Trade Union Inclusion of Migrant and Ethnic Minority Workers. An Italy-Netherlands Comparison

1. Trade Union Inclusion of Migrant and Ethnic Minority Workers. An Italy-Netherlands Comparison Stefania Marino ESRC Migration Seminar Series, WLRI, London, 15 July, 2011

2. Literature Migration studies: union stances towards migrant workers • Trade unions ‘historical dilemmas’ (Castles and Kosack, 1985; Penninx and Roosblad, 2000) and current problems (analysis union debate) • Influent variables on trade union responses (Wrench, 2004; Krings, 2009) Labour relations studies: union strategic choices • Structural dilemmas and interest representation (Regini, 1981; Schmitter and Streeck, 1981) • Explaining union strategic choices (Hyman, 1975; Pizzorno, 1978 + Frege and Kelly, 2003; Turner, 2005)

3. Heuristic Scheme Social versus Industrial rights Class Union Multiculturalist Union Model Inclusion versus Exclusion Unitary versus Pluralist model Equal versus Special Treatment Multiculturalist Associative Model Political versus Bargaining action Migrant Workers Self Organization

4. formal New Union illegal legal Sabotage informal Heuristic Scheme Social versus Industrial rights Class Union Multiculturalist Union Model Inclusion versus Exclusion Unitary versus Pluralist model Equal versus Special Treatment Multiculturalist Associative Model Political versus Bargaining action Migrant Workers Self Organization

5. Research Design Case studies Two dissimilar systems: the Netherlands and Italy Two similar unions: FNV(NL) and CGIL(I) Most comparable sector: metal sector - FNV-Bondgenoten and FIOM-CGIL Focus on: Inclusive efforts (measured by the speech-action gap) Main question: Which external factors and internal union variables are influent in practice in explaining different outcomes? Methodology: Analysis of union documents and interviews Period: Late 1990s - 2008

6. Research Design Central Level Rhetoric Actions Speech-action gap Bottom-Up Process Top-Down Process Vertical gap Local Level Rhetoric Actions Speech-action gap

7. Union Formal Debate

8. Union Action and Outcomes

9. Explanatory Variables Social and economic changes Common drives: Economic crisis at the beginning of 2000s and worsening of social climate Dutch case:Marginality of migrant issues in debate and action (presence of ‘more urgent priorities’)/diminished coordinating activity of the confederation. Increasing hostility towards migrant workers on workplaces affecting policies implementation Italian case: Increasing formal concern for migrant rights, Increasing servicing and bargaining activities.

10. Explanatory Variables Institutional embeddedness Dutch case: Corporatist processes ‘bind’ union claim to labour related issues and lower the recourse to political disputes. Rupture of social dialogue in 2004: FNV shift towards the ‘organising’ model in the 2005. Italian case: Anti-union attitude of centre-right governments lower social bargaining but strengthen union efforts towards migrant workers. CGIL involvement in central policy making increases the differences with FIOM

11. Explanatory Variables Union structure Dutch case: Strong centralization, Lack of decentralized structures, Scarce presence on workplaces Problems in representing and recruiting migrant workers, Lowering implementation of special measures Italian case: Capillary articulation of union structure (both CGIL and FIOM), autonomy of decentralized structure, Strong presence of trade unions on workplaces Direct contact with migrant workers, Awareness of migrant workers needs, Implementation of policies locally meaningful

12. Explanatory Variables Communication processes Dutch case: Top-down character of internal communications Low level of discussion and informal exchanges among trade unionists, Isolation of specific bodies, ‘Company-based’ union identity Italian case: Good top down and bottom-up processes. Good communication link between FIOM workplace representatives and the organization, Provision of identity goods

13. Explanatory Variables Union identity Dutch case Between ‘society and market’. Institutional influence, based on the ‘political dimension’ shaping union general action. Italian case: CGIL identity ‘between class and society’: defense of social rights as union tasks , intervention in the social and political sphere as a ‘political subject’. FIOM between ‘market and class’: emphasis on internal democracy (inclusion of migrant workers as sign of internal coherence). Class identity: (migrant) representatives on workplaces as representatives of all workers independently by their cultural background.

14. Conclusions • Wider speech-action gap in the Dutch case than in the Italian one • Higher power of attraction in the Italian case and consideration of social and labour related problems • Inverse relationship between union institutional embeddeness and union inclusive efforts: influence on union’s perception of migrant and ethnic minority inclusion as either ‘threat or opportunity’ • Contextual factors: explaining rhetoric and policies; however social and economic changes influential only in one national case due to the different degree of institutional embeddedness • Internal union variable and dynamics: explaining speech-action gap and union outcomes • In both cases no cultural changes: in Italy, assimilation to union culture. However, the democratic space within the union: cultural change promoted from the inside as expression of the internal union democracy