Migration and industrial relations

Migration, both within the European Union and from other countries, has been at historically high levels in recent years. In this comparative study, we examine the issue from the perspective of industrial relations. The study provides information on levels of migration and the numbers of migrant workers, before examining their labour market and employment situation and outlining the key elements of government policy and legislation in this area. Finally, we look at the views and activities of the social partners and the extent to which issues relevant to migration are dealt with in collective bargaining.

For many years, the migration of people from country to country has been a major issue on the policy agenda of the European Union and its Member States, and its importance has increased in recent times. Notably, in 1999, the Treaty of Amsterdam gave the EU competence for immigration from outside the Union and the Tampere European Council in October of that year agreed on the basic elements of a common immigration policy (covering all Member States apart from Denmark, Ireland and the UK, though the latter two may opt in on a case-by-case basis), these being that:

• it should be based on a comprehensive approach to the management of migratory flows, so as to find a balance between humanitarian and economic admission;
• it should include fair treatment for third-country nationals, aiming as far as possible to give them comparable rights and obligations to those of nationals of the Member State in which they live;
• a key element in management strategies must be the development of partnerships with countries of origin, including policies of co-development; and
• there must be a common policy for asylum which fully respects the terms of the Geneva Convention and the Member States’ obligations under international treaties.

The European Commission has since proposed a series of Directives dealing with matters such as the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for paid employment and self-employed activities, the right to family reunification and the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. A key element of the emerging strategy is the view that the EU needs migrants in certain sectors and regions as one element of the policies being developed to deal with its economic and demographic needs.

At the same time, the EU has been increasingly keen to promote the free movement of workers within the Union, both as an 'essential element of European Union citizenship' and to promote the creation of a genuine European labour market (EU0103202F). Efforts are increasingly being made to break down the barriers which still prevent full free movement in areas such as access to employment and social security (EU0301205F).

The phenomenon of migration predates the EU, and migratory flows have long occurred between the countries of Europe. In the 19th century, industrialising nations drew workers from neighbouring countries with, for example, Irish people moving to Britain, Italians to France, and central Europeans to the German empire. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the period since 1945 has been one of continuous international migration in Europe, with migratory flows ebbing and flowing but always occurring. Migration into Europe from other parts of the world also increased substantially in the post-war years, especially from the former colonies of some countries. The numbers of migrants have recently been high in historical terms, and the 1990s were the most 'migratory' decade for the continent since the Second World War. The recent period has been characterised by new migrations, particularly involving central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Migration is of course closely connected to the labour market, with many people migrating for purposes of work. It can play a role in meeting employers' needs for labour, in the light of demographic change or skills shortages, while at the same time raising questions such as the relationship between migrant workers and nationals who are unemployed, or the fair treatment of migrant workers in employment, both on grounds of equity and related to concerns about 'social dumping' in the form of a pool of migrant workers employed on a low level pay and conditions, or willing to accept employment on such terms. In this context, it can be expected that migration will have major effects on industrial relations systems and become an issue for the social partners and in dialogue and bargaining between them, as well as a theme in government employment policy and legislation.

The aim of this comparative study - based on the contributions of the European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) national centres in the EU Member States, Norway and four candidate countries (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) - is to analyse the effects of migration on industrial relations. To accomplish this objective, the study:

• provides basic statistical information on migration and migrants, relating to overall numbers, labour market participation, and employment/unemployment;
• summarises the available data on migrant workers' employment/working conditions, pay and unionisation;
• explores government policy and legislation on migration-related issues;
• outlines the views and activities of the social partners; and
• explores the extent to which migration-related issues are dealt with in collective bargaining.

Problems of definition

Before proceeding to the analysis, its hold be noted that there are major problems relating to definitions in this area. Terms such as 'migrants', 'immigrants' and 'foreign workers' tend to be used relatively freely and unspecifically, and statistical data are based on varying definitions. The main focus of this study is on people resident in a country of which they are not a national, though this presents difficulties, as people may, for example, be born and reside in a country without having the nationality of that country. A better approach would probably be to focus on people taking up residence outside the country of their birth, but data rarely specifically cover this group. For the purposes of this study we use the information which is available for each area, while specifying the definition used.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the areas of policy and action examined in this study may not affect all groups within the migrant population and may equally affect nationals - eg legislation or other action on the prevention of discrimination against racial or ethnic minorities is not directly relevant to all migrants, while it may be directly relevant to many nationals.

Finally, it is important to define clearly the terms 'asylum-seeker', 'refugee' and 'illegal immigrants'. We use the term 'asylum-seeker' to refer to people who enter another country and apply to be granted asylum by that state, based on internationally or nationally recognised refugee rights. We use the term 'refugee' to refer to people who have been granted such asylum and are thus recognised as having refugee status. We use the term 'illegal immigrant' to refer to people who enter or remain in a country in contravention of that country's rules on entry and residence for non-nationals.

Basic data on migration, the labour market and employment

When studying migration, one encounters severe data problems (on top of the difficulties of definition mentioned above). Considerable gaps exist in data availability in both western and central/eastern European countries, but especially in the latter. The principal reasons are administrative and legal. Moreover, data on illegal migrants are almost by definition unreliable. For this study we rely mainly for general data on studies by the European Commission and Eurostat (notably The social situation in the European Union 2002 and Patterns and trends in international migration in western Europe 2000).

Presently, there are 19 million non-nationals (ie people resident in a country of which they are not a national) living in the 15 EU Member States, accounting for 5.1% of the Union's total population. Some 30% of these (around 6 million people) are nationals of other Member States, representing 1.6% of the total EU population. The largest numbers of nationals of other Member States are to be found in Germany, with over 1.8 million, and France, with over 1.3 million. These countries are followed by the UK, with over 800,000 other EU nationals, and Belgium, with over half a million. EU citizens (ie every person holding the nationality of a Member State) have the right to move and reside freely within the EU. They have access to employment in any Member State, with an accompanying right of residence for themselves and their family members, and they must not be discriminated against on grounds of nationality. Free movement can mean moving fully to another Member State, or commuting daily or weekly across a national border. Such free movement rights also apply within the European Economic Area (EEA) - the EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway (ie the European Free Trade Association[EFTA] countries, except Switzerland).

The remaining 13 million non-nationals, 3.4% of the total EU population, are non-EU nationals. The share of the total population made up of EU citizens living in other Member States has changed very little over the last two decades, remaining close to 1.5%, while the share of non-EU nationals is increasing (from 2.3% in 1985 to 3.4% in 1999). Unlike EU citizens, 'third-country' nationals do not enjoy the right to free movement in the European Union.

A considerable number of people enter or stay within the EU illegally and carry out undeclared work, often in sectors and regions where the 'underground' economy is more developed. According to the European Commission: 'both illegal and legal immigrants are more vulnerable than national workers; they are often ready to make concessions concerning their wage and other work-related rights.'

Over 65% of the total foreign population in the EU and EFTA states lives in Germany, France and the UK. In 1996, about 37% of all foreign nationals lived in Germany, the largest single 'receiving country' in western Europe. France had a share of 18.4% and the UK of 10.2%. Other countries with notable shares of the total foreign population in the EU/EFTA were Switzerland with 6.8% and Italy with 5.1%. Spain, Sweden, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands had shares ranging between 2.6% and 4.6%. In the remaining countries, the foreign population represented around 1% or less of the total foreign population in the EU/EFTA.

The share of foreign nationals in the total population varies considerably from country to country, although proportions have been rising generally. The total share of foreign residents relative to the total population in the EU/EFTA states increased from 3.9% in 1988 to 5.1% in 1996. The most recent data available are presented in table 1 below.

Table 1. Population by main citizenship groups (% of total) in the EU, 2000 (or latest data)

Country	Nationals	Nationals of other EU Member States	Non-EU nationals
Austria	90.7	1.2	7.9
Belgium	91.7	5.5	2.8
Denmark	95.2	1.0	3.8
Finland	98.3	0.3	1.4
France	94.4	2.0	3.5
Germany	91.1	2.3	6.7
Greece	98.5	0.4	1.1
Ireland	96.7	2.4	0.9
Italy	97.8	0.3	1.9
Luxembourg	65.1	31.0	3.8
Netherlands	95.9	1.2	2.9
Portugal	98.1	0.5	1.4
Spain	98.0	0.8	1.2
Sweden	94.5	2.0	3.5
UK	96.1	1.5	2.5

Source: Eurostat. Denmark and UK - 1999 data; Austria, France and Luxembourg - 1998 data; Greece - 1997 data.

Foreign workers

The most recent research available from Eurostat suggests that in western Europe there were about 7.46 million recorded foreign (ie non-national) workers in 1996 (using the latest data for each country). This represented an increase of about 27% on the 1988 figure (6.2 million), but only 1% on that for 1994. The majority of foreign workers in western Europe in 1996 - like the majority of the foreign population - was concentrated in Germany and France, with a total of over 4.68 million workers between them. The UK had around 878,000 foreign workers.

The largest groups of foreign workers in Germany are nationals of Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and Italy; in France, nationals of Portugal, Algeria and Morocco; and in the UK, Irish nationals. Turks are the largest single foreign worker group in Germany and the Netherlands, and the second-largest group in Austria; former Yugoslavs are the largest group in Austria, the second-largest in Sweden and Switzerland; whilst Italians are the most prominent group in both Switzerland and Belgium. Moroccans are the second-largest group in both Belgium and the Netherlands.

The proportions of workers from other EU Member States among all foreign workers varies considerably, from well over 90% in Luxembourg to around a fifth in Portugal. In Luxembourg, Belgium and Ireland, 70% or more of foreign workers come from other Member States. In Germany, Denmark, Italy and Portugal, 20%-30% of the foreign workforce are EU nationals. In between the extremes are France, Greece, the Netherlands and the UK, at 40%-50%.

The available statistics on the numbers of foreign workers in central and eastern European countries are limited. The numbers recorded are low, certainly in comparison with those for western Europe, and in recent years have fluctuated.

Participation in the labour market

Foreign workers enter the full spectrum of occupations, but seem to be concentrated largely at the top and bottom of the labour market. At one end of the scale, in the UK, for example, many migrant workers are in professional or skilled occupations - eg 31% of doctors, 13% of nurses and 12.5% of academic and research staff in universities and colleges are migrant workers. In comparison with the UK-born population, migrants are more likely to have a university degree (19% compared with 15%), or to have no qualifications (19% compared with 16%). An example from the candidate countries is Slovakia, where the relatively small number of non-national workers in the Bratislava region are concentrated largely in jobs such as banking experts, professional football players and doctors.

Although some of the flow of immigrants is thus into highly-skilled jobs, a far larger group of migrants work at relatively low skill levels, especially in labour-intensive sectors such as catering and cleaning. An example is Spain, where 28% of migrants are employed in unskilled jobs, compared with a national average of 14%. In Portugal and Italy, many migrants can be found in building and construction and in blue-collar jobs in manufacturing industry. In Hungary, the share of manual workers is much higher among foreign work permit-holders than among nationals (72% against 45%). The difference is even stronger for unskilled manual workers. Overall, migrants are more likely than average to be found in blue-collar jobs and less likely than average to be found in white-collar jobs or in public employment, with certain areas of governmental/state employment to a large extent closed to migrants in countries such as France. However, a distinction should be made between different countries of origin: migrants from western countries invariably tend to be found in higher-skilled jobs to a greater extent than the national average.

The polarisation of the labour market position of migrant workers - whereby they are found mainly in the highest and lowest skilled occupations - seems strongest in the candidate countries covered by this study (Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia).

Recent figures from the European Commission (Employment in Europe 2002) confirm that across the EU non-EU nationals are disadvantaged compared with EU nationals in terms of employment and unemployment. In the EU in 2001, their labour market participation rate (62%) was significantly lower than that of EU nationals (69%), as was their employment rate (52%, compared with 64%). However, this is not the case in all countries, at least as far as the employment rate is concerned: in Greece, Italy and Spain the employment rate of non-EU nationals is above that of EU nationals. This can probably be explained, according to the Commission, by the fact that EU nationals are not prepared to work in low-skilled sectors such as agriculture, construction and domestic work, where the share of non-EU nationals is very high.

As the Commission notes, the differences between EU nationals and non-EU nationals are even more striking when the employment rate is disaggregated by skill level - see table 2 below. The employment rate for high-skilled EU nationals (those having completed tertiary education) was about 83% across the EU in 2001, compared with 66% for non-EU nationals. The widest gaps are found in the Nordic countries and Belgium. The employment rate for the low skilled (less than upper secondary education) is lower than for the high skilled, and the difference between EU and non-EU nationals is small, at only 4 percentage points higher for the former - indeed the employment rate for low-skilled non-EU nationals exceeds that for low-skilled EU nationals in Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain. This seems to reflect the concentration of non-EU nationals in low-skilled sectors and occupations.

Table 2. Employment rates for high- and low-skilled people, by nationality in the EU, 2001

.	Employment rate for high-skilled (completed tertiary education)		Employment rate for low-skilled (less than upper secondary education)
Country	EU nationals	Non-EU nationals	EU nationals	Non-EU nationals
Austria	86.6	79.9	45.2	58.5
Belgium	84.4	49.4	41.6	26.8
Denmark	87.9	54.5	59.6	44.7
Finland	75.7	58.9	49.6	37.6
France	80.1	57.2	47.2	38.8
Germany	84.0	64.5	44.8	45.6
Greece	79.3	68.5	47.6	63.7
Ireland	86.3	67.6	49.0	33.4
Italy	81.6	63.9	44.3	57.3
Luxembourg	84.5	71.0	50.7	55.5
Netherlands	87.2	68.2	62.3	40.0
Portugal	89.8	95.0	67.8	66.7
Spain	76.1	74.5	51.1	62.2
Sweden	83.7	55.0	56.6	35.6
UK	88.2	74.8	52.8	33.5
EU	83.3	65.8	49.2	44.9

Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey.

In sectoral terms, the pattern of use of foreign labour predominantly reflects the economies of the receiving countries. Agriculture is important only in countries which still have a significant agricultural sector, mainly the Mediterranean and candidate countries and to a lesser extent the Netherlands and France. In Germany, about one in five foreign workers work in metal manufacturing and about a third in manufacturing in total. Manufacturing accounts for around a quarter of foreign workers in Belgium, Ireland, France and the Netherlands. Construction is particularly important in Slovenia, France and Luxembourg, but hardly at all in Denmark and the Netherlands.

The most important sectors for the employment of migrants include distribution, hotels and catering. In Greece, nearly 30% of foreign workers are found in these areas, while the figure is around 20% in Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the UK. These sectors have many low paid jobs with unfavourable working conditions. Another important sector is 'other services', which employs more than 40% of foreign workers in Denmark and over 30% in the UK and Ireland. It is also very important in Greece, Spain and the Netherlands. As with distribution, hotels and catering, many of the jobs are characterised by flexible contracts and unfavourable working conditions (see below under 'Employment conditions').

Foreign workers and unemployment

Foreign workers are more vulnerable to unemployment than nationals. However, a distinction should be made between workers from other EU Member States and those from outside the Union - the situation for the former group is much better than for the latter. In most countries, unemployment rates among foreign women are higher than those among foreign men.

Overall in the EU, the unemployment rate for non-EU nationals is about twice as high as that for EU nationals (at around 16% in 2001). This is true in all Member States, with the biggest gaps to the detriment of non-EU nationals in Belgium, France, Finland and Sweden. Non-EU nationals are very vulnerable to cyclical downturns, because a large proportion are employed on fixed-term contracts - 20% compared with 13% of EU nationals (see below under 'Employment conditions').

As stated above, statistics for the candidate countries are scarce, but the evidence available suggests that unemployment disproportionately affects non-nationals even more than in the EU. In Slovakia in 2001, migrants constituted 0.17% of total employment but 0.87% of total unemployment - ie a rate five times higher. In Slovenia in the same year, the share of migrants in the total workforce stood at 4.1%, while their share in unemployment was more than eight times as high (at 35%).

Asylum-seekers In recent years, asylum-seeking from prospective refugees has become a major issue in all EU countries. Asylum applications to EU countries more than doubled in the three years following the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Numbers then dropped to almost the 1989 level. In 1997, the number of applications again began to rise. Germany has dominated the list of destination countries for people seeking asylum in the EU and EFTA. Since 1985, some 47% of all applications, over 2.2 million, have been made in this country. This total is over five times the number reported to have been received in the next most important destination country, France, with 9%, or about 445,000 applications. After Germany and France, the most important destinations in the last decade have been Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands, each with 7% (330,000 each), and Switzerland with 6% (300,000). These six countries alone have received 83% of all asylum applications in the EU/EFTA region since 1985.

Employment conditions

Employment status

Migrants are more likely than average to have 'flexible' and fixed-term contracts. To take the example of fixed-term contracts, across the EU these were held by over 20% of non-EU nationals in 2001, compared with 13% of EU nationals - see table 3 below. In Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden, non-EU nationals are more than twice as likely to have a fixed-term job as EU nationals. In the French private sector, the proportion of non-EU migrants with temporary agency work contracts is almost three times the proportion of French nationals, while for fixed-term contracts the proportion it is almost double. In 2000 in Sweden, in the 25-59 age group, the share of people with fixed-term employment was twice as high for migrant workers as for Swedish national workers. In the Netherlands in 2001 well over 12% of 'non-western' migrant workers had a flexible/temporary contract, compared with 6% for Dutch nationals.

Table 3. % of people of working age on fixed-term contracts, by nationality in the EU, 2001

.	EU nationals	Non-EU nationals
Austria	8.1	8.8
Belgium	8.6	18.5
Denmark	9.3	18.6
Finland	17.8	32.5
France	14.7	20.8
Germany	12.2	17.0
Greece	12.3	21.8
Ireland	3.6	4.5
Italy	9.5	11.2
Luxembourg	4.2	7.5
Netherlands	13.8	32.4
Portugal	19.7	55.6
Spain	31.2	58.2
Sweden	13.9	35.3
UK	6.3	17.9
EU	13.0	20.2

Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey.

To some extent Italy seems to be an exception to this rule in terms of new recruitment: in 2002, fixed-term contracts represented 25.4% of total hirings among migrant workers, compared with 32.8% for all workers. Therefore, new open-ended employment contracts are more common among migrant workers than among all workers. An explanation might be that these figures only pertain to the private sector. This is the explanation for a comparable finding in France, where the share of migrants with open-ended contracts in the private sector is actually higher than that of French nationals, but the proportion of migrants working in the state sector is much smaller than that of French-born and naturalised employees.

Part of the explanation of the high incidence of fixed-term and flexible contracts among non-nationals is that in some countries this is the only type of contract available for migrants from outside the EEA. Examples are Austria, France and, among the candidate countries, Poland. In the UK, the work permit scheme under which most migrant workers enter the national workforce, by definition, initially provides a form of temporary contract, although as with many other fixed-term contracts, it is often extended into an open-ended employment contract later.

In many countries, a relatively large proportion of migrants are self-employed. An example is the UK, where the self-employment rate is 13.8% for foreign-born people, compared with 10.7% for UK-born people. Migrants from the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent have the highest levels of self-employment (20%-25%), suggesting that cultural factors - and discrimination in the labour market - may encourage these groups to seek more entrepreneurial ways of earning a living.

Pay

The relatively unfavourable situation of many migrants on the labour market - ie many (though, as noted above, by no means all) are concentrated in low-skilled jobs and sectors and/or are employed on an 'atypical' basis - is understandably reflected in their wage level (and illegal immigrant workers, of course, are likely to be in an even worse position). A recent EIRO comparative study on low pay found that migrants tend to be among the low-paid groups in a number of countries (TN0208101S). Detailed information on this point is rarely available, but widespread low pay is reported from countries such as Spain, while migrant workers may be vulnerable to problems such as unauthorised deductions from pay (eg as reported for the UK). Belgium is one of the few countries where more comprehensive information is available, and while the information dates from 1995, it gives a clear indication of the wage inequalities faced by foreign nationals (especially from outside the EU) and women - see table 4 below.

Table 4. Pay differences by gender and nationality, Belgium

Country of nationality	Men	Women
Belgium	100% (reference index)	-15% to -40%
Neighbouring countries	15% to -8%	-24%
Italy	2% to -17%	nd
Spain, Greece and Portugal	2% to -17%	-35%
Morocco	5% to -22%	-41% to -63%
Turkey	-5% to -26%	-44% to -60%

Source: 'La prévention du racisme sur les lieux de travail en Belgique', A Martens, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1995.

Some data are also available from Norway, where recent research has found that 'non-western' immigrants earn considerably less than Norwegian-born employees, even after a long time in the labour market (NO0301103F). The income of non-western immigrants is more vulnerable to cyclical developments such as increasing unemployment than that of native-born Norwegians, and income differentials thus increase during periods of economic downturn and decrease in times of prosperity. Overall, the earnings gap between non-western immigrants and native-born Norwegians is 20%-30% for men and somewhat lower for women. All groups of immigrants improve their relative positions vis-à-vis the native population over time, but the process of catching up and narrowing the income gap varies considerably between groups of immigrants.

Working conditions

Overall, it appears that migrant workers are often worse off than nationals where working conditions are concerned. In many countries, there is a hierarchy, ranging from nationals via western/EU/EEA-born migrants to those from the rest of the world. At the bottom are illegal immigrants. The problems or practices faced to a greater extent by foreign workers than nationals may include: working on weekends, holidays, at night or in alternating shifts (as in Germany); less job security (Spain); inadequate training (the UK); excessively long working hours (the UK); and poor health and safety conditions or accident rates (Austria, Spain and the UK). A distinction can be drawn between types of health and safety problem, with migrants more likely to be exposed to 'classical' hazards, such as noise and lifting weights, than 'new' risks such as work stress and repetitive strain injury (as evidence from, for example, the Netherlands suggests).

Much of these poor conditions can be explained by the job and sectors in which many migrants are employed. An example is Hungary, where the working conditions of migrants are not significantly different from those of nationals in non-manual activities, but are worse in manual activities and much worse in the illegal sector. Indeed, in countries with a large 'shadow economy', the illegal immigrants which make up much of the workforce generally face highly unfavourable and unregulated working conditions. The 'accident-prone' construction sector is frequently mentioned as an example - for example, in Portugal almost all fatal accidents in this sector involve migrant workers.

One particular case of discriminatory treatment of non-EEA migrant workers deserves mention, though it refers to employee representation rather than working/employment conditions more widely. In Austria, there has been a long-running controversy over the fact that non-EEA nationals are not allowed by law to stand in elections to works councils (AT0208202F).

Trade union membership among migrants Although there is a lack of statistical information for most of the countries covered by this study, trade union density among migrant workers seems to be lower than the average. Examples of below-average overall density for migrants (often based on estimates) are Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK. However, even if migrant workers have a relatively low density in national terms, this may still be high when compared with unionisation rates in many other countries, as in Belgium for example. Furthermore, there are often considerable sectoral variations within countries where the overall density for migrants is below average. For example, in Norway, the overall union density for 'non-western' migrants is 36% compared with an average of 56%. However, density for the two groups is equal in private manufacturing (at 54%), but much lower for non-western migrants in private services (21%, compared with 36% for all workers) and the public sector (45%, compared with 77%). In the UK, the unionisation of foreign workers is thought to be lower than the (low) average in hotels/restaurants and wholesale/retail, but nearer the (high) average in public education and health services. Similarly, in Denmark, unionisation of migrant workers appears to be lower than average in sectors such as hotels/catering and cleaning, but nearer average levels elsewhere. Overall, indeed, it seems that an important factor explaining their below-average union density in many countries is that many migrants work in such service sectors, where unionisation is traditionally low. However, the picture of notably low relative unionisation among migrant workers is not universal. In Sweden, for example, union density among foreign workers is only marginally lower than the 80% figure for Swedish nationals. Even more notably, in the Emilia Romagna region of Italy, research indicates that union density among migrants is significantly higher (45%) than the average (36%).

Legislation and government policy

In this section, we explore government policy towards migration, including the relevant legislation. Government policies cover a wide range of migration-related topics and here we look at:

• the permit system (work permits, residence permits etc);
• integration;
• equal treatment and anti-discrimination;
• 'regularisation'; and
• integration of policies

Legislation on permits

All western European countries covered by this study have some system of work and residence permits for people from outside the EEA/EU, usually with several types of permits, while candidate countries have a permit system for all foreigners. An example is Belgium, with three different permits. An 'A' work permit is valid for all paid jobs and is of indefinite duration, although it is restricted to a limited number of people (for example, those who have been living in Belgium for five years, and those who have been working for four years on a 'B' work permit). A 'B' work permit is restricted to employment with a single employer and is valid for a maximum of one year (renewable), and it is for the employer to make the application. A 'C' work permit, of recent origin, may be used for employment with all employers, and is valid for a maximum of one year (also renewable).

Another example is Ireland, where in the great majority of cases permits are issued to employers, not directly to migrant workers themselves. A system like this makes it hard or impossible for workers to move freely to another job without getting another permit. The alternative to these permits are the much rarer 'work visas', which allow free movement on the Irish labour market for various specialist workers.

Since the 1980s and 1990s, countries have generally adopted a more restrictive immigration policy than previously, often not allowing non-EEA residents to enter the labour market, with some exceptions.

Austria seems to have the most restrictive legislation among the countries examined when it comes to entry to the labour market for non-EEA nationals. First, general criteria of the 'labour market situation and development' and 'public and economic interests' have to be fulfilled, which means that foreign nationals may be employed only if no Austrian citizens are available to fill a job. The second obstacle refers to a maximum quota of non-EEA foreign workers to be employed in Austria (AT0109128N), fixed by law at a rate of 8% of the total workforce according to the Aliens Employment Act (§12a Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz, AuslBG). This rate may be increased by a maximum of 1% for special employee groups, such as foreigners entitled to unemployment benefits, certain refugees, and high-skilled 'key workers' with special qualifications. Moreover, if they become unemployed for more than a certain length of time, 'third-country' workers risk losing their residence permit and - as a consequence - being expelled from the country.

In having created barriers to the labour market entry of non-EEA citizens, Austria is not alone. France is another example of a country which has long pursued a restrictive policy. Since 1974 the authorities have been able to refuse an application to work by a foreigner because of the 'current and future employment situation in the occupational field requested by the foreign worker and the geographical area in which he/she intends to work' (Article R 341-4 of the Labour Code). As in France, employers in most countries trying to import workers from outside the EEA usually have to show that they have done their utmost to fill the vacancies with nationals or EEA citizens. In the UK, for example, an employer applies for a work permit for a particular employee for a specific job, and has to show that no resident workers are available with the requisite skills and experience. In Ireland under new, tighter, work permit arrangements introduced in January 2002 (IE0202203N), employers are required to provide a letter from the state Training and Employment Authority (Foras Áiseanna Saothair, FAS), confirming that all reasonable efforts have been made by the employer in cooperation with FAS to fill the vacancy in either the domestic or the wider EEA labour market.

Because of shortages in parts of the labour market, however, there is a growing tendency to make exceptions. Sometimes permits are no longer needed for certain categories of non-EEA foreign workers. Examples include: so-called 'key workers' in Austria (earning more than EUR 2,000 per month before taxes); specialist medical staff, information technology and construction professionals (defined as architects, planners and engineers) in Ireland; and - among others - highly-qualified foreigners whose proposed monthly pay exceeds EUR 4,000 in France. Similar measures have been taken by Germany (DE0003252F), the UK, Norway (NO0012113N) and the Netherlands (NL0212102F).

Several countries set annual quota for immigrants. Examples are Norway (5,000 for 'specialists'), Austria (2,400 for key workers) and Spain (ES0112244F). In the latter country, the government, after consulting the Higher Council for Migratory Policy (Consejo Superior de Política Migratoria), and (in theory) the most representative social partners, establishes a 'manpower contingent' stating the number and characteristics of employment offers for non-resident foreign workers and indicating the sectors and occupation concerned. In Slovenia, the quota stands at 5% of the active working population.

In most countries, the present system can still be characterised as 'non-immigration' from outside the EEA, with exceptions being made for specific types of job. There is however a tendency in some cases to reform the system in the direction of 'controlled immigration' as used by countries such as the USA and Australia.

For example, in September 2000, the German coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) and Alliance 90/The Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) decided to set up a special 'immigration commission' (Zuwanderungskommission) to suggest new immigration policies (DE0105223F). In July 2001, the commission issued its final report which - among other proposals - suggested the provision of new options for controlled immigration from outside the EU as well as supporting the integration of immigrants into working life and German society in general. While some details of the report were disputed, employers, trade unions and the government largely supported the commission's findings and suggested changing immigration law accordingly. In November 2001 a comprehensive proposal for an Immigration Act was drafted. It was modified by migration experts from both ruling parties and then submitted to the federal parliament for adoption. The two chambers of parliament approved the legislation in March 2002 but constitutional problems arose which have left the fate of the legislation uncertain at the time of writing (DE0210204F). The Immigration Act specifies several groups of migrants who can obtain a temporary or permanent residence permit for the purpose of employment (such as highly-qualified people), adding further groups on humanitarian grounds.

Integration and labour market policies

A second body of legislation pertains to the integration of migrants into the labour market. For example, in Austria, the abovementioned restrictions on immigration have been accompanied by an intensification of integration programmes. Under an 'integration contract' (Integrationsvertrag) scheme introduced in 2002, all foreign employees who have lived in Austria for less than five years must attend a German-language course. If they fail, they are at danger of expulsion. Unemployed foreign nationals are offered education and job training programmes.

Another example of this approach is provided by Denmark, where in March 2002 the government issued new measures based on a policy that immigrants and refugees should be integrated into the labour market as fast as possible (DK0203103F). The means adopted are:

• giving newly-arrived non-EEA foreign nationals the possibility of work experience in an enterprise for a period of up to 12 months, on a special introductory wage;
• providing language training at the workplace, so as to avoid immigrants having to learn Danish for three years before they can enter the labour market; and
• rewarding 'good performance'. Immigrants may obtain a permanent residence permit after five years instead of the normal period of seven years, if they make a successful effort to be integrated into Danish society and are self-supporting. 'Bad performance', on the other hand, results in cuts in benefits.

In Spain, immigrants may be employed for their first two years in the country on a 'job training contract'. This involves lower social security costs, no unemployment benefit, in general a lower wage cost (it may be even lower than the national minimum wage), and the devotion of 10% of working time to training.

In many countries, integration programmes are shaped at the local level. An example is Finland, where municipal authorities draw up such programmes in cooperation with employment offices, immigrants’ organisations and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In 2001, more than 11,000 integration plans for individual migrants were drawn up on the basis of these programmes.

In several countries there are few or no integration measures specifically directed at migrants, because the idea is that policies should be aimed at all long-term unemployed people or otherwise disadvantaged groups. In Belgium, this is the case in the regions of Wallonia and Brussels, while in Flanders some policies are specifically aimed at populations of migrants. However, other countries do pursue policies specifically directed at foreign nationals. In Germany, for instance, the proposed new immigration legislation referred to above introduces a legal commitment on integration, with measures for both new arrivals and those who have been in the country longer. This aims to address a situation in which integration measures (primarily basic language courses and, to a lesser degree, courses in social orientation) have been largely voluntary and aimed only at some groups of migrants - notably ethnic Germans from eastern Europe and people who have approved asylum status or are refugees under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

Legislation with the aim of increasing migrants' opportunities on the labour market is mainly directed at the 'supply side'- ie the migrants themselves. Measures directed at the 'demand side', to stimulate firms to hire migrants, are much more unusual. However, an example of this approach is provided by the Netherlands - see the box below.

Dutch measures to encourage the employment of migrant workers To improve the labour market position of migrant workers living in the Netherlands and to stimulate their participation in the labour market, in 1998 the government implemented the (temporary) Promotion of Labour Participation of Ethnic Minorities Act (Wet Stimulering Arbeidsdeelname Minderheden, SAMEN) (NL9805176F). This was the result of close consultation with the social partners. The Act was recently extended until 1 January 2004. The main goal of the Act is to stimulate individual employers to ensure a proportional participation of migrant workers within their company. Proportional participation is reached if the number of migrants in the employer's workforce corresponds to their share in the regional population. To enable monitoring of employers’ efforts, the Act obliges employers to publish an annual report which includes the number of migrant workers on their staff and the specific steps taken to improve their participation. Before submitting the report, the works council must be consulted. Enforcement of the Act is possible through (civil) legal action by parties such as the social partners, social organisations and the works council. Official reports found that in 1998 some 65% of the employers concerned complied with the Act, a figure which increased to 69% in 1999 and 74% in 2000. In June 2000, the Dutch government reached a framework 'covenant' (Raamconvenant Grote Ondernemingen) with a number of major companies in order to promote a multicultural policy in individual companies and stimulate the employment of ethnic minorities. By March 2002, a total of 110 companies had signed the agreement. It includes arrangements on trainee programmes, recruitment of ethnic minorities and 'intercultural management'. In 2000, a similar, though sector-wide agreement was reached with representatives of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). By the end of 2002, some 30,000 employers had offered employment to migrants under the scheme and more than 60,000 migrants had been employed, of whom 63% were still in this employment (NL0208102F).

One of the problem areas for migrants trying to enter the upper end of the labour market is the recognition of their diplomas, skills and qualifications (this issue is addressed in the EEA through a number of mutual recognition initiatives). Immigrants often experience a disparity between their qualifications and their work, and measures are being taken in some countries to address this problem. For example, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research is in the process of improving the system for validating education and work experience acquired abroad (NO0207101F). Moreover, vocational testing is being established for immigrants who have learned a trade abroad in upper secondary school or through work experience, but do not have a certificate. In Sweden, a new government position of Integration Minister was created in 2002, one of whose first tasks is to tackle the the increasing number of skilled migrant workers who are in unskilled jobs, but want employment corresponding to their qualifications.

Finally, mention should be made of initiatives taken to organise training programmes in the countries of origin of migrants. Notably, new legislation to regulate immigration which came into force in Italy in August 2002 (IT0209103F) envisages the possibility of providing training programmes - which may be organised in cooperation with trade unions and employers’ associations - in countries of origin to provide specific skills, with a view to:

• matching demands from Italian firms for workers in particular sectors and jobs;
• promoting recruitment in Italian multinationals operating in the country of origin; and
• fostering economic development and independent entrepreneurial initiatives in the country of origin.

Anti-discrimination measures

A third category of legislation and government policy of relevance to many migrant workers relates to equal treatment and combating discrimination and racism. All countries covered by this study have some kind of legislation in this field. As noted above, EEA citizens moving between countries are protected by EU law from discrimination on grounds of nationality.

In some countries, there is specific legislation to deal with discrimination against foreigners or ethnic minorities, while in others the issue is covered by general equal treatment/anti-discrimination legislation or constitutional provisions. However, there seems to have been a tendency recently for countries to introduce or strengthen specific legislation against racial and ethnic discrimination. This is in some cases linked to the fact that the EU has been devoting considerable attention to this matter. Notably, Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (EU0006256F) was adopted in 2000 and must be implemented by July 2003, while the 2001-6 Community action programme to combat discrimination supports activities combating discrimination on grounds including racial or ethnic origin.

Ireland is a good example of relatively recent legislation on this issue, with two major new laws covering direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnic origin - the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the Equal Status Act 2000. The Employment Equality Act (IE9909144F) outlaws discrimination on the nine grounds, including race. The Equal Status Act 2000 incorporates the same grounds for prohibiting discrimination as the Employment Equality Act, but its anti-discrimination prohibitions extend beyond employment discrimination into the public arena, in relation to issues such as access to education and housing and the provision of goods and services.

Countries which have recently revised and strengthened their anti-discrimination legislation in this area include Sweden (SE9903148F), Belgium (BE0212304F) and France (FR0112152F). In Norway, the government is planning to introduce an Act relating to ethnic discrimination (NO0207101F), and a bill to this end will be submitted in 2004. The new law should include: a general ban on ethnic discrimination; a duty on public authorities and employers to promote ethnic equality and prevent discrimination, and the principle of shared burden of proof in cases of discrimination.

Beyond legislative measures, a number of governments have recently launched action plans and campaigns on combating racial discrimination. For instance, in October 2001 the Irish government issued a three-year national anti-racism awareness programme, aimed at educating people and changing attitudes to diversity and racism (IE0112228F). This approach seems common in the Nordic countries: in 2001, the Finnish government launched a three-year action plan to combat ethnic discrimination and racism, entitled Towards ethnic equality and diversity; in 2000, the Swedish government launched a national action plan against racism and ethnic discrimination; while the Norwegian government presented a similar five-year plan in summer 2002. The Norwegian case is particularly interesting. Adherence to the principle of non-discrimination is to be made a precondition for all subcontractors and suppliers of goods and services to state institutions, thus making non-discrimination a criterion in competition over public contracts. The state sector receives special attention in the strategy, and one of its main objectives is to prevent discrimination in relation to recruitment and promotion in this sector. State sector enterprises must thus, among other measures: interview at least one applicant of immigrant origin for all vacancies, insofar as the person's qualifications satisfies the requirements of the job; and draw up statistics and data on the number of people with a minority/immigrant background employed in the various state sector enterprises and ministries.

Regularisation and naturalisation

Given the growing number of illegal immigrants, in many countries there is a recurring debate on the issue of 'regularising' their position. In Italy, for example a process of regularisation of migrant workers in an irregular position was started following new legislation in September 2002 (IT0209103F). The procedure involved both domestic workers - including care workers - and dependent employees. Overall, more than 700,000 requests for regularisation were presented - 340,000 concerned domestic workers and 360,000 dependent employees. In March 2002, the Luxembourg parliament called on the executive to regularise 'undocumented' people, after which the government decided to make a gesture in their favour by giving them a two-month deadline in which to regularise their situation (LU0112140F). This procedure has enabled 1,153 non-EU foreigners to obtain valid temporary work permits. Regularisation is also a current issue, not least for the social partners, in countries such as Belgium (BE9904171N), the Netherlands, Portugal (PT0103138N) and Spain (ES0102134F).

In several countries, there have been recent changes in nationality legislation, sometimes making it easier for migrants to acquire nationality in the host country. Examples include Finland and Germany.

Integration of policies

In several countries, governments are seeking to integrate the different policy fields related to migrant workers. An example is the UK. A White Paper published in February 2002 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 cover a wide range of issues. Alongside new measures to tackle illegal working, the government has developed a much more active policy of 'managed migration'. Measures have been introduced to streamline and extend the legal migration routes previously available, and to open up new routes where appropriate, focusing on the need for short-term casual labour, as well as highly-skilled migrants and 'hi-tech' business entrepreneurs.

Government policy on asylum-seekers and refugees The subject of people seeking asylum in western Europe deserves a study of its own. Here we restrict ourselves to a few general remarks on issues related to the labour market and the attitude and policy of social partners. In the past few years, there has been a general tendency in the EU to reduce the influx of asylum-seekers (and illegal immigrants). The general rule is that asylum-seekers are not allowed to enter the labour market. For example, in France, their right to child and housing benefit was abolished in 1986, as was their right to work in 1991. As asylum-seekers in France receive no income, sometimes for protracted periods, even when they have dependent children with them, and as fewer than 20% of them are offered accommodation in specialised facilities, these forms of exclusion from economic and social rights inevitably push them to offer their services in undeclared work, for which there is a high demand in sectors such as construction, catering, the clothing industry, agriculture, and personal services. Usually, only asylum-seekers who are granted refugee status are free to enter the labour market. There are some exceptions to this rule. An example is Luxembourg: a May 1999 Grand-Ducal Regulation allows the Minister of Labour and Employment to issue a temporary employment authorisation valid for a maximum of six months for people coming from an area recognised as a war zone, such as Kosovo. In the UK, until their applications have been decided, asylum-seekers are not usually allowed to work, but if a decision has not been made after six months, they can apply for permission to work.

The social partners and migration

In this section, we examine: the involvement of the social partners in government policy on migration; the views and activities of the social partners on labour migration and migrant workers; and the extent to which the issue has been dealt with in collective bargaining.

Social partners' involvement in migration policy

With only few exceptions, the social partners in the countries examined are consulted by governments on issues relating to migrant workers. The level of consultation varies, however, from consultation on specific issues such as quotas to involvement in the drafting of all relevant policies. A brief summary of the relations between governments and social partners specifically relating to migration and associated issues is presented in table 5 below. This excludes cases where the social partners are consulted on all legislative proposals and/or policies with employment and social implications (which are likely to include migration) through standing bipartite and tripartite bodies - such as the Belgian National Labour Council (Conseil National du Travail/Nationale Arbeidsraad) or Greek Economic and Social Committee.

Table 5. Specific involvement of social partners in legislation and government policy related to migrant workers

Austria	Government tends to consult the social partners on migration policy, including fixing quotas and other restrictive measures. However, there has recently been a tendency partially to ignore the views of the social partners (especially trade unions) - eg on quotas for seasonal workers.
Denmark	A notable example is a May 2002 agreement between the social partners, municipalities and government on stronger measures to integrate immigrants and refugees into the labour market (DK0206104F). The accord establishes a three-stage integration procedure, involving work experience and training as a preparation for normal employment.
Finland	Tripartite consultation on migration policy.
France	No real involvement on migration policy, though some involvement in areas such as combating racial discrimination (FR9906188F).
Germany	Social partners were involved in the 'immigration commission' which drew up a report which formed the basis for the recent Immigration Act (see main text).
Greece	Social partner involvement in committees monitoring labour market programmes, which affect migrants.
Hungary	Very low level of involvement.
Ireland	Little formal involvement on migration policy, some involvement in government anti-racism initiatives.
Italy	Social partners consulted in the drafting of migration policies and may be invited to meetings of the Coordination and Monitoring Committee on immigration. The social partners are represented on national bodies dealing with immigrants and their integration and on local committees dealing with immigration.
Luxembourg	Involvement (mainly by employers) in bilateral 'labour force agreements' with other countries, and (by all social partners) in regularisation policies for illegal immigrants.
Netherlands	Close involvement in almost all government policies related to the labour market, including migration policy.
Norway	Consultation and involvement in almost all legislation and government policies related to migration, and representation in a new ethnic diversity forum.
Poland	Consultation on migration policy with social partners and other NGOs.
Portugal	Cooperation on dealing with illegal immigration, especially in the hotels, building and metalworking industries.
Slovenia	Consultation on immigration quotas.
Spain	Consultation (in theory at least) on setting migrant worker quotas. Government subsidises integration activities of social partners.
Sweden	Consultation on migration policy.
UK	Consultation before changes to migration policy, including issues such as work permits. Social partners are represented on a new working group on illegal immigration.

Source: EIRO

Social partners' positions and activities

In two of the countries examined, it appears that migration is not a significant issue for the social partners and that they have seen no need to develop a policy on the matter. At one extreme is Slovakia, where the number of migrants is negligible, and at the other is Luxembourg, where there are so many (mainly EU) immigrants and migrant workers that no specific policy has been developed. In Slovakia, immigrants make up only 0.17% of the labour force (a figure comparable with Poland and, to a lesser degree, Hungary). In Luxembourg, by contrast, half of the labour force is made up of foreign residents and cross-border workers from the neighbouring countries of Germany, France and Belgium. In the Luxembourg economy, the demand for labour exceeds supply. Employers´ organisations have developed no special policy towards migrants - with employers' view on the matter limited to expecting foreign employees to match the relevant job profile and speak French or German - and trade unions have done so to only a limited extent.

Between these extremes lie all the other countries considered. In these countries, two issues appear to determine to a large extent the principles and positions of employers’ organisations and trade unions - labour shortages and equal rights for migrants. These two issues may be closely linked, especially in the underground economy (as reported, for example, from Greece). The particular views of the social partners related to these two themes, and their inter-relationship, vary from country to country, but before proceeding to examine them, it should be mentioned that one country seems to stand out in terms of social partner positions on the equal rights issue.

In Austria, the social partners appear to agree on the principle that Austrian citizens should be favoured in the national labour market. 'Positive discrimination' in favour of Austrian nationals is given some legal and collectively agreed support - as well as the ban on non-EEA nationals standing in works council elections (see above under 'Working conditions'), another example is that a legal hierarchy of categories of employee (starting with Austrian nationals, followed by other EEA nationals, then non-EEA nationals etc) has been used in some collective agreements as an order of priority for dismissal and recruitment. Although the demand for labour exceeds domestic supply, employers’ organisations do not tend to oppose recent government regulations restricting immigration, not least because the authorities are flexible in applying the rules, usually meeting companies' requirements by adjusting quotas at regional or national level. The Austrian Trade Union Federation (Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB) generally appears to support the restrictive government policy on immigration.

Employers' organisations

Present and future labour shortages seem to be the main reason for employers’ organisations in western Europe to develop stances and policies on migration and immigrant workers (in the candidate countries examined, there is very little in the way of employers' organisations' policies or activities in this area). Employers’ organisations in countries such as Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries point to long-term demographic developments, with a declining number of young people and an increasing number of older people. As well as reducing the size of the workforce, this may weaken the basis of the social security and pensions system. Not only at present, but also in the near future the entry into the labour market of migrant workers is widely perceived as necessary by employers in the great majority of countries. In particular, employers in Sweden and Finland are emphatic on this point, with Finnish employers’ organisations stating that present standards of living cannot be sustained without migrant workers. France is something of an exception, as - given current high unemployment - employers’ organisations do not tend to believe that labour immigration is necessary, and give priority to addressing labour shortages from among the existing unemployed (including immigrants). However, French employers in sectors such as private healthcare and information technology (IT) consultancy face particular recruitment problems which lead them to take a different view.

With few exceptions, the idea of a free market in trade and people, especially within Europe, is widely embraced by employers’ organisations, which thus press governments to reduce and simplify regulations, as is the case in countries such as Norway, the Netherlands and Germany. However, in most countries considered, confronted as they are with specific labour shortages, their interest in such a free market in people is conditioned by their own demands for labour. In Norway, for example, employers’ organisations embrace the government’s policy to allow greater immigration by non-EEA unskilled workers. Sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, construction and healthcare are dependent on non-Nordic labour.

The majority of employers’ organisations in western Europe are thus of the same opinion on the necessity of immigration to meet labour shortages. In many countries, employers criticise governments for being to slow, bureaucratic and ponderous on these subjects, and have made proposals to the government to tackle these problems. Examples include the following.

• Spanish employers' organisations have developed plans for the creation of national immigration services by setting up 'integrated units'. These units, based on tripartite collaboration, would deal with immigration procedures, vocational training, accommodation, transport and childcare. Employers stress the importance of concerted action with countries such as Morocco or Ecuador on identifying potential candidates for immigration into Spain (on the basis of factors such as their social situation, age or qualifications) and establishing training and recruitment programmes in their country of origin. This would facilitate these workers' integration in the Spanish labour market and provide them with a legal status. Employers also argue for autonomy for companies in their recruitment policies. They believe the company to be fundamental to the integration of immigrants.
• In the UK, the Confederation of British Industries (CBI) emphasised in a March 2002 policy document the important contribution that migrants have made to the UK economy. It argues that measures to improve and augment existing entry routes for migrants must be concentrated in areas of real skill shortage - such as highly-skilled professionals in advanced IT, engineering, the health service and teaching, as well as lower-skilled jobs in hotels and catering, construction, transport and retail distribution. The CBI supports most aspects of current government policy, with the exception of proposed charges to be levied on work permit applications.
• Controlled immigration is the key issue for employers in Germany. The two largest employers’ and business organisations - the Confederation of German Industries (Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, BDI) and the Confederation of German Employers' Associations (Bundesverband der Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, BDA) - argue for a systematic immigration and integration policy. Controlled immigration should follow the demands of the labour market and be supported by integration measures, primarily language courses. In their view, there is a large demand on the labour market for qualified and highly-qualified employees. In addition, demographic developments and the resultant weakening of the social security system demand more labour than is current available. On the other hand, employers also want to restrict misuse of asylum law and accelerate asylum procedures. On the EU's enlargement to the east, the employers recommend a rapid introduction of free movement of labour. According to BDA, free movement of labour will result in more growth, and the integration of workers will become both feasible and desirable. Employers' organisations argue for a 'cosmopolitan society' without discrimination; on a more practical level, they support arrangements at company level to tackle discrimination against migrants.

A brief summary of the actions of employers and employers' organisations on migration issues is provided in table 6 below. In some countries - as in the German case mentioned above - employers’ activity is first and foremost aimed at central government. In other countries, action is also taken (often cooperation with trade unions and other parties) at lower levels, such as sectors, local areas or companies.

For example, Dutch employers' organisations see immigration is a fact of economic life. For the two largest organisations - the Confederation of Netherlands Industry and Employers (Vereniging Nederlandse Ondernemers-Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, VNO-NCW) and the Dutch Federation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Midden- en KleinBedrijf-Nederland, MKB-Nederland). - the Netherlands is and will remain a country of immigration. Employers are very specific about which kind of employees (especially IT workers and other specialists) are needed from other countries. With regard to migrants already living in the Netherlands, explicit employers' policies started around 1990. In that year, in the bipartite Labour Foundation (Stichting van de Arbeid), employers' organisations agreed with trade unions on principles and practices in this area. The principles were to recruit and retain more migrant workers, reintegrate (together with the authorities) unemployed migrants in the labour market, and develop a multicultural personnel policy.

On a practical level, the Dutch social partners agreed to attempt to reduce unemployment among people from ethnic minorities to the national average by creating 60,000 jobs before 1996. When they had to concede that these efforts were proving unsuccessful, a decentralised approach was developed. VNO-NCW and MKB-Nederland reached two 'covenants' on recruitment from ethnic minorities, for very large companies and - at sector level - SMEs respectively (see above under 'Dutch measures to encourage the employment of migrant workers'). In cooperation with local authorities and in an expanding economy, these measures have succeeded in more closely matching labour demand with supply, with the result that unemployment among migrants was reduced from four times as high as that for Dutch nationals in 1996 to twice as high in 2002.

Italy offers another example of decentralised policies, in this case at the 'territorial' level. Various aspects of the working and living conditions of migrant workers (eg training, housing, social inclusion and employment services) have been addressed in a number of territorial agreements, concluded between the social partners and the local authorities at the regional, provincial or more local levels (IT0209206F). Furthermore, individual employers and their organisations have taken various initiatives aimed at assisting the integration of migrant workers in the workforce, and also in society more widely, taking the view that social inclusion may help to improve the reliability of workers and the stability of the employment relationship. Thus, some employers offer training to upgrade skills and Italian-language courses, or help ensure the availability of proper housing (which represents a major obstacle to the integration of migrant workers).

Another area where individual employers may act to support migrant workers is by addressing discrimination and operating 'diversity management' practices. Ireland offers several interesting examples of such action. At IBM’s sales and service centre in Dublin, 70% of the 1,350-strong workforce are non-Irish nationals. With this in mind, the company emphasises the importance of diversity. The centre runs diversity education programmes, in which trainers conduct short courses where diversity issues are explored. According to management, apart from the moral imperative to treat all workers equally, there is a real economic and market imperative for such measures. The Eircom telecommunications company cites the same argument for its diversity strategy and 'dignity at work' programme - ie it wants to capitalise on a diverse workforce. The perceived benefits for Eircom lie in: the retention of experienced employees; an edge in recruitment; a reduction in labour costs; improvements in productivity, job satisfaction and commitment; and enhanced customer service and retention.

Trade unions

Cooperation between the social partners on issues relating to migration issues is widespread in the EU countries and Norway, as indicated above. Trade unions and employers' organisations share many views and in some cases even jointly oppose government policy. At the same time, on the issue of the desirability or level of further labour immigration, in many countries unions adopt policies and viewpoints that are critical of the 'liberal' viewpoints of employers' organisations, seeing the idea of a free market for people as misleading. For example, in Norway and Belgium, unions are opposed to open borders for the purpose of 'importing' further foreign workers. Unions in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland stress the problem of unemployment among migrants already in the country. Specific worries about the effects on national labour markets of the EU's forthcoming eastward enlargement are reported from countries such as Austria, Finland and Germany (especially in the construction sector). In the candidate countries, unions in Hungary are concerned about the import of cheap labour from neighbouring eastern European countries. Less concern about a possible 'threat' to their members from new migration seems to be the case in countries such as Italy and the Netherlands.

To take the example of Belgium, the two largest union confederations - the Confederation of Christian Trade Unions (Confédération des Syndicats Chrétiens/Algemeen Christelijk Vakverbond, CSC/ACV) and the Belgian General Federation of Labour (Fédération Générale du Travail de Belgique/Algemeen Belgisch Vakverbond, FGTB/ABVV) - would like to control migratory flows as much as possible and see economic migration as solution of last resort to labour market shortages. CSC/ACV believes that solutions to labour shortages should first be sought in the domestic labour market and that integration efforts should be stepped up, as earlier immigrants have not yet been fully absorbed into the labour market. New immigration should be on primarily humanitarian rather than economic grounds. In the UK, trade unions are generally in favour of migration to meet labour shortages, but try to ensure that the government and employers do not try to solve shortcomings in pay, working conditions and training with short-term measures that rely on 'poaching' workers from overseas.

In terms of the actions of unions on topics relating to migrant workers, there seems to be some activity in most countries with the exception of the candidate countries, where migration does not appear to be a significant issue. In western Europe, migration seems to be an important topic, generating considerable trade union activity, in countries such as Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK, but arguably to a lesser extent in countries such as Austria, Denmark, France and Luxembourg. Major types of trade union action include the following.

• One common area of union activity of relevance to migrant workers is involvement in, or the instigation of, campaigns and initiatives to combat racism and promote equal treatment for migrants. Such actions are reported from the majority of western European countries. For example, all the main French trade union organisations run more or less proactive anti-racism campaigns, while the German unions participate in government-led programmes against racism and intolerance and coordinate a network of NGOs against racism and for equal rights. In some cases, such as Belgium and Germany, unions have taken action to combat the influence of the far-right. Specific campaigns to promote equal rights for migrant workers - often in non-employment areas (such as housing and political rights) as well as in employment - feature in many countries, such as Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Unions have also conducted campaigns on the position of particular groups of migrants - such as people from the Philippines working in private sector nursing homes and private households in the UK.
• Practical trade union assistance and support for migrant workers and their labour market and social integration are reported from countries such as Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. This may take the form of advice, information, special services and involvement in integration programmes. For example, Italian unions have set up special services to meet migrants' needs, within their existing benefit advice centres, which provide assistance in many areas, such as obtaining residence permits. Unions in countries such as Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal provide support for, and/or cooperate with, organisations representing migrants.
• Connected to the previous point, special departments and services to deal with migrants and migration issues have been set up by trade unions and/or their confederations in countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Educating trade union officials and members on the issues affecting migrant workers receives attention in a number of countries, such as Sweden and the UK. The Swedish Trade Union Confederation (Landsorganisationen, LO) launched a five-year programme in 2002, providing trade union education on discrimination and other migration-related matters, including the use of 60 specially trained instructors (SE0107107N).
• Union recruitment initiatives directed specifically at migrant workers are reported only from a minority of countries, such as Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. However, in Sweden these are limited, given high union membership levels among migrant workers, while in Norway they are generally limited to sectors with large numbers of migrants and low overall union density. In some cases, efforts are being made to improve the involvement of migrant members in trade union work - eg Finland and Norway - and their representation in union structures and among union officials - eg Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands.
• A few trade unions have taken measures to improve cooperation with trade unions in migrants' countries of origin - eg some unions in Portugal and the UK - or provide information to workers in these countries - eg the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (Suomen Ammattiliittojen Keskusjärjestö, SAK) has opened an information office in Estonia to inform potential migrants to Finland of employment conditions and rights there.
• Finally, much of the above refers to unions' views and actions with regard to legal migrant workers. In countries with large numbers of illegal immigrants, these seem to be a major issue for trade unions. Thus unions in countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain devote considerable attention to supporting illegal foreign workers (and recruiting them in some cases) and seeking to regularise their situation and defend their rights. Regularisation is also, if to a lesser extent, an issue for unions in countries such as Belgium and Luxembourg.

A brief summary of the activities of trade unions (and employers/employers' organisations )on migration issues is provided in table 6 below. The table excludes employers' recruitment of migrants and (in most cases) involvement in bipartite or tripartite dialogue and collective bargaining.

Table 6. Activities of employers’ organisations and trade unions on migration issues

Country	Employers’ organisations	Trade unions
Austria	No specific initiatives.	Some involvement in anti-racist initiatives; support by some unions for migrants' rights (eg to stand for election to works councils).
Belgium	Declaration on anti-discrimination and equal opportunities in recruitment of immigrants; Flemish tripartite agreement on recruitment of immigrants, providing for annual action plans for better labour market orientation.	Activities (training etc) against discrimination and racism; creation of immigration committees and services; recruitment as representatives; cooperation agreements with equal opportunities bodies.
Denmark	Larger companies operating 'diversity-oriented' recruitment policy; involvement in bipartite and tripartite initiatives on integration of migrants.	No specific activities apart from involvement in bipartite and tripartite integration initiatives.
Finland	Organisation of surveys and seminars on migration issues; participation in programmes to improve labour market participation and position of migrants; participation in tripartite working group on managing diversity.	Information material and courses for migrants in several sectors; activities seeking to engage migrants in unions; information office in country of origin (Estonia).
France	No specific initiatives except involvement in tripartite anti-discrimination initiatives.	Anti-racism campaigns; research activities; solidarity actions in some cases.
Germany	No specific initiatives except involvement in preparation of migration policy and support for company-level anti-discrimination measures.	Campaigns against illegal employment conditions for migrants in construction; organisation of/involvement in campaigns against racism, discrimination and far-right; creation of migration departments; support for migrants.
Greece	No specific initiatives.	Campaigns for legalisation of illegal migrants; support for migrants and migrant organisations.
Hungary	No specific initiatives.	No specific initiatives.
Ireland	Involvement in round tables on immigration and campaigns against racism; diversity policies in several larger companies.	Campaigns against racism and abuse of migrants
Italy	Activities by individual employers and associations to foster social inclusion; initiatives in the field of training and education, housing and facilitating visits by migrants to home countries.	Campaigns and activities on equal treatment and against racism and exploitation; specific recruitment campaigns; special departments, courses, assistance and services; measures to improve migrants' representation in union structures; support of migrants’ organisations.
Luxembourg	No specific initiatives.	Campaigns on regularisation of illegal immigrants, creation of special immigrant departments.
Netherlands	Activities in many fields, all in cooperation with unions and/or the government.	Recruitment activities; creation of special migrants departments; research; measures to improve representation in internal structures; cooperation with migrant organisations.
Norway	No specific initiatives.	Recruitment and union involvement efforts in some sectors; support for anti-racist campaigns; project to remove barriers to employment for existing migrants; joint work with NGOs.
Poland	No specific initiatives.	No specific initiatives.
Portugal	Activities in some sectors (notably metalworking) to coordinate labour migration and combat illegal immigration.	Campaigns to promote integration, combat racism and illegal work; training, seminars, conferences and publications, cooperation with migrants’ organisations and unions in countries of origin
Slovakia	No specific initiatives.	No specific initiatives.
Slovenia	No specific initiatives.	No specific initiatives.
Spain	Proposals to set up an integrated system for immigration, covering all issues.	Recruitment efforts (including illegal immigrants); creation of information, advice and support services; campaigns on integration and non-discrimination.
Sweden	Several projects on diversity management and migrant workers; policy on integration of migrants; cooperation with local authorities on placement of migrants.	Special education and integration projects; some recruitment efforts; special union officials for migrant issues.
UK	Growing interest in diversity management (though not specifically relating to migrants); policy statement on migrants.	Wide range of activities to further integration and combat racism; some recruitment activities; guidance to workplace representatives on migrants' issues; special campaigns on distinct categories of migrants; cooperation with unions in countries of origin.

Source: EIRO

Collective bargaining

Across the 20 countries examined here, the issue of migrant workers has not achieved a significant place on the social partners’ agenda when it comes to collective bargaining - see table 7 below for a summary of the current position. In many countries, issues relating to migrant workers are not seen as an issue for collective bargaining, but for bipartite and tripartite dialogue - an area where there has been considerable activity in some countries (see above under 'Social partners' involvement in migration policy'). There is no evidence of any bargaining activity of specific relevance to the matter in France, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and the four candidate countries considered. A common view in such cases is that collective agreements apply to all workers, whether migrants or nationals.

In the other countries, there is some - though rarely very much - bargaining activity on migrant worker-related themes. In Austria, this is purely negative, in that a number of sectoral agreements allow discrimination against migrant workers in recruitment and dismissal. Elsewhere, the approach varies, with agreements at various levels dealing in various ways with a number of key themes, mainly non-discrimination/equal treatment on grounds of race and ethnic origin (which is relevant to many migrant workers, as well of course to many nationals) and integration.

At intersectoral level, the Belgian social partners have reached agreements both on equality and non-discrimination on racial grounds, and on special training and employment measures for 'at-risk' groups, including migrants. Equal treatment for migrants is established as a theme in company-level employee-management cooperation by a national agreement in Denmark, while the largest social partner organisations have also reached an agreement on the integration of migrants. Non-discrimination and equal treatment is also dealt with by intersectoral agreements in Greece and Ireland. The narrower issue of monitoring the working conditions of migrant workers has been addressed by a Finnish central agreement. In most cases, there is no evidence that such intersectoral provisions are reflected in any significant bargaining on migration issues at lower levels.

The countries where migrant workers probably receive most attention in collective bargaining are probably those where the issue is dealt with in sectoral agreements - Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain. Around one in 12 Italian sectoral agreements deal with relevant matters, as do around a fifth of major Dutch agreements (the majority of which are at sector level) and a significant number of Norwegian agreements. The practice appears less common in Spain. In Italy, the relevant agreements - often signed by employers' organisations for SMEs, crafts and cooperatives - cover a range of matters including: support for employment and social inclusion (housing, transport etc); language courses and, less frequently, vocational training; the creation of special monitoring committees on migrant workers' labour market situation; equal opportunity measures; and special longer holidays for migrant workers (ie to visit their countries of origin) and time off for religious purposes. Unions are pushing for similar provisions in other agreements (eg in the influential metalworking sector). In the Netherlands, the focus is more specifically on the employment of migrant workers, with a majority of relevant agreements containing target figures for new jobs for this group. One agreement in retail provides for language training for migrants and course in multicultural personnel management for managers.

The relevant Norwegian sectoral agreements also deal with the employment of migrant workers. They state, fairly uniformly, that efforts must be made to encourage immigrants to take up work in the sector concerned and that the parties at the company level should discuss issues relating to migrants that are of relevance to the individual enterprise, such as adaptations of the workplace and attitudes towards immigrants. Individual employers should discuss with the unions concerned measures that may ease the introduction and participation of immigrants within the enterprise. The agreements emphasise the importance of providing training for migrants that is adapted to the need of the enterprise while at the same time providing 'knowledge of the culture and traditions of Norwegian business and industry'. In Spain, collective agreements in sectors with large migrant workforces - eg hotels/catering, construction and agriculture - include provisions on issues such as equal pay and (as with some Italian agreements) flexible working time for religious purposes, such as Ramadan for Muslims. Finally a notable sectoral agreement on preventing racial discrimination has been signed in the Belgian temporary agency work sector.

Company-level bargaining on migration issues seems to be rare, with some exceptions in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands (see previous point) and possibly the UK. A few company agreements in Italy (eg at Electrolux Zanussi) provide for special working time and leave arrangements for migrant workers. In Germany, works agreements on preventing racial discrimination and ensuring equal treatment have been signed by works councils and management in a number of companies, such as Deutsche Bahn, Thyssen Stahl, Satorius, Opel, Volkswagen, Jenoptik and Aventis. Around 1 million employees are covered by such agreements which, in line with trade union recommendations, include complaints procedures and give work councils or other representatives the right to intervene where unequal treatment or discriminatory practices occur.

In Italy, some issues of relevance to migrants are covered by territorial agreements concluded by the social partners, local authorities and other parties in a number of regions, cities etc (see above under 'Employers’ organisations').

Table 7. Collective agreements on migration-related issues

Austria	A number of sectoral agreements lay down an order of priority for dismissal or recruitment which discriminates against foreign workers. For example, the current hotels sector agreement states: 'When it comes to the engagement of new employees, skilled workers and Austrian citizens have to be favoured.'
Belgium	Intersectoral agreements contain special training and employment measures for migrants, while specific national agreements cover equality and anti-discrimination issues. Notable sectoral agreement on preventing racial discrimination in temporary agency work sector signed in 1996 (BE9704105F).
Denmark	Cooperation Agreement between Confederation of Danish Trade Unions (Landsorganisationen i Danmark, LO) and the Danish Employers’ Confederation (Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, DA) provides for equal treatment for migrants at work. DA and LO reached agreement in 2002 on the labour market integration of immigrants and refugees (DK0201166F).
Finland	National intersectoral agreement for 2003-4 (FI0212103F) contains a provision asking the government to improve monitoring of the working conditions of migrant workers. Not an issue in lower-level bargaining.
France	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Germany	Not an issue in collective bargaining at sector and company level. Works agreements on equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of race in a number of companies (covering about 1 million workers).
Greece	The intersectoral National General Collective Agreement includes provisions on equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of race, and one respect for racial, national, religious and cultural diversity. Otherwise, not an issue in collective bargaining.
Hungary	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Ireland	National tripartite agreement for 2000-2, the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (IE0003149F), contains provisions on matters such as equality and non-discrimination on racial and ethnic grounds and the inclusion of migrants and refugees. Not a significant issue in company-level bargaining.
Italy	8% of sectoral agreements (mainly covering smaller firms) and under 1% of company agreements (in Emilia-Romagna region) include provisions on migrant workers - topics include language and training courses, special holidays and time off, equal opportunities, social inclusion measures (eg housing) and monitoring committees. Various territorial agreements in particular regions, provinces, cities etc include support and assistance for migrants
Luxembourg	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Netherlands	Around a fifth of major sectoral and company-level collective agreements contain provisions on migrant workers, especially regarding employment (sometimes including targets for job creation for migrants).
Norway	Some sectoral agreements contain clauses encouraging employers to recruit migrant workers and take measures to facilitate this. Otherwise, not a major issue in collective bargaining.
Poland	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Portugal	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Slovakia	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Slovenia	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
Spain	Some provisions in collective agreements in sectors where many migrants are employed, such as hotels/catering, construction and agriculture, covering issues such as equal pay and flexible hours for religious purposes.
Sweden	Not an issue in collective bargaining.
UK	Not a significant issue in collective bargaining. Probably some company-level consultation on recruitment where union presence is strong, while success of union efforts to promote 'access to work' agreements where migrant workers are recruited (covering matters such as induction and equal treatment) is unknown.

Source: EIRO

Commentary

This study has examined the extremely broad and multifaceted subject of migration from the perspective of industrial relations, concentrating mainly on migrants from outside the EEA.

In most countries, migrants are concentrated at the top and bottom ends of the labour market. Because governments are increasingly developing a policy of controlled immigration to resolve labour shortages, and because these shortages are mainly to be found at the extreme ends of the labour market, this polarisation might become even more pronounced in future.

Although overall the views of employers’ organisations and unions on migration are not fundamentally opposed, there are some marked differences. Moreover, there are definitely national nuances within the ranks of both sides. In France and Austria, for example, employers seem less keen on allowing more labour migration than in many other countries. However, employers and their organisations generally stress the importance and advantages of the free movement of labour, though there are obvious national nuances in their views. Although trade unions and their federations/confederations acknowledge that to fill certain jobs (new) migrants are 'unavoidable', the general attitude towards migration is hesitant. Many unions mistrust the employers' discourse on the free movement of labour. Instead, they stress the need to improve the situation of migrants already in the country, improving their situation whether employed or unemployed.

Given demographic factors in the current EU Member States, the enlargement of the EU to the east and - last but not least - the gap between the wealth of the EU and the (relative) poverty of large parts of the rest of the world, migration will remain a fact of life. A recent study by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development confirms this. Notwithstanding the very strict measures that many countries have taken to curb immigration, migration to the 30 richest countries in the world has increased in recent years. The United Nations also expects a rise in migratory pressure, especially to Europe. Therefore, immigration will remain an important subject for the both the government and the social partners.

Notwithstanding many 'success stories', on average migrants, and especially non-EEA migrants, are in a disadvantaged position when compared with nationals in terms of employment and unemployment rates, type of jobs and contracts, and pay and employment/working conditions. In trying to improve the situation of migrants in these areas, the extent to which governments cooperate with the social partners varies, as does the extent to which governments try to integrate the different policy fields related to migrants. The national evidence seems to indicate that an integrated approach and cooperation with social partners, while perhaps not guaranteeing success, still offers the best chances. The same might be true for a decentralised approach, be it at regional or at company/sector level.

Given the mounting importance of migration, it is unsurprising that activity on this issue seems to be growing in importance for employers' organisations and trade unions in most (if not all) western European countries, though not in the generally low-immigration candidate countries. However, the priority given to the matter varies substantially between countries, doubtless reflecting their particular experience of immigration. In terms of unilateral activities, there are some examples of action by employers' organisations, notably on the integration of migrants and tackling discrimination, and of an increased wish to ensure workforce diversity by some individual employers. Trade unions in most countries are increasingly active in working to combat racism and promote equal treatment ,and provide assistance and support for migrant workers and their labour market and social integration. Specific recruitment efforts targeted at migrants seem less common, even though union density among this group is generally lower than average.

Bipartite and tripartite dialogue and consultation on migration issues appears to be in place in many countries and to play an important role in some cases. However, the topic has not achieved a significant place on the collective bargaining agenda in most countries, with some exceptions, principally in particular sectors and, in more general terms, at intersectoral level in a few countries. This may be surprising, given the rising importance of migration issues, and it is possible that the situation will change in the years to come. (Marianne Grünell and Robbert van het Kaar, HSI)

• ID: TN0303105S
• Author: Marianne Grünell and Robbert van het Kaar
• Country: EU Countries
• Language: EN
• Publication date: 14-05-2003