Essential but Unprotected: Highly Mobile Workers in the EU during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Rasnača, Zane

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3699377

Cited by 22 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…43,44 Other targeted supports to migrant workers should seek to assist and ensure access to affordable and decent housing services and legal representation. 43–45…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…42 Migrant workers require specific job protection policies and measures, including increasing the time allowed for work permits and allowing temporary workers to change employers. 43,44 Other targeted supports to migrant workers should seek to assist and ensure access to affordable and decent housing services and legal representation. [43][44][45] Sick leave: COVID-19 response legislation should expand support for sick leave.…”

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…43,44 Other targeted supports to migrant workers should seek to assist and ensure access to affordable and decent housing services and legal representation. [43][44][45] Sick leave: COVID-19 response legislation should expand support for sick leave. 26,43,[46][47][48][49][50] In the absence of adequate paid sick leave, workers work through illness, harming themselves and contributing to the spread of COVID-19.…”

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[43][44][45] Sick leave: COVID-19 response legislation should expand support for sick leave. 26,43,[46][47][48][49][50] In the absence of adequate paid sick leave, workers work through illness, harming themselves and contributing to the spread of COVID-19. Additional recommended measures for governments and employers included: providing minimum wage, wage subsidies, and employment subsidies for affected workers.…”

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

COVID-19 Economic Response and Recovery: A Rapid Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This rapid scoping review of existing evidence and research gaps addressed the following question: what research evidence exists and what are the research gaps at global, regional, and national levels on interventions to protect jobs, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and formal/informal sector workers in socioeconomic response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? The results are based on 79 publications deemed eligible for inclusion after the screening and prioritizing of 1,658 records. The findings are organized according to the 3 main categories of socioeconomic interventions—protecting jobs, enterprises, and workers—although the 3 are intertwined. Most results were derived from global-level gray literature with recommendations for interventions and implicit links to the sustainable development goals. Based on research gaps uncovered in the review, future implementation science research needs to focus on designing, implementing, evaluating, and scaling: effective evidence-based socioeconomic interventions; equity-focused, redistributive, and transformative interventions; comprehensive packages of complementary interventions; interventions to upend root causes of systemic social inequities; collaborative and participatory approaches; interventions that integrate environmental sustainability; and city-level interventions. Failing to consider the environmental dimensions of economic recovery is shortsighted and will ultimately exacerbate social inequities and poverty and undermine economic stability in the long term.

show abstract

“…43,44 Other targeted supports to migrant workers should seek to assist and ensure access to affordable and decent housing services and legal representation. 43–45…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protecting Jobsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

COVID-19 Economic Response and Recovery: A Rapid Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arrangements had to be found to permit these workers, categorized as "essential" in some Member States, to move. But there were concerns not only that seasonal workers must be able to move to bring in the harvests but also that their health and safety should be protected when moving across borders (Rasnaca, 2020).…”

Section: The Covid-19 Challengementioning

confidence: 99%

Covid-19 Using Border Controls to Fight a Pandemic? Reflections From the European Union

Guild

2020

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When Covid-19 was acknowledged to have arrived in Europe in February-March 2020, politicians and public health authorities scrabbled to find appropriate and effective responses to the challenges. The EU obligation contained in Article 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requiring the EU (including the Member States to achieve a common protection on human health, however, seems to have been missing from the responses.) Instead, borders and their control became a site of substantial political debate across Europe as a possible venue for effective measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. While the most invasive Covid-19 measures have been within EU states, lockdown, closure of businesses etc., the cross-border aspects (limitations on cross border movement) have been important. In the European Union this had important consequences for EU law on border controls, in particular free movement of persons and the absence of controls among Schengen states. It also implicated border controls with third countries, including European Free Trade Area (EFTA and Switzerland) all states neighboring the EU, the UK (having left the EU on 1 January 2020) the Western Balkans and Turkey. While EU law distinguishes between Schengen borders where no control takes place on persons, non-Schengen EU borders, where controls take place but are limited to identity checks and border controls with third countries and external borders with third countries (non-EFTA or Swiss) the responses of many Member States and the EU institutions abandoned many aspects of these distinctions. Indeed, the difference between border controls between states (inside Schengen, the EU, EFTA, or outside) and internal restrictions on movement became increasingly blurred. Two approaches—public health and public policy—were applied simultaneously and not always in ways which were mutually coherent, or in any way consistent with the Article 9 TFEU commitment. While the public health approach to movement of persons is based on ensuring identification of those in need of treatment or possibly carrying the disease, providing treatment as quickly as possible or quarantine, the public policy approach is based on refusing entry to persons who are a risk irrespective of what that may mean in terms of propagating the pandemic in neighboring states or states of origin. I will examine here the ways in which the two approaches were applied in the EU from the perspective of EU law on border controls.

show abstract

Gendered Labour

Christou

Kofman

2022

IMISCOE Research Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we saw in Chap. 10.1007/978-3-030-91971-9_1, the gendered transfer of labour globally and within Europe has been the focus of attention and the core of the discourse concerning the feminization of migration. Whilst gendered labour migrations are not new, their composition, extent, and how we analyse them, theoretically and methodologically, have evolved. As data show, migrants and especially females, are heavily concentrated within certain sectors producing not just a migrant division of labour (Wills et al., 2010) but a gendered migrant division of labour. Some sectors such as household services (domestic work and care) or social reproductive labour are not only predominantly female but, especially in Southern Europe, overwhelmingly filled by migrant women. Although this type of work has attracted much attention in studies of female labour migration, other sectors, both lesser skilled and more skilled, have also relied heavily on female migrant labour but have been much less studied. Mirjana Morokvasic (2011) questioned the basis of our preoccupation about migrant women as subaltern and victims, exclusively filling low skilled sectors. Thus domestic and care workers have become the emblematic figures of globalised migrations in stark contrast to the easily mobile male IT worker (Kofman, 2013). This is not to deny that domestic and care work globally employ more migrant women than any other sector, and that demand has not grown in response to the inadequacies of public provision across different welfare regimes, leading to the search for cheap solutions to fulfil reproductive needs by using migrant workers, including men. However it does raise issues around our lack of attention to other low skilled sectors such as hospitality and contract and commercial cleaning in hospitals, offices and public spaces, which also employ large numbers of migrants. Skilled labour, especially in welfare sectors, such as education, health and social work is also sourced globally to make good shortfalls in professional reproductive labour (Kofman & Raghuram, 2015). Thus at all skill levels migrant women are employed disproportionately in diverse sectors of social reproduction in sustaining the wellbeing of the household and of society more generally.

show abstract

Essential but Unprotected: Highly Mobile Workers in the EU during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Cited by 22 publications

References 8 publications

COVID-19 Economic Response and Recovery: A Rapid Scoping Review

COVID-19 Economic Response and Recovery: A Rapid Scoping Review

Covid-19 Using Border Controls to Fight a Pandemic? Reflections From the European Union

Gendered Labour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About