus (UK), 45 Amsterdam Treaty (1999), 137 anarcho-­syndicalist tradition, 36, 81, 102 antidiscrimination laws: in Netherlands, 29; in UK, 47. See also nondiscrimination policies antifascism (UK), 115–16, 130 anti-­immigrant sentiment: in Netherlands, 31–34; in UK, 115–16, 120, 126 antiracist work, 3, 7; by British trade ­unions, 13, 83, 108–20, 130; by Dutch trade ­unions, 58, 83; by Spanish trade u ­ nions, 80–81, 83. See also black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers; race/ethnicity; racism Aragon region (Spain), 86–87, 100

19 0   Index Asian Africans, 47. See also black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers asylum seekers: in EU, 136; in Netherlands, 28, 31–32; in Spain, 40; in UK, 47, 49 austerity: in Spain, 38, 82, 84, 89; in UK, 108, 110, 132 Austria, 85; borders, 136; l­ abor mobility and, 137, 147–48 Belgium, 104, 136 benchmarking, 125, 154, 171n6 best practice, 51, 125, 150–52, 154, 167–68 bipartite institutions: British trade u ­ nions and, 128; Dutch trade ­unions and, 60, 159 Birmingham Race Action Partnership (UK), 53 black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers: black ­women, 5–6, 9; in Netherlands, 60, 67; special sections in British trade u ­ nions, 4, 75, 83–84, 95, 104, 110–12, 125, 161; in UK, 5–6, 107–20, 126, 129–32. See also antiracist work; race/ ethnicity; racism black, as po­liti­cal category, 170n2(ch.3) Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC), 110 Blair/Brown ­Labour government, 128 border/security issues (EU), 136–37, 139, 144, 146, 152–53 Brexit vote, 132–34 Bristol Bus Boycott (1963), 108 British immigrants in Spain, 39 British National Party (BNP), 48, 110, 115–16 British trade u ­ nions, 107–33; activism, 107, 110, 116, 118; antifascist work, 115–16, 130; antiracist work, 13, 83, 108–20, 130; bipartite institutions and, 128; black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers, 107–20, 126, 130–32; black worker sections, 4, 75, 83–84, 95, 104, 110–12, 125, 161; challenges and gaps, 158–62; class and, 21, 120–23, 132, 161; closed shop and, 43; collective bargaining, 24, 42–45; communication and, 117–20, 125–26; community groups and, 117–20, 131–32; cultural issues and, 117–20; demo­cratic participation in, 119–20; equality and, 4, 65–66, 108–11, 113–14, 124–26, 129–30; history of, 44; institutional context, 42–46, 107–8, 123–30;

language and, 117–20; leadership development, 110; learning and training strategies, 107, 109, 113–14, 126–28; membership levels and density, 3, 24, 44–45; multi-­industrial, 45; organ­izing strategies, 21, 69, 120–23, 130–32, 157–58, 161; overview of migration responses, 108–9; race/ethnicity and, 21, 23–24, 48, 107–20, 124, 129–33, 140, 161; repre­sen­ta­tion and, 124–25; self-­organizing and, 109–10, 112, 132, 158, 161; strikes, 108; tripartite institutions and, 128; unemployed workers’ centers, 127; voluntarism and, 42–45, 107, 140. See also United Kingdom (UK) British Union of Fascists, 116 business organ­izations. See employers/ employers’ associations capitalism: global, 3, 156; va­ri­e­ties of, 23, 140 Ca­rib­be­an/West Indian immigrants, 24, 46, 115 Castille La Mancha region, 87–88 Castille Leon region, 87, 94, 100 CCOO (Workers’ Commissions, Spain), 36–38, 53, 81, 83–84, 90–98, 100–102, 104–5 CEEP (Eu­ro­pean Centre of Employers and Enterprises), 142 Central Eu­ro­pean countries: EU membership, 147; immigrants from, 23, 48 CEOE (Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organ­izations), 35–36 challenges and gaps: British trade ­unions, 158–62; Dutch trade ­unions, 158–62; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 89–91, 158–62 Christelijk Nationaal Vakverbond, 25 Christian Demo­crats (Netherlands), 32 Christian-­National Union Confederation (Netherlands), 63 CITEs (Immigrant Workers’ Information Centers), 93–96 citizenship: in Netherlands, 29, 32; in UK, 46–47 class: British trade u ­ nions and, 21, 120–23, 132, 161; Dutch trade ­unions and, 56, 68–74, 76, 160; logics of action and, 18–21, 159–62; race and, 6; repre­sen­ta­tion and, 163–66; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 21, 79–80, 82–85, 104, 158, 160–61

Index   191 cleaning sector: in Netherlands, 69–72, 75–76, 160; in UK, 69, 122, 128 co­ali­tions with immigrant organ­izations (Spain), 103–6 collective agreements (Netherlands), 63–64 collective bargaining: British trade ­unions, 24, 42–45; Dutch trade ­unions, 24, 27, 68; Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions and, 142; Spanish trade ­unions, 24–25, 34, 38, 80, 85, 89 collective rights (UK), 131–32, 161 Colombian immigrants, 39, 41, 53, 87 colonial immigration: in Netherlands, 23–24, 27–28, 30; in UK, 23–24, 46–47 Commission for Racial Equality (UK), Code of Practice, 108 Common Basic Princi­ples for Integration, 136–37 Commonwealth, immigrants from, 46–47 communication, 15; British trade u ­ nions and, 117–20, 125–26; Dutch trade ­unions and, 67–68; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 92–96. See also language community groups, 15, 20; British trade ­unions and, 117–20, 131–32; organ­izing methods, 6–7; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 92–96 comparative perspective, 9–13, 18, 164–65 Confederation of British Industry (CBI), 43 Confederation of Dutch Unions. See FNV Conley, Hazel, 12 consensus model, 153 Conservative governments (UK), 43–44 Conservative-­Liberal Demo­crat co­ali­tion government (UK), 128–29 construction sector: in Spain, 41, 80, 84, 90, 97–98; in UK, 126–27 contexts, national, 156–62, 166–68. See also economic contexts; institutional contexts; po­liti­cal contexts; regulatory contexts; social contexts; welfare contexts coordinated market economy, 23 corporatism/neocorporatism: in Netherlands, 24–25, 56, 74, 141, 158, 165; in Spain, 21, 25, 82, 89, 105, 158; in UK, 44, 128, 158 Council of Ethnic Minority Voluntary Sector Organisations (UK), 53 cultural ­factors, 156–58; British trade u ­ nions and, 117–20; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 100–102. See also multiculturalism

Davis, Mary, 7 decolonization, 27–28. See also colonial immigration default-­inclusion strategies (Spain), 84–85 demo­cratic participation, 4, 163; in British trade ­unions, 119–20; in Dutch trade ­unions, 74; in Spanish trade ­unions, 25 Denmark, 3, 12, 136 deregulation: in Netherlands, 69; in Spain, 38, 158; in UK, 43 differences: in internal trade ­union structures, 146–52; in national contexts, 166–68; in regulatory contexts, 152–55 Directorate of Freedom, Security and Justice (EU), 136, 143 discrimination: in Netherlands, 55, 58, 60–61, 64–68, 159–60; in UK, 108, 124 diversity, 13, 50, 153; Dutch trade ­unions and, 58–59, 64–68, 159–60; in EU, 143; unity in, 164 domestic work, 101–2; in Netherlands, 73, 75, 160; in UK, 132–33 Dufresne, Ann, 145 Dutch Antilles, 28, 30, 57 Dutch Association for Personnel Management and Organisation Development, 170n5 Dutch East Indies, 27, 57 Dutch trade ­unions, 55–78; antiracist work, 58, 83; bipartite institutions and, 60, 159; challenges and gaps, 158–62; class and, 56, 68–74, 76, 160; collective agreements, 63–64; collective bargaining, 24, 27, 68; communication and, 67–68; demo­cratic participation, 74; diversity policy, 58–59, 64–68, 159–60; education and training, 55, 60, 67; equality policies, 65–66, 140, 159–60; ethnic minority policies, 59, 67; grassroots organ­izing, 69–72; identity of, 72, 76, 78; immigrant inclusion, 59–64, 74–78; institutional context, 25–27, 74–78; logic of action, 55–56; media campaigns, 67–68; membership levels and density, 24, 27, 56, 68–69, 71–72, 160; organ­izing strategies, 56, 68–78, 141, 165; overview of migration responses, 56–59; race/ethnicity and, 21, 23–24, 55, 64–68, 140, 160; regulation and, 160; renewal, 76; sex workers’ trade u ­ nion, 73; social rights and, 21, 55, 159–60; strikes, 71; tripartite institutions and, 60, 159; ­women in, 67. See also Netherlands

192   Index Eastern Eu­ro­pean countries, EU membership, 147 Eastern Eu­ro­pean immigrants, 23, 28, 48; attitudes ­toward, 3; in Spain, 41; in UK, 115, 130 economic contexts, 10–11, 15, 165; in Netherlands, 29–30 economic crisis of 2008, 134, 138; in Netherlands, 26; in Spain, 41, 89; in UK, 108 Ec­ua­dor­ian immigrants, 23, 39, 41, 53, 87 education. See learning and training Eemshaven campaign (Netherlands), 73 elections (Spanish trade ­unions), 37, 81, 99, 160. See also demo­cratic participation embeddedness, 21–22, 25, 34, 49, 55, 157–58, 166; Eu­ro­pean Union and, 138, 144; in Netherlands, 62, 74; in Spain, 85, 96, 104 emigration: in Netherlands, 27; in Spain, 38, 41, 81, 103–5 employers/employers’ associations: in EU, 142; immigration and, 169n1(ch. 1); in Netherlands, 61, 75; in Spain, 35–36; in UK, 43 Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities Directorate (EU), 136, 143 Employment Directive (EU), 139 employment relations: in Netherlands, 25–27, 74–78; in Spain, 34–38; in UK, 42–46 En­glish Defence League, 115 entry policies: in Netherlands, 28–29, 31; in Spain, 39–40; in UK, 47 Equality and ­Human Rights Commission (UK), 53 equality policies, 4, 7–8, 13, 50, 83; British trade ­unions, 4, 65–66, 108–11, 113–14, 124–26, 129–30; Dutch trade ­unions, 65–66, 140, 159–60; Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions, 145; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 105 Equal Work, Equal Pay campaign, 63–64 ethnicity. See race/ethnicity ETUC (Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation), 142–52; democracy in, 143; funding, 145; “managed migration,” 146–47; Mobility, Migration and Inclusion Committee, 145; renewal, 143; research at, 53–54; social dialogue and, 143, 145; social integration and, 144; ­Women’s Committee, 146; Working Group on Migration and

Inclusion, 145; Workplace Eu­rope proj­ect, 54, 135, 148–51, 166, 171n1; Youth Committee, 146 EU. See Eu­ro­pean Union EU Mi­grant Network (UK), 113 Eu­ro­pean Centre of Employers and Enterprises (CEEP), 142 Eu­ro­pean Commission, 143–45, 148 Eu­ro­pean Council, 136–37, 139 Eu­ro­pean Court of Justice, Laval judgment, 63 Eu­ro­pean Federation of Trade Unions in Food, Agriculture, and Tourism, 53–54 Eu­ro­pean Metalworkers Federation (EMF), 53; Solidarity Pact, 146–47 Eu­ro­pean Mi­grant Workers Union, 14, 146 Eu­ro­pean Trade Union Confederation. See ETUC Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions, 134–55; collective bargaining and, 142; internal structures and differences, 146–52; mapping exercises, 148–51; membership card, 147; nation-­state level responses, 140–42; race/ethnicity and, 144; repre­sen­ta­tion and, 140; resources and engagement, 142–52; supranational level, 141–42 Eu­ro­pean Union (EU), 136; 2020 strategy, 138–39; asylum seekers in, 136; border/ security issues, 136–37, 139, 144, 146, 152–53; Brexit vote and, 132–33; cross-­ border cooperation, 148–51; diversity issues, 143; employers’ associations, 142; enlargement of, 23, 48, 62–63, 120, 137, 144, 147; equality policies, 145; ­family reunification migration, 136; freedom of movement and, 134, 136–37, 146–48; illegal immigration and, 139, 143–44; immigration context, 135–36; immigration policies, 134–40; institutional contexts, 140–46, 152–55; integration policies, 136–38; ­labor market, 135–37, 139–40; ­labor mobility in, 136–37, 143–48, 152–53; mobility issues, 143–44; multiculturalism, 134; neoliberalism and, 138; nondiscrimination policies, 137, 139, 143; populist right-­wing anti-­immigration groups, 136; poverty reduction goals, 138; refugees in, 136; regulatory context, 140–42, 152–55, 166; research on, 53–54; social dialogue, 140–43, 145; social rights and, 138–39; third country immigration

Index   193 and, 144, 152–53; training programs, 139; tripartite institutions and, 145; UK membership, 132–33; ultranationalism in, 134; unemployment and, 140; vulnerable workers, 144; worker rights, 140, 142, 166; “work-­for-­welfare” programs, 139 Euroskepticism, 138 “Eurospeak,” 144 exclusion. See social exclusion exploitation of immigrants, 152–54; in Spain, 80–81, 141, 161 faith-­based organ­izations (UK), 120 ­family reunification migration: in EU, 136; in Netherlands, 31–33, 57 feminist activism, 12, 165. See also w ­ omen workers feminist research, 6 fieldwork and visits (Spanish trade ­unions), 97–99 Filipino Activist Network (UK), 113, 133 Filipino immigrants, 112, 132–33 Fine, Janice, 2, 7, 12 Finland, 136, 147 Fitzgerald, Ian, 117 flexible employment, 9, 18; in Netherlands, 26, 33–34, 56, 75; in Spain, 34, 90–91, 96 FNT (Spain), 36 FNV (Confederation of Dutch Unions), 25–26; antidiscrimination work, 60, 64; Campaign for Influence, 67; Dialogue in the Workplace proj­ect, 66; Diversity Task Force, 58–59, 65–66; on illegal employment, 170n4; ­labor migration and, 61–63; on mi­grants with criminal rec­ords, 171n7; organ­izing strategies, 76 FNV-­Abvakabo, 25–26, 66, 69, 72–73 FNV-­Bondgenoten, 25–26, 53, 58–59, 66; “Nieuwe Nederlanders” (New Dutch), 65; organ­izing strategies, 69–73, 76 FNV-­Bouw, 72 Foreigners Act (2001, Netherlands), 31 foreign national companies (Spain), 35 Fortuyn, Pym, 32, 59 FORUM (Netherlands), 60, 64, 67, 170n3 France, 136; Spanish workers in, 103–4; trade ­union repre­sen­ta­tion in, 37 Franco dictatorship, 25, 34, 36, 83, 106 freedom of movement, 134, 136–37, 146–48

freedom of speech (Netherlands), 66 Frege, Carola, 10, 157 French immigrants, 48 gaps. See challenges and gaps gender: employment and, 169–70n2; race/ ethnicity and, 5–6, 9; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 89–90. See also w ­ omen workers General Confederation of Workers (Spain), 103 General Union of Workers (Spain). See UGT German immigrants, 46, 48 Germany, 14, 136; Eu­ro­pean Mi­grant Workers Union, 146; ­labor mobility and, 137, 147–48; multiculturalism, 134; organ­izing activities, 157 global capitalism, 3, 156 GMB trade u ­ nion (UK), 53, 113–14, 122, 129 Gobin, Corinne, 145 good practice, 150–52, 155 governance, use of term, 17. See also po­liti­cal context grassroots organ­izing, 3; Dutch trade ­unions, 69–72; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 160–61 Gray, Breda, 6 Greek immigrants, 28, 30, 57 Greenwood, Ian, 8 Grunwick (1976), 108 guest workers: in Netherlands, 27–28, 30, 57; in Western Eu­rope, 135 Gunaratnam, Yasmin, 6 The Hague Program (EU), 136–37 Hall, Peter, 158 Healy, Geraldine, 5, 9 Heery, Ed, 12, 157 Holgate, Jane, 164 hospitality sector, 41, 80, 84, 97–98 hospital sector, 118, 132–33 housing: in Netherlands, 29–30; in Spain, 97, 99–100 Howell, Chris, 131 Humber (North East E ­ ngland), 117 Hungarian immigrants, 28, 48 Hyman, Richard, 12, 19, 162–63 identities: of Dutch trade ­unions, 72, 76, 78; immigrants and, 5–8, 164; of Spanish trade ­unions, 34, 96, 101; of trade ­unions, 10–11, 17–21, 158, 165

19 4   Index illegal employment, 143–44, 170n4 illegal immigration, 139, 143–44, 170n4, 171n7 immigrants, 2–3, 14–15; characteristics of, 11–12; identities of, 5–8, 164; public discourse on, 11. See also community groups; specific immigrant groups Immigrant Workers’ Information Centers (CITEs), 93–96 immigration, trade ­union responses to, 1–21; analytical model of geometry of, 156–68; Eu­ro­pean level, 134–55; in Netherlands, 55–78; research context and methods, 22–54; in Spain, 79–106; United Kingdom, 107–33 immigration history: in Netherlands, 33; in Spain, 23–25, 38–39; in UK, 109 immigration policies: in EU, 134–40; in Netherlands, 28–30, 57; in Spain, 39–40; in UK, 46–50, 130, 132–33 Imperial Typewriter (1974), 108 inclusion. See social inclusion In­de­pen­dent National Bureau against Racial Discrimination (Netherlands), 29 Indian immigrants, 23, 48 Indian Workers’ Association (UK), 4 individual rights (Netherlands), 66 Indonesian immigrants, 27, 30 industrialization, 135 informal economy (Spain), 80, 88, 96 innovative strategies, 156 institutional context: British trade ­unions, 42–46, 107–8, 123–30; Dutch trade ­unions, 25–27, 74–78; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 34–38 institutional contexts, 2, 10–11, 22–23, 165, 167; in EU, 140–46, 152–55; logics of action and, 156–62; in Netherlands, 25–27, 74–78; in Spain, 34–38; in UK, 42–46, 107–8, 123–30 integration policies: in EU, 136–38; in Netherlands, 28–30, 32; in Spain, 40, 91; in UK, 47–48 Interregional Trade Union Councils (IRTUCs), 146 intersectionality, 6, 163–64 Ireland, 6, 147 Islamophobia, 48, 115, 126. See also Muslim immigrants Italian immigrants: in Netherlands, 57; in UK, 46, 48 Italy, 28, 30, 157

Jessop, Bob, 124 Jordana, J., 37 Justice for Cleaners campaign, 69–71 Justice for Janitors campaign (US), 70–71 Kelly, John, 10, 157 KKB (Trade Union Diversity Advisory Board, Netherlands), 59 ­labor and employment relations: hierarchical model of, 9; immigration and, 1–21; in Netherlands, 25–27, 74–78; in Spain, 34–38; strength of, 14; in UK, 42–46 “­labor diplomats,” 153 ­labor inspection (Spain), 97–100 ­labor market: in EU, 135–37, 139–40; in Netherlands, 26, 33, 55–56, 58, 60–61, 64–69, 159–60; in Spain, 40–41, 79 ­labor mobility: in EU, 136–37, 143–48, 152–53; in Spain, 37 ­labor shortages, 3; in Netherlands, 27, 31, 56, 60, 62; in UK, 46, 49, 133 ­Labour Foundation, Stichting van de Arbeid (STAR, Netherlands), 58 ­Labour Party (UK), 43–45, 116, 124–25 language: British trade ­unions and, 117–20; education and information in, 32, 71, 73, 82, 109, 113, 127, 147; social inclusion and, 79, 143–44, 150, 154; tensions in, 139. See also communication Latin American immigrants, 39, 41, 102 Laval judgment (Eu­ro­pean Court of Justice), 63 Law on Integration and Citizenship (2007, Netherlands), 33 Lawrence, Stephen, 48 LBR (Netherlands), 60, 64, 170n3 leadership, 3–4, 43, 81, 95, 119, 156 leadership development, 7, 110 learning and training strategies: British trade ­unions, 107, 109, 113–14, 126–28; Dutch trade ­unions, 55, 60, 67; in EU, 139; Spanish trade ­unions, 82–83, 88–90 left-­leaning trade ­unions (Spain), 36, 84, 101, 103, 106 ­legal rights (UK), 124–25 liberal market economy, 23 Lindsay Oil Refinery dispute, 116 Lisbon Summit (2000), 137

Index   195 Lithuanian immigrants, 48, 113 Living Wage campaigns, 117–20, 128, 131–32, 161, 165 logics of action, 18–21, 52; dynamics of, 158–62, 159. See also class; race/ethnicity; social rights London Citizens, 69, 117–19, 121, 131 LPF party (Pym Fortuyn List), 32 MacEwen, Martin, 7 Madrid, Spain, 87, 94 management strategy and technique, 8, 35, 75, 125; proj­ect management, 153–54, 166 Mansfield Hosiery (1972), 108 Marino, Stefania, 11, 13, 52 Mc­Ken­zie, Roger, 7 Meardi, Guglielmo, 6, 14, 51 meat packing sector, 122 media campaigns (Dutch trade u ­ nions), 67–68 Mediterranean immigrants, 27–28, 38, 56–57, 135 Mediterranean (mixed) market economy, 23 membership levels and density: British trade ­unions, 3, 24, 44–45; Dutch trade ­unions, 24, 27, 56, 68–69, 71–72, 160; Spanish trade ­unions, 24, 35 Memorandum on Aliens Policies (Netherlands), 28 Memorandum on Minorities (Netherlands), 28 Mi­grant and Refugee Support Network (UK), 53 Mi­grant Rights Network (UK), 53 Mi­grant Workers (TUC), 120 migration contexts: in EU, 135–36; in Netherlands, 27–34; in Spain, 38–42; in UK, 46–50 Milkman, Ruth, 3 Ministry of L ­ abour and Immigration (Spain), 86 Miravet, Pablo, 91 mixed (Mediterranean) market economy, 23 mobility, 143–44. See also l­ abor mobility Mobility, Migration and Inclusion Committee (ETUC), 145 mobilization theory, 157 modernization: immigration and, 135; of trade ­union movement, 108–9, 125–26

modes of action. See logics of action Moluccan immigrants, 27–28 Moroccan immigrants: in Netherlands, 23, 28, 30, 33, 57; in Spain, 23, 39, 95, 98 Morris, Lydia, 137 Mosley, Oswald, 116 Mukherjee, Nupur, 5, 9 multiculturalism, 134; in Netherlands, 29–34, 55, 158; in UK, 47–48. See also cultural ­factors multi-­industrial ­unions, 45 Muslim immigrants: attitudes ­toward, 3, 48, 115, 126; in Netherlands, 30–32 National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (EU), 137–38 National Confederation of Workers (Spain), 103 national contexts, 156–62, 166–68. See also economic contexts; institutional contexts; po­liti­cal contexts; regulatory contexts; social contexts; welfare contexts National Front (UK), 115 nationalism, 134 nationality law (Netherlands), 29 National Minimum Wage (UK), 43 National Programme for Citizenship and Integration (Spain), 40 neocorporatism. See corporatism/neocorporatism neoliberalism: in EU, 138; in Spain, 82, 85, 89 Netherlands, 55–78; agricultural sector, 73, 75, 160; allochtonen (immigrants), 30, 59–60; antidiscrimination legislation, 29; anti-­immigrant sentiment, 31–34; asylum seekers, 28, 31–32; black minority ethnic groups, 60, 67; borders, 136; chemical sector, 77; citizenship, 29, 32; classification of immigrants, 30, 170n1(ch.3); cleaning sector, 69–72, 75–76, 160; colonial immigrants, 23–24, 27–28, 30; corporatism/ neocorporatism, 24–25, 56, 74, 141, 158, 165; deregulation, 69; discrimination in, 55, 58, 60–61, 64–68, 159–60; domestic work, 73, 75, 160; economic crisis of 2008, 26; economic policies, 29–30; emigration, 27; employers’ federation, 61; employment relations, 25–27, 74–78; entry policies, 28–29, 31; ­family reunification migration, 31–33, 57; flexible employment, 26, 33–34,

19 6    Index Netherlands (continued) 56, 75; freedom of speech, 66; guest workers, 27–28, 30, 57; housing policies, 29–30; immigrants in l­ abor market, 33, 55–56; immigration policies, 28–30, 57; immigration rates, 33; individual rights, 66; integration policies, 28–30, 32; ­labor market deregulation, 69; ­labor shortages, 56; migration context, 27–34; multiculturalism, 29–34, 55, 134, 158; nationality law, 29; nursing sector, 77; pay rates, 26, 33; pillarization, 29; polder model, 25, 70, 72; population statistics, 23; pop­u­lism, 32–33; ports, 77; public sector, 25–26, 73, 90; race/ ethnicity and, 29–34, 140; refugees, 28; regulatory context, 26–27, 61–64, 74–78, 160; regulatory framework, 26–27, 61–64, 74–78; repatriation policies, 28, 57; research in, 52–53; retail industry, 73, 160; ser­vice sector, 25–26, 165; social dialogue in, 68, 158; “social dumping,” 62; social security, 64; treaties with Spain, 28; undocumented immigrants, 31, 63, 73; unemloyment rates, 26, 30, 62; voting rights, 29; welfarism, 141, 158, 165; ­women in ­labor market, 26; young workers, 60, 62, 165. See also Dutch trade ­unions Netherlands Antilles. See Dutch Antilles networks, 15; activist, in Spain, 83, 89–90, 92–96, 98; Filipino Activist Network (UK), 113, 133; Mi­grant and Refugee Support Network (UK), 53; Polish Activist Network (UK), 113; ­women’s, in UK, 124 New L ­ abour government (UK), 43–44, 125–26 “New Style” Integration Policy (2004, Netherlands), 32 New Zealand, immigrants from, 46–47 nondiscrimination policies: in EU, 137, 139, 143. See also antidiscrimination laws North African immigrants, 41, 101 North East ­England, 117 North London, UK, 119 Northumbria (North East ­England), 117 nursing sector, 77, 132–33 Oakley, Ann, 6 Organ­ization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 13

organ­izing strategies: bottom-up strategies, 122–23; British trade u ­ nions, 21, 69, 120–23, 130–32, 157–58, 161; class logic and (see logics of action); Dutch trade u ­ nions, 56, 68–78, 141, 165; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 157; top-­down strategies, 120–23 Oviedo, Spain, 94 Pakistani immigrants, 23–24, 48, 113 Partido Popu­lar (Spain), 38 part-­time work, 26 paternalistic employment practices, 88 path-­dependency, 20, 22, 131, 158–62, 165–66 pay rates, 9, 18; Equal Work, Equal Pay campaign, 63–64; in Netherlands, 26, 33; in Spain, 80 PCS (UK), 110 Penninx, Rinus, 11, 13, 27, 30, 32–33 ­People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), 31–32 PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Mi­grants), 144 pillarization, 29 Poland: freedom of movement and, 147; trade ­unions in, 14. See also Polish immigrants polder model, 25, 70, 72 Polish Activist Network (UK), 113 Polish Brigade initiative (Netherlands), 73 Polish immigrants, 6; in Spain, 41; in UK, 23, 46, 48, 113 po­liti­cal contexts, 2, 10–11, 15–16, 158, 165. See also Eu­ro­pean Union; Netherlands; Spain; United Kingdom population statistics: in Netherlands, 23; in Spain, 23; in UK, 23, 48 pop­u­lism: in EU, 136; in Netherlands, 32–33 Portuguese immigrants, 28, 30 poverty reduction goals (EU), 138 Power to Media campaign (Netherlands), 68 precarious workers, 122. See also vulnerable workers Primero de Mayo (First of May) Foundation, 101 proj­ect management, 153–54, 166 PSOE (Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party), 36–38 publications, by Spanish trade u ­ nions, 101–2 public sector: in Netherlands, 25–26, 73, 90; in Spain, 35, 83, 90; in UK, 43, 90, 108

Index   197 qualitative research, 5, 50–54 quantitative research, 5, 52 quota system: in Spain, 39–40; in UK, 49 race/ethnicity: British trade ­unions and, 21, 23–24, 48, 107–20, 124, 129–33, 140, 161; class and, 6; Dutch trade ­unions and, 21, 23–24, 55, 59, 64–68, 140, 160; Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions and, 144; gender and, 5–6, 9; intersectionality and, 6; logics of action and, 18–21, 159–62; in Netherlands, 29–34, 140; Spanish trade ­unions and, 79–80, 83, 92–104, 141, 161; in UK, 6, 129, 140. See also black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) workers racism, 152–54; repre­sen­ta­tion and, 14. See also antiracist work racist vio­lence, 32, 48, 66–67, 116 Ramsay, Harvie, 138 refugees: in EU, 136; in Netherlands, 28; in Spain, 101 Regional Development Agencies (UK), 129 regional structures (Spain), 92–96, 105–6 regularization programs, Spanish, 39–40 regulatory contexts, 2, 9–10, 12–14, 20, 23–24; Eu­ro­pean level, 140–42, 152–55, 166; gaps and logics of action, 158–62; internal trade ­union structures and, 18; in Netherlands, 26–27, 61–64, 74–78, 160; path-­dependency and, 165; social inclusion strategies and, 16; in Spain, 35, 79–81, 84–85, 96–99, 104–6; in UK, 12–13, 109, 124, 130–32, 161 renewal, 4, 10–11, 143, 158–62, 167; Dutch trade ­unions, 76; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 80, 92–104, 106 repatriation policies, 28, 57, 135 repre­sen­ta­tion, 50–54, 140; British trade ­unions and, 124–25; class and, 163–66; comparative research on, 9–13; immigrants and, 5–9; racism and, 14; social exclusion and, 14, 16–17; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 81, 83–84, 102–6; uneven, 153 repre­sen­ta­tion and: British trade ­unions, 124–25; Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions, 140; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 81, 83–84, 102–6 research methodology, 22–25; comparative, 9–13; ethics of, 8; exploratory analytical framework, 19–21; logics of action, 18–21, 52, 158–62, 159; qualitative, 5, 50–54; race/ ethnicity and, 6

resources, 16, 142–52 retail industry, 73, 160 right-­wing groups: in EU, 136; in Spain, 86–87; in UK, 110, 115–16, 130–31 Romania, EU membership, 147 Romanian immigrants: in Spain, 23, 39, 41, 97, 102; in UK, 48 Roosblad, Judith, 11, 13 Schengen Agreement, 39, 136 Schiphol Airport cleaners, 70–72, 76 Secretariaat Ethnische Minderheden (Netherlands), 58, 65 See also Dutch trade ­unions SEIU (Ser­vice Employees International Union), 69–70, 78 self-­employment, 26 self-­organizing, 75; British trade u ­ nions and, 109–10, 112, 132, 158, 161 September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 31–32, 48 SERTUC (Southern and Eastern Regional Trades Union Congress), 119 ser­vice sector (Netherlands), 25–26, 165 small and medium-­sized firms, in Spain, 35, 41, 80–81, 85, 88, 90, 96–97 Sociaal-­Economische Raad (Social-­Economic Council, Netherlands), 58 social contexts, 2, 10–11, 14–15, 165. See also welfare contexts social dialogue: in EU, 140–43, 145; in Netherlands, 68, 158; in Spain, 91, 105; in UK, 131 “social dumping,” 62 social exclusion, 3, 163; EU policies on, 137–40; gender and, 9, 170n2(ch.1); repre­sen­ta­tion and, 14, 16–17; in Spain, 41, 83, 87, 91; in UK, 115, 117 social inclusion: challenges, 152–55; contexts and, 167–68; trade ­unions and, 1–21, 50–54; types of strategies, 16–17. See also British trade ­unions; Dutch trade ­unions; integration policies; Spanish trade u ­ nions Socialist government (Spain), 86 social rights, 13; analytical framework, 18–21; Dutch trade ­unions, 21, 55, 159–60; EU and, 138–39; logics of action dynamics and, 159–62; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 21, 79, 85–89, 105, 160–61 social security (Netherlands), 64

198   Index social ser­vices (Spain), 82, 105 Solidar, 144 solidarity, 2, 17–21, 155–56, 163, 165–68; in Netherlands, 64, 66; in Spain, 83, 105 South Amer­i­ca, 101 Spain, 79–106; agriculture, 41, 80, 87–88, 93, 97, 99–100; asylum seekers in, 40; austerity, 38, 82, 84, 89; authoritarianism, 34; borders, 136; business organ­izations, 35–36; communism, 38; construction sector, 41, 80, 84, 90, 97–98; corporatism/neocorporatism, 21, 25, 82, 89, 105, 158; deregulation, 38, 158; domestic workers, 101–2; economic crisis of 2008, 41, 89; emigration, 38, 41, 81, 103–5; employment relations, 34–38; entry policies, 39–40; exploitation of immigrants, 80–81, 141, 161; flexible employment, 34, 90–91, 96; foreign national companies and, 35; Franco dictatorship, 25, 34, 36, 83, 106; health and safety hazards, 80; hospitality sector, 41, 80, 84, 97–98; immigrant organ­izations, 87; immigration history, 23–25, 38–39; immigration policies, 39–40; informal economy, 80, 88, 96; integration policies, 40, 91; internal migration, 38; ­labor inspection, 97–100; l­ abor market, 40–41, 79; ­labor mobility, 37; migration context, 38–42; neoliberal reforms, 82, 85, 89; organ­izing activities, 157; paternalistic employment practices, 88; pay levels, 80; population statistics, 23; public sector, 35, 83, 90; quota system, 39–40; refugees in, 101; regularization programs, 39–40; regulatory context, 35, 79–81, 84–85, 96–99, 104–6; research in, 53; right-­wing groups, 86–87; small and medium-­sized firms, 35, 41, 80–81, 85, 88, 90, 96–97; social dialogue, 91, 105; Socialist government, 86; social welfare policies, 82, 105; trade ­union movements, 20–21; treaties with Netherlands, 28; undocumented workers, 40, 81, 84, 86, 141; unemployment rates, 40–41; ­women workers, 37, 40–41, 95, 101–2, 105, 165; worker accommodations and housing, 97, 99–100; worker rights, 83–84, 99; work permits, 39; xenophobia, 81, 84, 87; younger workers, 95. See also Spanish trade u ­ nions Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organ­izations (CEOE), 35–36

Spanish diaspora, 102, 104 Spanish immigrants, 30, 57, 104 Spanish trade u ­ nions, 79–106; activist networks, 83, 89–90, 92–96, 98; advisory/ information centers, 82, 92–96, 151, 161; anarcho-­syndicalist tradition and, 36, 81, 102; antiracist work, 80–81, 83; archival proj­ects, 101–2; challenges and gaps, 89–91, 158–62; class and, 21, 79–80, 82–85, 104, 158, 160–61; co­ali­t ions with immigrant organ­izations, 103–6; collective bargaining, 24–25, 34, 38, 80, 85, 89; competition between, 99; cultural interventions, 100–102; default-­inclusion strategies, 84–85; demo­cratic participation in, 25; elections, 37, 81, 99, 160; equality policies, 105; fieldwork and visits, 97–99; gender and, 89–90; grassroots organ­izing, 160–61; hunger strikes, 103; identity of, 34, 96, 101; institutional context, 34–38; interunion relationships, 37–38; learning and training, 82–83, 88–90; left-­leaning, 36, 84, 101, 103, 106; membership levels, 24, 35; overview of immigration responses, 80–82; publications, 101–2; race/ethnicity and, 79–80, 83, 92–104, 141, 161; regional structures, 92–96, 105–6; renewal, 80, 92–104, 106; repre­sen­t a­t ion and, 81, 83–84, 102–6; social rights and, 21, 79, 85–89, 105, 160–61; social ser­vices, 82; special sections, 84; strikes, 102; tripartite institutions and, 81–82, 85, 87–88, 103, 160; voice and, 102–6, 153; welfare issues and, 99–102; workplace elections and, 37. See also Spain stakeholders: comparative research on, 9–13; stakeholder theory, 8; voice and, 8–9, 14 Stirling, John, 117 strikes: British trade ­unions, 108; Dutch trade ­unions, 71; Spanish trade u ­ nions, 102 ­Sullivan, Wilf, 7 Surinamese immigrants, 23, 28, 30, 33, 57 Sweden, 85, 136, 147 Tanzania, 47 Tapia, Maite, 164 terrorism, 31–32, 48, 136 Thatcher government (UK), 43, 128 Thelen, Kathleen, 158

Index   19 9 Tichenor, Daniel, 12 Tomlinson, Jennifer, 169–70n2 Trades Union Congress (UK). See TUC trade ­unions: contexts of, 156–62; demo­cratic participation in, 4, 25, 74, 119–20, 163; external coordination prob­lems, 153; framing of issues, 10–13; geometry of responses to immigration, 156–68; identities of, 10–11, 17–21, 34, 72, 76, 78, 96, 101, 158, 165; immigrants and, 1–21, 50–54; institutional context, 22–23; internal coordination prob­lems, 153; logics and modes of action, 18–21, 20, 52, 158–62, 159; membership levels, 3; models of, 23–24; renewal, 4, 10–11, 76, 80, 92–104, 106, 143, 158–62, 167; research context and methods, 22–54; responses to immigration, 1–21; social inclusion and, 1–21; as social organ­izations, 2. See also British trade ­unions; Dutch trade ­unions; Eu­ro­pean trade ­unions; Spanish trade u ­ nions “Trade Unions without Borders” resolution, 146–47 training programs. See learning and training Transport and General Workers’ Union (UK), 45 Treaty of the Eu­ro­pean Union (TEU), 142 tripartite institutions: British trade ­unions and, 128; Dutch trade ­unions and, 60, 159; EU and, 145; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 81–82, 85, 87–88, 103, 160 TUC (Trades Union Congress, UK), 45, 53, 108, 110, 112, 114–16, 119, 123, 127–29; Mi­grant Workers, 120 Turkish immigrants, 23, 28, 30, 33, 57 Turner, Lowell, 1 UCATT (Union of Construction Allied Trades and Technicians), 126–27 UGT (General Union of Workers, Spain), 36–38, 53, 83, 91–95, 97–100, 102–5 UKIP (United Kingdom In­de­pen­dence Party), 115–16 ULF (Union Learning Fund), 109, 113 ultranationalism, 134 UMF (Union Modernization Fund), 109, 113, 121, 125–26 undocumented workers: in Netherlands, 31, 63, 73; in Spain, 40, 81, 84, 86, 141

unemployment: in EU, 140; in Netherlands, 26, 30, 62; in Spain, 40–41; in UK, 48, 127 UNESCO, 103 UNI (­union), 171n6 UNI-­Europa, 53 Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne—­BusinessEurope, 142 Union Learning Fund (ULF), 109, 113 ­union learning representatives (ULRs), 127 UnionMigrantNet, 147 Union Modernization Fund (UMF), 109, 113, 121, 125–26 Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (UK), 53, 114 Unison (UK), 53, 110, 113, 115, 118–23, 126–27, 129, 133; Mi­grant Worker Participation Proj­ect, 109, 121 Unite (UK), 45, 53, 78, 110, 122, 129; Mi­grant Worker Support Unit, 121 United Kingdom (UK), 107–33; antidiscrimination laws, 47; anti-­immigrant sentiment, 115–16, 120, 126; asylum seekers in, 47, 49; austerity, 108, 110, 132; benchmarking, 125; Brexit vote, 132–33; citizenship, 46–47; cleaning sector, 69, 122, 128; Co­ali­tion Government (2010), 108; collective rights, 131–32, 161; colonial immigrants, 23–24, 46–47; construction sector, 126–27; corporatism/neocorporatism, 44, 128, 158; deregulation, 43; discrimination in, 108, 124; domestic workers, 132–33; economic crisis and, 108; employers’ associations, 43; employment relations, 42–46; entry policies, 47; EU membership, 132–33; faith-­based organ­izations, 120; hospital sector, 118, 132–33; immigration policies, 46–50, 130, 132–33; immigration rates, 109; integration policies, 47–48; ­legal rights, 124–25; meat packing sector, 122; migration context, 46–50; modernization of ­labor relations, 125–26; multiculturalism, 47–48, 134; population statistics, 23, 48; precarious workers, 122; public sector, 43, 90, 108; quota system, 49; race/ethnicity and, 6, 129, 140; racist vio­lence in, 48, 116; regulation in, 12, 161; regulatory context, 12–13, 109, 124, 130–32, 161; research in, 2, 53; right-­wing groups, 110, 115–16, 130–31; social dialogue, 131; state intervention in

20 0   Index United Kingdom (UK) (continued) industrial relations, 42–45, 123–30; trade ­union movements, 20–21; unemployment, 48; vulnerable workers, 122, 126; welfare ser­vices, 129; ­women’s networks, 124; work rights, 43; xenophobia in, 3, 116, 130. See also British trade u ­ nions United Kingdom In­de­pen­dence Party (UKIP), 115–16 United States (US): international organ­izing, 69; organ­izing strategies, 122, 157, 160; research in, 2; trade ­union membership levels, 3; worker centers, 7, 131 universality, 164, 167–68 van Gogh, Theo, 32, 59, 66–67 Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen-­ Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, 61 Vermeulen, Hans, 27 voice: comparative research on, 9–13; immigrants and, 5–9; po­liti­cal discourse and, 16; Spanish trade u ­ nions and, 102–6, 153; stakeholders and, 8–9, 14; structure of, 15 Voice4Change ­England, 129 voluntarism (UK), 42–45, 107, 140 vulnerable workers, 122, 126, 144, 153–54; in EU, 144; in UK, 122, 126 VVD (­People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy), 31–32 Waddington, Jeremy, 157 Walby, Sylvia, 170n2(ch.1) Watts, Julie R., 85, 91 weaknesses, 12, 35, 68, 131, 162, 165–66

welfare contexts, 2, 140, 154; in EU, 139; in Netherlands, 141, 158, 165; in Spain, 99–102, 105; in UK, 129 Western Eu­rope: immigrants in, 135–36. See also Eu­ro­pean Union; Netherlands; Spain; United Kingdom West Indian immigrants. See Ca­rib­be­an/West Indian immigrants ­women workers, 146; activism, 12, 165; black, 5–6, 9; exclusion of, 9; in Netherlands, 26, 67; in Spain, 37, 40–41, 95, 101–2, 105, 165; in UK, 124. See also gender worker rights, 3, 18, 24; in EU, 140, 142, 166; in Spain, 83–84, 99 workers’ centers, 7; in Spain, 82, 92–96, 151, 161; in UK, 127; in US, 7, 131 Workers’ Commissions (Spain). See CCOO “work-­for-­welfare” programs (EU), 139 working class, 166–68. See also class Working Group on Migration and Inclusion (ETUC), 145 working time, 9, 18 work permits (Spain), 39 workplace elections (Spain), 37 work rights (UK), 43 Wrench, John, 7, 12–13, 18, 140, 169n1(ch. 1) xenophobia, 3, 152–53; in Spain, 81, 84, 87; in UK, 3, 116, 130 Yorkshire (UK), 117 young workers, 146; in Netherlands, 60, 62, 165; in Spain, 95 Yugo­slav immigrants, 28, 30, 57 Zapatero government (Spain), 86