Trade unions, immigration and immigrants in Europe revisited: Unions’ attitudes and actions under new conditions

Abstract

This paper revisits the comparative approach used by Penninx and Roosblad (Trade Unions, Immigration and Immigrants in Europe, 1960-1993. New York: Berghahn Books) to study trade unions' attitudes and actions in relation to immigrant workers in seven Western European countries. It reassesses that approach and asks whether it remains valid, as economic, social, and political circumstances nowadays seem fundamentally different from those two to five decades ago. Each element of the original conceptual and explanatory frame is reassessed and its suitability weighed for an updated comparative study. The reassessment combines insights from migration studies with findings from the field of industrial relations. The latter highlight internal union variables in explaining trade unions' attitudes and actions, while the former underline trade unions' role as social and political actors in defending migrant rights.

What Explains the Union Membership Gap between Migrants and Natives?

“…Several studies suggest that this is not only explained by the individual characteristics of migrants, such as the overrepresentation of migrants in particular industries or occupations that are less organized, but also by contextual factors that affect how inclusive trade unions are towards migrant workers (e.g. Cachón and Valles 2003;Eldring et al 2012;Gorodzeisky and Richards 2013;Krings 2009;Lucio and Perrett 2009;Marino 2012;Penninx and Roosblad 2000;Wrench 2004). This study connects to this strand of literature by exploring to what extent the difference between the unionization rates of migrants and natives in European countries are explained by contextual factors related to the industrial relations regime of a country, in addition to the individual characteristics of migrants.…”

“…While most previous studies use qualitative methods to analyse the role of contextual factors (e.g. Cachón and Valles 2003;Eldring et al 2012;Krings 2009;Lucio and Perrett 2009;Marino 2012;Penninx and Roosblad 2000;Wrench 2004), this study applies a quantitative research design. With a multilevel logistic regression analysis we examine to what extent the differences in unionization rates between migrants and natives in 23 European countries are explained by the individual characteristics of the migrants on the one hand and by country characteristics, related to the role of the trade unions and the industrial relations regime, on the other.…”

Do Immigrants Trust Trade Unions? A Study of 18 European Countries

“…Notwithstanding the relative success or failure of these shifts in union strategies, the representation gap between native-born and migrant workers persists, and a long-standing debate exists as to why this should be so. Some authors have focused on the behaviour and incentives of unions themselves (Marino et al 2015;Penninx and Roosblad 2002;Quinlan and Lever-Tracy 1990). For example, in his study of trade union policies and actions towards minority workers in Italy and the Netherlands, Marino (2012) found an inverse relationship between unions' institutional embeddedness and their perception of migrant workers as a 'power resource'.…”

“…Some authors have focused on the behaviour and incentives of unions themselves (Marino et al 2015;Penninx and Roosblad 2002;Quinlan and Lever-Tracy 1990). For example, in his study of trade union policies and actions towards minority workers in Italy and the Netherlands, Marino (2012) found an inverse relationship between unions' institutional embeddedness and their perception of migrant workers as a 'power resource'. In a very similar vein, Gorodzeisky and Richards (2013) showed that the institutional position of unions affects migrant workers' unionization rates relative to those of local workers.…”

“…In such cases, the unions had the worst of both worlds: not strong enough to prevent immigration, their efforts to do so only served to alienate the new workers from them'. More recent studies indicate that the potentially alienating effects of union behaviour on migrants' attitudes have persisted into the twenty-first century (Foster et al 2015;Marino et al 2015).…”