The representation of migrant workers: Union actions and logics adopted in Italy and the UK

Transcription

1 The representation of migrant workers: Union actions and logics adopted in Italy and the UK by Daniela Gnarini Paper for the Espanet Conference Sfide alla cittadinanza e trasformazione dei corsi di vita: precarietà, invecchiamento e migrazioni Università degli Studi di Torino, Torino, Settembre 2014 Daniela Gnarini: daniela.gnarini@gmail.com

2 ABSTRACT Trade unions have adopted, at different times and in different countries, different behaviours and logics in order to represent migrants. This article aims at exploring the various actions and logics of representation in two different countries: Italy and the UK. One of the main evidences is the deep influence of the context in which unions operate on their behaviour towards migrants. In the UK, the traditionally voluntaristic labour movement has been strongly weakened by the policies adopted by the Conservative governments during the 1980s. Hence, since the 1990s, unions have adopted revitalisation strategies in order to represent the weakest categories of the labour market, such as women, atypical workers and migrants. In Italy, the union behaviour is influenced, on the one hand, by the limits of official migratory policies. On the other hand, the Italian industrial relations system is based on voluntaristic basis, but, at the same time, potentially strong organisations. These peculiarities give unions the organisational resources which allow them to structure their actions. INTRODUCTION In last decades, unions attempted to adapt their structures to the structural changes of the Post- Fordist period. Indeed, in this period, there has been a continuous shift from manufacturing to service employment. Moreover, the supply side of the labour market became more and more heterogeneous, because of the increasing female participation to the labour market, the participation of more educated young workers, the increase of workers employed in non-standard and part-time jobs and the unprecedented growth of migrant workers (Regalia, 2012). One of the consequences of these structural changes was the union decline 1, even if substantial differences are present between different countries (Frege and Kelly, 2003). For these reasons, unions have attempted to revitalise themselves adopting various strategies, connected to the different social and economic change, the institutional context, State and employers' strategies and union structures (Frege and Kelly, 2003). One of the most critical aspects of union revitalisation concerns the representation of the weakest elements belonging to the labour force, such as women, atypical workers and migrants. After the Second World War, a large number of foreign workers migrated in Europe. The majority of migrant workers decided to remain in the host countries, becoming a structural part of the Western European labour markets. In every situation concerning new arrivals, labour is a crucial element, because the vast majority of them aims at looking for a job. The migration is mainly seen as a labour issue and, moreover, conflicts between national and migrant workers often manifest themselves in the labour arena. Hence, trade union is the first organisation which has to respond to the challenges connected to the migrants' arrivals. At different times and in different countries, trade unions have adopted different behaviours and logics in order to represent migrants (Connolly, Martinez Lucio, 2010). The main aim of this article is to explore the various strategies and logics of representation of migrants adopted by unions in two different countries: Italy and the UK. In particular, the article 1 According to Frege and Kelly (2003), union decline was experienced through different forms: membership loss, declining collective bargaining coverage, problems related to definition of interests because of the increasing heterogeneity, declining mobilising capacity or more constrained opportunity structures. 2

3 focuses on the differences, similarities and peculiarities of logics of representation adopted in the two different countries. The research has been realised, on the one hand, through a secondary analysis of selected research, concerning the relationships between unions and migrants, which focus on the main and most critical aspects of migrants' representation in the UK. On the other hand, an empirical investigation has been realised, involving two specific structures dedicated to migrants by the two main Italian trade unions, CGIL Centro Lavoratori Stranieri and migrants' selforganisation ANOLF-CISL. The investigation has been realised through a set of semi-structured interviews to union officers belonging to these two different organisations. In the first paragraph of this article, the most relevant theoretical frameworks, related to unions' behaviour towards migrants, is discussed. In particular, variables and logics, which are more important to understand the behaviour of unions towards migrants in the two countries, are presented. The national context, in which unions operate, represents an important variable of this analysis is. For this reason, the second paragraph is dedicated to the analysis of the context, characterising respectively the UK and Italy. In particular, this paragraph focuses on the migration policies and the industrial relations system. In the third paragraph, the strategies adopted by unions in the two countries are analysed. Finally, the conclusion is dedicated to the analysis of the logics and the characteristics of the approaches adopted by unions in the two countries. In particular, this paragraph is dedicated not only to the main differences and similarities between the behaviours of unions in the two countries, but also to the different constraints and opportunities which structure unions' behaviour. TRADE UNIONS AND MIGRANTS: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Many scholars analysed the most relevant and critical issues connected to the representation of migrants. Penninx and Roosblad (2000), identify three main dilemmas, that trade unions have to face when they deal with migration issue: resistance or cooperation, related to migration itself; inclusion or exclusion, concerning migrant workers' inclusion as union members; finally, when unions decide to include migrants, they have to face a third dilemma, equal or special treatment. In the first case, those unions, which opt for equal treatment (colour blind 2 approach), risk to act unfairly when they do not make a distinction between unequal cases. However, special treatment for foreign members could lead native workers to resist against these specific measures for migrant workers. Another important question regards logics according to which trade unions represent migrant workers and, as consequences, instruments which are used to promote migrants rights. Marino, Connolly and Martinez Lucio (2011) identify three main framing logics adopted by unions. First, class logic is adopted when unions implement policies based on the concept of migrants as part of the wider working class. The class identity emphasizes the presence of general interests between migrant and local workers and is used to build general solidarity among workers. Unions 2 According to the colour blind approach, migrants receive the same treatment as native workers. 3

4 implement this logic through engagement in a series of activities aimed at directly involving migrant workers themselves, such as organising or work-floor representative actions. Second, race and ethnicity logic focuses on the specificity of migrant workers, derived by their belonging to a specific group. Hence, general policies are not sufficient to promote a real representation of specific rights or to overcome the disadvantages deriving from the belonging to a specific group. For this reasons, unions implement this approach engaging themselves within communities, through coalitions with other social actors, acquisition of a great sensitivity to the role of migrant activists and direct engagement, in order to join equality. Third, unions may decide to adopt social rights logic, defending immigrants social needs, such as residence permits, accommodations, health insurances, in order to improve their living conditions, promote social integration and achieve equality in society and the labour market. Through this logic, unions act as agents of social regulation, by engaging with issues that are not related only to work, such as housing, health issues or welfare rights. When unions opt for this approach, they act as social actors, engaging with social regulations, through several strategies, from forms of concertation with social partners at central and regional levels to the direct involvement of the Government in the formulation of policies. We have to evidence that an important role is played by migrant workers' organising. According to Vranken (1990), migrant workers can be represented within trade unions in two ways. The first is the internationalist model, which excludes any migrant workers' own association, in order to avoid divisions between foreign and indigenous workers. The second is the pluralistic or diversity model which accepts the specificity of migrant workers and allows the establishment of their own associations within the trade unions. The latter could bring positive effects in order to promote the migrants' self-determination and their presence in leadership position, and to implement antidiscrimination and positive action campaigns. However, such separate groups could be exposed to segregation and marginalisation risk, because special bodies do not have structural links. For this reason, such groups could be segregated into powerless ghettos (Marino 2013). The last important choice concerns the type of action adopted towards migrant workers. Ambrosini (2000) distinguishes between two models of action: the protective and bargaining models. On the one hand, the protective model focuses on the responses to general social needs. According to Vranken (1990), trade unions often act as welfare agencies for migrants, representing the first political organisation defending their basic social and economic rights. On the other hand, the bargaining model is based on negotiation, and it is focused on the promotion of workers rights in workplaces. However, it has to be underlined that the bargaining activity choice risks to expose trade unions to criticisms by native workers. Nevertheless, unions can gain the migrant workers' trust and participation. Moreover, we have to evidence that different factors influence the responses of unions to migration. Penninx and Roosblad (2000) identify a set of variables which can influence union policies towards immigrants. A first important variable is the power position of trade unions in societies 3 and the structure of national trade union movements. The assumption is: more powerful a trade union is, more it will be able to influence the migration policies in a direction favourable to unions. However, the strong 3 The indicators of this variable are: union membership, the degree of unionisation, a strongly centralised and unified union structure, the relationship with political parties and national authorities. 4

5 institutional position of the union does not directly depend on its capacity to mobilise workers. For this reason, incentives for organising new groups of workers are relatively weak (Roosblad 2013). An important second variable, evidenced in this article, is related to social trends. In fact, trade unions are inextricably linked with the society of which they are a part. In this sense, national identities and ideologies, public discourses, institutional arrangements, legislation, political structure and orientation may influence trade unions policies towards migrants. Furthermore, the behaviour of other important institutional actors towards migrants, such as national authorities, churches, political parties and movements, could influence the actions of trade unions. However, trade unions are not always and unilaterally influenced by such developments within society. On the contrary, they may explicitly offer resistance and try to change the balance (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000; Connolly, Martinez Lucio 2010). Moreover, many variables influence the extent to which migrants can or want to be organised by union. Indeed, the lack of experiences of union participation in the country of origin is responsible for the uncritical acceptance of paternalistic relationship with employers (Castles and Kosack, 1985:121). Moreover, the temporary status of the migrant could negatively influence his willingness to join union. Finally, the legal status of the migrant may be an important factor from the point of view of the migrants themselves: the stronger the legal status of the workers, the less they have to fear when they participate in industrial actions (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000). THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NATIONAL CONTEXTS In this paragraph, an overview about the national context of the two countries is presented, in order to understand the responses of unions to migrants, the choices and the constraints of the actors. In particular, this paragraph will focus, on the main features of migration policies, migrants' situation and the industrial relations system, which are significant in explaining the choices of unions when they face issues related to migration. In the UK, the foreign-born population amounts to 4,6 million individuals, over 8% of the entire population (Güell, Jubany, 2012). According to Fondazione Ismu (2011), in 2010 around 5.3 millions migrants were present in our country, including estimated 500,000 undocumented migrants. The UK is an old immigration country. In particular, during the earliest 1950s, workers from Commonwealth 4 were recruited in order to fill labour shortages. These migrants were different from guest workers, recruited in other Western European countries, because of their post-colonial status 5. For this reason, UK was the first country in which Post-Second World War migrant workers became ethnic minority permanently residents 6 (Connolly et al., 2012). Since the end of the 1970s, migration started to be considered no more as an emergency issue, but as a structural Mainly coming from the West Indies. In 1948 a citizenship status was created, allowing migrants from former colonies to move freely in Britain and in the States of Commonwealth (Güell, Juvany, 2012). The UK was also the first European country to apply restrictions aimed at reducing Post-Colonial migrants' flows, through the implementation of 1962 and 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. Essentially, migration was particularly restricted for non-white migrants, while whites (such as Canadians and Australians) were privileged. 5

6 characteristic of the UK. For this reason, equal opportunities, anti-discrimination 7 and integration policies started to be implemented (Modood and Wrench, 2004). Recent migration policies are differentiated according to the types of migrants. The government has developed both new measures to tackle the illegal migration and a much more active policy of managed migration (Winchester, 2003). In this sense, the public discourse in the UK is based on the selection of migrants according to the economic contribution they can provide to society (Güell, Juvany, 2012). Hence, the migrant population is concentrated at both the high and the low end of the skill distribution (Winchester, 2003). Indeed, on the one hand, many migrant workers are employed in professional or skilled occupation. On the other hand, others frequently face social and economic exclusion (Mustchin, 2012). Italy is a recent immigration country. Indeed, the question of immigration started only during the second half of the 1970s, when old immigration countries started to implement restrictive migration policies. Hence, migratory flows started to change directions, involving also Southern Europe. In Italy, immigration flows have become relevant since the second half of the 1980s. Moreover, Italian legislation is characterised by restrictive migration policies. In particular, residence rules for family reunification have been tightened and access to public housing by migrants has been limited. Asylum seekers find it particularly difficult to obtain the status of refugees. Anti-immigrant discourse has been directed, in particular, against Muslims and Roma (Marino, 2012). Furthermore, an important and controversial aspect concerns the achievement of residence permits and the exercise of civil rights, which are strictly linked to the validity of the employment contract. This specific aspect contributed to the rise in undocumented migrants, often employed in the underground economy (Reyneri, 2003, Ambrosini 2009). Moreover, it has to be underlined that the majority of regular migrants came to Italy as irregular, and became regular after amnesties. Around 1,660,000 migrants have been regularised through this instrument and, already in 1999, more than 50% of regular migrants were regularised thanks to these amnesties (Ambrosini, 2013; OIM, 2011; Reyneri, 2005). Others have been regularised by the decree-flows, which applies an amnesty for domestic workers (Ambrosini, 2009). This instrument shows, on the one hand, that the quotas, that have been established by the various decree-flows, were not always appropriate. On the other hand, it becomes evident that Italy needs an additional labour force. According to OIM report (2011), the adoption of more open migration policy could guarantee dignity to migrants and favour their integration, while amnesties are emergency measures, which are no more appropriate to a structural phenomenon such as migration. As consequence, the Italian regulatory framework is imprecise and inefficient because the policies are not organic and give a feeling of uncertainty to migrants, favouring their permanence in the lower categories of both labour market and the society. Moreover, the Italian legislation does not provide any measure which could favour migrants' social inclusion and any assistance in asking residency permits, familiar reunification and citizenship demands, in order to make their regularisation and the specific request, that they have to send to live in a fair way in Italy, easier. These problems related to the migration policies are a factor which structures the behaviours of the unions. 7 The 1976 Race Relations Act identified discriminatory acts in the sphere of employment, and provided solutions in order to fight and prevent discrimination. 6

7 As far as the migrants' situation is concerned, in the UK, such as in other European countries, migrant workers are among the components of the labour force that have been most affected by the crisis, in terms both of increased unemployment and of worsened working conditions. In particular, their unemployment rate has increased because the sectors, which have been most affected by the crisis, are precisely those sectors 8 in which the typical mechanisms of selection, specialization and stratification of the labour market had previously concentrated the immigrant labour force (Güell and Juvany, 2012). In Italy, migration has been chaotic and managed in an emergency and approximate way (Ambrosini, 2001). Indeed, migrants are employed in low paid and low skilled job, are not involved in professional training and, more than others, run the risk of being marginalised. Furthermore, the current crisis has rendered migrants more vulnerable. Avola (2012) identifies a double disadvantage : they are more subject to risks both of unemployment and of segregation within precarious or irregular jobs. Concerning the industrial relations system, it has to be underlined that, in both countries, a tradition of voluntarism has always characterised the behaviour of social partnership. In the UK, despite the long-standing tradition of voluntarism, the Government deeply influenced the industrial relation field, in particular during the Conservative period from 1979 to 1997, implementing politics of privatization, anti-trade union legislation and economic deregulation more generally (Martinez Lucio and Perrett, 2009:333). The policies adopted by the Conservative Governments managed to reach their objective to weaken unions. In fact, trade union density has fallen from 56.3% in 1980 to 30% in last decades (Connolly et al. 2012). Moreover, between 1984 and 1998, the proportion of workplaces covered by collective bargaining declined from 70% to 40%. Thus, the UK is characterised by a representation gap, given the absence of legal provisions for the extension of collective agreements and the substantial decline in trade union membership exacerbated by the minimal legal obligations on employers to inform and consult with employee representatives 9 and by the structural shift of bargaining level from industry-wide to the company or establishment(connolly et al. 2012, Winchester 2003). Another important aspect, concerning the traditional voluntarism of British industrial relations, is represented by the voluntary recognition of trade unions by employers. Indeed, any general administrative or legal acts does not guarantee recognition to unions. Moreover, as far as collective bargaining is concerned, it has to be noticed that, employers have not any formal obligation to bargain with unions and, furthermore, collective agreements are not legally enforceable. In Italy, the first consequence, connected to the tradition of voluntarism, concerns organising: the representation continued to be relatively open to newcomers in order to challenge the strategies of larger organizations. This factor is still relevant in order to explain the way in which unions have represented the categories which, in last decades, have emerged within the labour market. 8 9 Construction, tourism, the so-called 3D jobs (dangerous, dirty, demanding) and some branched of industry and of public services. In UK works councils or similar bodies are not present. However, some employers have introduced forms of joint consultation. 7

8 Concerning the unions' structure, it has to be underlined that almost all individual British unions are affiliated to the Trade Union Congress (TUC), which is the only central confederation in Britain. Because of membership decline, the TUC has increasingly sought to influence government policies through lobby actions. However, its lobbying efficacy and its involvement in central policy-making have declined over the years. Nevertheless, the link with politics has remained strong: many of the TUC trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010; Connolly et al. 2012). Finally, it is important to evidence that, in the last decades, British unions have made strong attempts in order to revitalise themselves. In particular, union organising strategies principally focused on membership recruitment. Indeed, since the mid-1990s, the TUC has adopted a dual revitalisation strategy including, on the one hand, the adoption of the organising model 10 and, on the other hand, the definition of social partnership 11. From an organisational point of view, the three main Italian organisations, CGIL, CISL and UIL, are structured at national, regional and territorial level both along the horizontal (or territorial) and the vertical (or industrial) dimensions. Each Confederation is characterised by the co-presence of both the horizontal and vertical structures at the national, regional and local level (Regalia, 2012). Unions have also constituted workplace representation structures, whose organisational form was revised in different periods, but which have led trade-unions to exert more influence also at company-level. Hence, Italian unions are well structured at different levels of representation. This characteristic renders the reorganisation of the unions easier (Regalia, 2012). Two characteristics of Italian unionism are peculiar in order to understand the logic of union behaviour: the low recognition obtained by the Italian Governments 12 and the low level of institutionalisation and formalisation of the industrial relations system. More recently, during the last years' economic crisis, an intensification of unitary agreements and experiments has come to light at local levels, especially in order to cope with the consequences of the economic crisis. Moreover, the joint management of training programmes and of social and mutualistic welfare schemes was reinforced in bilateral bodies jointly with the employers organizations (Regalia, 2012). Hence, now unions play also a social role. This has represented the outcome of the unions considerable capacity for adaptation, facilitated both by their original horizontal-vertical organization and by the voluntaristic context in which they continue to operate (Regalia, 2012). According to Regalia (2009) Italian trade unions showed both interest in innovating their logics of action and awareness about the importance of the change. Hence, trade unions began to actively re-think their practices and strategies of representation and more suitable ways to represent these categories, which have, to a certain extent, different needs from those of the classic, blue collar, native and male labour force, as emerged since 1981 (Regalia, 2012). These strategies gained place at local level, within, for instance, Camere del Lavoro and other territorial union The organising model is founded on mobilisation, adversarial orientations and increased membership activism (Mustchin, 2012). Notion of social partnership involves cooperation with employers, engagement with State policy and funding, attempts to lend increased legitimacy of unions as responsible labour market actors (Mustchin, 2012). This characteristic is present since the Second Post-War. Governments have always scarcely recognised unions, in order to marginalise the left and the labour movement in general. 8

9 organisations, where new ideas and projects can be expressed in a more transversal way than within union sectoral organisations (Regalia, 2009). Hence, unions act in a context which is characterised, on the one hand, at political level, by an inefficient and uncertain legislation, which is hostile to migrants and does not provide any integration measure and which is described, on the other hand, at industrial relations level, by voluntaristic but, at the same time, potentially strong organisations. These characteristics have allowed unions to organise also categories of workers which are traditionally hard to represent. ACTIONS AND LOGICS ADOPTED IN THE UK Many research argue about the issue of trade unions and migrants in the UK. The selected works respect three different selective criteria. First of all, only empirical works have been analysed, in order to focus on the real practices that unions adopt in the UK. Second, though many empirical research were realised also in the 1990s, the most recent works have been selected. In particular, the research analysed were published between 2003 and Third, the research selected were published in specific journals which focus on the industrial relations and on particular social issues which are connected to the migration 13. In the UK, unions have adopted, in different times, different behaviours relating to migration. After the Second World War, trade union response to immigration has traditionally been one of overarching hostility displayed by the predominantly white British majority trade unionists towards other ethnic groups of workers (Lunn, 1999:70). On the one hand, in the early 1950s, trade unions did not oppose the increase of immigration flows from the ex-colonial countries because of labour shortages. However, on the other hand, in the 1960s and 1970s, trade unions supported the legislation which imposed restrictions to migration from Commonwealth, in order to convince their white membership that they were protecting British jobs 14 (Wrench, 2000; Lunn, 1999). Moreover, in the 1960s and the early 1970s, British unions adopted an exclusionary approach, often tolerating racist practices. In particular, during the 1960s, the Trade Union Congress (TUC), agreed with the general idea of adopting a colour blind approach, that is to institute any special policies would be to discriminate against the white membership (Wrench and Modood, 2000). However, during the 1970s and 1980s, trade unions changed policies and began to develop antiracist policies and practices. Increasingly, separate committees or structures have been set up by unions in order to adopt equal opportunity policies and anti-racist statements. Since the end of the 1980s, many unions have created national officers who deal with issues affecting black members, encourage their participation and promote equal opportunities (Connolly et al. 2012, Wrench and Modood, 2000). According to the European Trade Union Confederation, in 2003, the TUC was one of the few European unions which had tried to incorporate immigrant issues into collective bargaining, producing guidelines on issues such as religious practices at the workplace, language training for immigrants, outlawing harassment, recognition of foreign qualifications and so on. Furthermore, the TUC has been successful in reaching agreements on seven of their ten claims The journals considered are: Urban Studies; Work, Employment & Society; European Journal of Industrial relations; British Journal of Industrial Relations; Economic and Industrial Democracy; Industrial Relations Journal. Union strategies in the 1960s and in the 1970s evidenced a toleration of racism and, moreover, a sort of racist rethoric. 9

10 A variable that has influenced this change in union policies is identified by Connolly et al. (2012) in the loss of power and status of UK trade unions that has been forced by Conservative Government anti-unionist policies. Unions recognised that, according to their decline in power and involvement in the collective regulation of work, they need a more inclusive strategy (Arnholtz et al. 2012). As we have seen, the policies of trade unions towards migrant workers have been developed in a more active way during the last two decades. In particular, British unions have adopted different strategies based on the recruitment and organisation of migrant workers, at the aim of gaining membership. Indeed, a variety of policies was adopted by unions and community organisations to support migrant workers and ethnic minorities. Migrant workers have been engaged through different strategies, such as bargaining, the implementation of learning agenda and the promotion of campaigns against racism (Connolly et al. 2012; Martinez Lucio and Perrett, 2009). In particular, many resources have been used for the local recruitment, the personal contact and a strong engagement with migrants (Arnholtz et al. 2012). However, as stated by Connolly et al. (2012), since the absence of a broader co-ordinated action, long-term strategies towards greater collective regulation and the low State support, much of the work done by trade unions remains small-scale, fragmented and rests on precarious foundations. Moreover, weaker unions, such as UCATT, have faced many difficulties in providing the required resources for migrants' organising in the long period (Arnholtz et al. 2012). Trade unions have focused on social and ethnicity issues, facilitating more recent innovations and changes. Moreover, another important feature has been the union renewal, which has become a significant feature of the trade union agenda. In this sense, the apparent limitations, constituted by the union weakness in the UK, have led to greater investment in organising strategies. However, because of the low intervention of the State and the weakly regulated labour market, many of these approaches are often institutionally fragmented and decentralised (Connolly et al. 2012). According to Martinez Lucio and Perret (2009), key interventions have contributed to constitute an idea of community unionism as a response to the failure of traditional unionism, to the bureaucratic inertia and a crucial element of unionism as social movements. In particular, the main aim of community unionism was that of representing those workers employed in traditionally hard to organise sectors, whose migrants represent a great percentage. However, the notion of community is difficult to define. Moreover, the union renewal through community initiatives and coalitions is complex and community strategies have not a coherent and common line of action. Within the UK, one of the central features of trade union renewal policy has been the development of lifelong learning and training strategies. The development of the Union Learning Fund and of the Union Learning Representatives (ULRs) in 1998 became a crucial feature both of government policies and of trade union renewal. Hence, since the late 1990s, trade unions have placed an increasing emphasis upon their learning agendas, predominantly within the workplace but also through community projects and learning centres (Craig et al. 2012). The learning arm of the TUC, the Union Learn, has supported a national network of learning centres. These union learning centres offer a wide variety of courses, such as training and ESOL courses, aimed at improving English language skills. Furthermore, the centres provide informations, advice and guidance services. Union learning initiatives are considered as an important link to vulnerable workers and, in particular, migrant workers, because improving English skills could positively influence migrants' access to the British labour market and the mobility of their career paths. 10

11 However, Connolly et al. (2012) found out that organising strategies are rarely linked to learning strategies. Indeed, union strategies are elaborated in a segmented way. Moreover, learning appears to be geographically uneven, in terms of services offered both within specific workplaces and within learning centres that are not always accessible or on an enclosed site. Furthermore, Connolly et al. (2012) identify a lack of co-ordination between unions, though the TUC provides an umbrella structure for the learning initiatives in order to constitute a major link to the funding. Moreover, such strategies depend on State funds, which are particularly weak in the UK. According to Mustchin (2012), the use of learning centres, which are based on learning project workers and union tutors who interact with migrant workers, represents a significant support in a context of weakly regulated labour market. However, the most relevant problems affecting migrant workers relate not only to employment, but also to issues connected to the social welfare. Therefore, workplace organisations show many limits because they could not face migrant needs related to social welfare. As consequence, these limits have brought to an organising approach at community level. Furthermore, the process of organising migrant workers through union learning initiatives has led to institutional tensions within unions, because the community level could come into conflict with broader union strategies and policies and also in terms of allocation of resources. Moreover, institutional tensions could also be present between unions, other affiliated organisations, and the State. Indeed, unions face many difficulties to sustain these initiatives and to plan them for the future, because of both low levels of commitment to funding training from employers and inconsistent State investment in workplace learning (Mustchin, 2012). According to Martinez Lucio and Perrett (2009b), the development of the new industrial relations, based on a variety of gender, race and social issues within the workplace, has to face the constraints of bargaining processes and their focus on traditional interests around pay. The tendency of expanding the content of bargaining agendas is variable. In this sense, questions addressed are related to equal opportunity issues in terms of audits, equal rates of pay and monitoring procedures. However, the issue of migrant workers is not seen as a collective bargaining priority. Moreover, the new bargaining agendas and the new employment issues need new bargainers and new skills (Martinez Lucio and Perrett, 2009b). Furthermore, we have to consider the declining role of bargaining in the UK. This is a fundamental problem in order to regulate race and ethnicity-related issues, since it is increasingly fragmented, even in those areas where bargaining level remains high. Nevertheless, in those firms where unions are strongly organised, employers usually consult trade union representatives when they plan to recruit migrant workers on a significant scale. In this way, unions can check the recruitment process acted by agencies, monitor plans for induction arrangements (such as language classes and information on employment rights) and ensure themselves that migrant workers are not employed on less favourable terms and conditions than the existing workforce (Winchester, 2003). Moreover, a sort of social dialogue between the TUC and the CBI is present, in those sectors characterised by joint regulation (such as public services and agriculture). In the UK, unions have tried to represent the interests of migrants also through campaigns organising (Connolly et al. 2012). In this sense, a number of publicised campaigns have been organised by unions to protect the interests of migrants. For instance, the Living Wage campaign in London, started in 2001, is a key case example of unions and community organisations which cooperate to improve working conditions within mainly migrant workers. This campaign, at the beginning, has been successful in terms of union membership, because a number of migrant workers became union members. However, despite these early successes, the involvement of the union in this campaign has been limited to that of a few local branches from different unions. 11

12 Moreover, at a national and regional level there was little support for getting involved for political reasons (Connolly et al. 2012). Hence, the Living Wage campaign seems to reflect the British union weaknesses concerning collective rights and regulation. The lack of involvement and influence in the collective regulation of the employment relationship, has meant that other organisations, such as community groups, have been significant drivers for campaigns, such as the London Living Wage campaign. The most important problem within these campaigns is that unions are not connected to the community through a community union structure. As Martinez Lucio and Perrett (2009a) point out, the absence of community worker centres with a legitimacy, presence and transparency within local areas and communities meant that the strategy was akin to roaming sales representatives, who were alone and having to depend on personal resources and networks. If we consider also the funding dependency from the State, we can affirm that such initiative was limited in its autonomy and long term sustainability. In recent years, the emergence of Far Right parties and organisations has influenced the public opinion. Indeed, new waves of migration have been subjected to the attention of tabloid newspapers, where migration has been compared to criminality and considered as a drain on jobs and public services (Connolly et al. 2012). The British trade union movement has adopted many initiatives in favour of migrants and against racial discriminations (Wrench, 2004). However, despite union efforts, the most important labour market barriers are still present for migrant workers and all the labour market partners need to implement significant efforts. However, this is not easy, because of the intrinsic characteristics of British industrial relations and labour market regulation. ACTIONS AND LOGICS ADOPTED IN ITALY The aim of this paragraph is to understand how Italian trade unions try to implement their strategies in order to include migrants. In Italy, unions adopt three main strategies in order to include migrants. First, they provide services to manage all the aspects connected to the immigrant status, such as residency permit renewals, family reunifications, residency cards and citizenship demands. Second, unions try to adopt collective defence, through the implementation of specific clauses dedicated to migrants within collective agreements. Third, they implement political actions, trying to influence the legislation, in order to provide more favourable to migrants rules (Ambrosini et al., 2014). My empirical investigation considers the two most important Italian unions: CGIL and CISL. In particular, a set of semi-structured interviews have been realised, involving the two specific structures of unions dedicated to migrants: the CGIL Centro Lavoratori Stranieri and the ANOLF- CISL in Emilia Romagna. These two specific organisations are structured in two different ways: on the one hand, within the CGIL Camera Del Lavoro, a special office (the Centro Lavoratori Stranieri Foreign Workers Centre) is dedicated to specific migrants' issues. On the other hand, CISL has constituted a separate affiliated association, the ANOLF (Associazione Nazionale Oltre Le Frontiere- National Association Beyond Boundaries), which deals with migrants' issues. In order to understand the main aspects of migrants' representation, my research focuses on different aspects of the relationship between unions and migrants: the debate between individual 12

13 protection and collective representation; the provision of specific services; the union behaviour towards irregular migrants; the migrants' active participation in union activities; the negotiation of specific issues for migrant workers; the effect of last years crisis on migrants' conditions. The first important point concerns the debate on migrant representation, which, according to Marino (2012), is developed along two different principles of actions: individual protection and collective representation. On the one hand, the whole organisations, and in particular the union sectoral organisations, focus on collective representation, dealing with migrants' issues within the workplace, without distinguishing between foreign and native workers. On the other hand, specific structures of unions are explicitly targeted to the individual protection of migrant workers. emphasize the importance of the person rather than the worker. In this sense, the main task of the two specific structures is to focus on the individual and on his needs, adopting a view of individual protection, rather than collective. Indeed, when a migrant has a job-related problem, the officers belonging to these specific structures send him/her to the sectoral union organisations. Migrant workers have an additional problem, which does not belong to natives: they are allowed to remain in Italy only if they have a residency permit, and they can see their spouses if they ask for familiar reunification. Hence, in order to apply for these procedures, migrants need assistance and protection. For these reasons, the main role of unions' specific structures consists in giving assistance and protection to migrant workers, preparing the documentation requested and sending the applicants to the various institutional offices, where they can obtain residency permit renewals, familiar reunification, residency card and citizenship applications. In the previous paragraph, we have seen that an important aspect of the British experience concerns the organisation of ESOL courses of English language, aimed at improving the ability of migrants to speak the language of the country in which they live. In my empirical investigation emerges that also Italian unions have adopted this kind of initiatives, in order to improve the migrants' knowledge of the Italian language. However, in Italy, Italian language courses for adult foreign people are provided by public local services within public schools. Hence, in contrast to the British experience, these initiatives are not funded by the State and they are undertaken by the single unions and many differences emerge between the actions implemented by different unions. For instance, different actions have been implemented by unions in Piacenza, a small town located in Emilia Romagna. Indeed, on the one hand, CGIL organised Italian courses, in addition to those are provided by teachers of Italian, now retired, who are members of the SPI-CGIL, a special body of the union dedicated to the pensioners. These courses are marginal to those provided by the public schools and they are targeted to people who cannot attend public school courses. This strategy is connected to a more general idea, belonging to the CGIL organisation, of not directly providing vocational training. On the other hand, Piacenza ANOLF-CISL has given a great importance to the Italian courses for foreign people, organising well structured courses and also emphasising civic-mindedness. Moreover, ANOLF used Italian courses as a mean to include those migrants, who were at risk of social exclusion. This strategy is connected to the specific aim of ANOLF, which is to favour migrants' integration and inclusion within society. Another issue which has to be taken into consideration is related to the high number of undocumented migrants in our country. Migrants without residency permit often go to the union in order to ask for regularisation. However, union officers cannot always help them to regularise their position and, hence, they give to migrants informations about the legislation. The role of the 13

14 unions' specific structures changes when an amnesty is opened. Indeed, thanks to amnesties, the union can write the application for migrants' regularisation and, hence, allow migrants to live in Italy in a regular position. So far the initiatives undertaken by Centro Lavoratori Stranieri have been considered, let us now explore the actions of sectoral union organisation. An important issue concerns the foreign workers active union membership. In particular, migrants are not only foreign delegates within factories, but they are also present within union councils and managing boards. However, according to the majority of interviewees, a greater number of migrants should take responsibility within the organisations, because the existing are not sufficient to cover the whole number of union foreign members. However, recruiting migrants as unionist is a difficult process because of two main reasons. On the one hand, people recruited as delegates have to be motivated and prepared to do such activities, that could be better enforced if migrants are within the bargaining mechanism. On the other hand, they are often employed in manual and often tiring jobs so they could not want to engage with trade union activities for these reasons. However, migrants' representation is seen as a necessary element in order to better bargain foreign workers' needs. Connected to the representation, the selection of the topics negotiated within collective agreements should become more consistent to the interests of the migrant workers. At national level, few collective agreements include issues about migrants. However, a discussion is ongoing on bargaining clauses which can answer migrants' needs. Nevertheless, these agreement have not been already signed. It has to be noticed that this awareness towards migrants' needs has not only to be raised by unions, but also accepted by their counterparts, the employers. In the last years, many employers paid attention to these issues, but others did not follow along this way and totally ignored the specific needs of migrants. At company level, some firms have recognised the right of Muslim workers, during the Ramadam period, to have no lunch break, but to continue to work and go home an hour before the other workers 15 during the Ramadan period. Moreover, some large firms have understood the real value of a variegated labour force and of respect for the different cultures. In those firms, unions have managed to diversify the canteens, in order to allow Muslim and Hinduist workers to eat the food that their religion allows them. Other agreements express specific clauses aimed at allowing foreign workers ask a whole month of paid holidays, permitting them to come back to their country of origin for the holidays. As far as the economic situation is concerned, it is important to evidence that workers have been particularly hit by the crisis. Indeed, the Italian workers have a familiar network which can assist them in case of unemployment or precarious jobs. Instead, migrants often have no familiar network. Moreover, they often have to send money to their families in their countries of origin. Because of the crisis, they cannot act in this way any longer. Furthermore, if the migrants want remain and renew their residency permits, they are almost obliged to maintain a job. Hence, they will accept easily every kind of job offer, even if it entails 15 However, it is not possible to stipulate these agreements in all kinds of firms. For instance, those workers employed within assembly plants cannot work when the other workers are in lunch break. 14

15 bad working conditions, working in the underground economy or tolerating that employers do not pay all the wages, but only part of them. Hence, migrants' situation is worst than those of natives, because they do not have a family network which can support them and they often have to maintain their families. This problem renders more and more complex the position of the migrants. Moreover, the crisis has sharpened the dissatisfaction towards the Italian State. Indeed, the problems related to the heavy bureaucracy, the high taxation, and the scarce attention that is paid to migrants becomes more evident because of the crisis. LOGICS AND STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY UNIONS IN ITALY AND THE UK In order to better understand the logics explaining union behaviours, in the first paragraph of this work, the theoretical framework, concerning the relationship between unions and migrants, was analysed. In the second paragraph, the stress was put on the national contexts, which characterise the two countries. In particular, this paragraph was focused on migration policies and on the industrial relations systems. The context deeply influences the union behaviour towards migrants. In the UK, unions have been strongly weakened by the policies adopted by the Conservative governments during the 1980s. Hence, since the 1990s, unions have adopted revitalisation strategies in order to represent the weakest categories of the labour market, such as women, atypical workers and migrants. In Italy, the union behaviour is structured by the limits of official migratory policies. Concerning the industrial relations system, it is based on voluntaristic basis, but unions are well structured. These peculiar characteristics give to unions the organisational resources that allow them to structure their actions. In order to better understand the logics and approaches adopted by unions, in this paragraph, the unions' behaviour, in the two national cases, will be analysed, in the light of the theoretical frameworks. In particular, in the second paragraph, Penninx and Roosblad dilemmas, the current debate on equal vs. special treatment and the variables which affect both union behaviour and migrants' participation were considered (Penninx and Roosblad, 2000). The first and the second dilemmas, resistance vs. cooperation and inclusion vs. exclusion were present in the UK in the first phases of immigration. In particular, during the 1960s and 1970s, British unions supported the restrictive legislation to immigration from Commonwealth. Moreover, in the 1960s and the early 1970s, British trade unions have adopted an exclusionary approach, often tolerating racist practices. These two dilemmas concerned mainly old immigration countries such as the UK, in the 1960s and in the 1970s, not countries as Italy which was still then an emigration country. Italy became an immigration country only since the 1980s and the unions have always opposed the restrictive policies adopted by the Government. Moreover, in the early 1990s unions started to include and to provide specific services for migrants. The latter aspect is strictly linked to the third dilemma, equal vs. special treatment. In the UK, during the 1960s, the TUC adopted a colour blind approach, without providing any special policy for foreign workers. During the 1970s, British unions shifted towards special 15