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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Union Formal Debate the NetherlandsItaly Representing Improvement of labour condition, Antidiscrimination --------- Central negotiations (FNV) sectoral bargaining (FNVB) Defence of social rights (CGIL) and labour rights (FIOM) --------- Negotiations at different levels, political action, service provision (CGIL); sectoral bargaining (FIOM) Recruiting Unionization/incorporation into the union --------- Recruiting campaigns; quota policies ‘Organizing’ from 2005 Participation/incorporation into the executive bodies --------- Training (CGIL), Bottom-up inclusion (FIOM), quota policies Internal organizing Advisory bodies at central level Advisory bodies, front offices, representative bodies at central and decentralised levels.

8. Union Action and Outcomes the NetherlandsItaly Implementation of special policies Generally low After 2005 anti-discrimination activites on workplaces Isolation and inefficacy of specific bodies Low: social concertation (CGIL) Bargaining Claims in bargaining guidelines Scarce presence in CA (national and firms from 2002 to 2007) FIOM: Special clauses in firms agreements and NCA (from 2007) Unionization Between 2 and 5% Around 10%, faster than among nationals Incorporation at higher levels Quota policies but scarce numerically outcomes, no specific data Good presence in CGIL local structures and on workplaces (FIOM) Increasing presence in higher levels

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

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

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

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

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

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