How trade unions and employers’ associations react to irregular migrants: Variations in policy preferences across five European countries

What does the presence of irregular migrants (those without the right to reside in host countries) mean for the interests of labour and capital?  What types of policy responses are likely to be favoured by trade unions and employers’ associations, and how might country context make a difference to labour market actors’ perceptions and preferences in relation to irregular migrants?

These are among the questions explored in our new comparative institutional analysis of the interests and policy preferences of policy actors in relation to irregular migrants in Europe.  As part of our Horizon Europe-funded PRIME project, we interviewed representatives of key trade unions and employers’ associations in five distinct national institutional contexts – Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the UK.

Our analysis shows that despite general professed concern among labour market actors about the perceived effects of irregular migrants on their respective core interests (namely, workers’ rights and profitable business), such actors nonetheless favour different policy responses on a spectrum between fundamental rights protections and immigration controls. Importantly, varied policy preferences correlate with different welfare state, labour market and legal models across countries.

From rights in Italy to control in Sweden:  European trade unions’ preferences

Based on their vocal support for collective and individual regularisation mechanisms (i.e. support for opportunities to legalise the status of migrants already in host countries), trade unions in Italy stand out as having the most rights-leaning policy preferences among interviewed union representatives.  Swedish trade unions, by contrast, were the only interviewed unions to express support for the forced return of migrants without legal residence and, along with Austrian trade unions, most openly discussed the need for immigration controls.

All interviewed trade unions endorsed the principle of universal labour rights and, by implication, the extension of those rights to irregular migrants. Unions however reported varying levels of active engagement in supporting labour justice initiatives. Italian, Swedish and Austrian trade unions indicated most activity, with the latter two providing practical counselling for irregular migrant workers in designated support centres.  Labour justice assistance for irregular migrants was a comparatively lower priority for UK and Polish trade unions: irregular migration per se was something of a new concern for Polish unions, while UK unions focussed their attention on campaigning for access to basic social rights for irregular migrants as part of wider civil society resistance to the UK Government’s ‘hostile environment’ immigration policies.

Tougher stances from European employers’ associations

Contrary to our theoretical expectations, and perhaps indicative of increasing political and public concern with ‘managed’ immigration, policy preferences for immigration controls were strongly expressed by employers’ associations across all five of our selected European countries.  Here too, however, we noted significant cross-national variation. Paralleling our findings on trade unions, Sweden again emerged as the country in which employers’ associations most strongly backed immigration controls including the forced returns of irregular migrants and the sanctioning of law-infringing employers. Italian employers’ associations, on the other hand, were unique in favouring regularisation programmes for irregular migrants. As in Sweden, UK and Polish employers’ associations also emphasised support for immigration law enforcement and employer sanctions which were considered important in suppressing unfair competition between employers (associated with irregular migrant labour) and in protecting the public image of employers’ associations as law-abiding.

Institutional explanations for cross-national variation in policy preferences?

These differentiated findings across countries suggest potentially important shaping effects of national welfare state, labour market and legal institutions on the interests and policy preferences of labour market actors in relation to irregular migrants. Our data suggest that the stronger welfare states and more regulated labour markets of Sweden and Austria are associated with greater support among labour market actors for effective immigration control measures, alongside basic labour justice for all.  The alignment of union and employer policy preferences, in the Swedish case in particular, points to a deeply coordinated approach to industrial relations and to joint interest in maintaining “social peace” among the partners.

Of significance to the policy preferences of labour market actors in the UK and Poland was the toughening of national immigration laws and, for employers’ associations, the associated desire to ensure that business practices reflected perceived consumer attitudes in favour of strict immigration law enforcement. By contrast, a notable degree of cultural tolerance of undeclared work and the structurally embedded nature of the informal economy in Italy, appear to explain some of the pragmatism of Italian trade unions and employers’ associations in advocating regularisation policies for irregular migrants.  Furthermore, historical experiences with sector-specific amnesties indicate a measure of path dependency in the policy preferences of labour market actors in Italy.

Understanding immigration policy differences despite similar political pressures

Overall, the analysis indicates that national institutions are likely to matter in explaining variation in the interests and policy preferences of trade unions and employers’ associations across European countries.  Moreover, institutional settings of welfare states, labour markets and legal systems, have the potential to result in common immigration policy preferences across groups of labour market actors whose interests classically compete. This could be important if we want to understand why, despite similar political pressures, countries manage immigration differently in terms of the rights, regularisation, and return of irregular migrants.  The challenge ahead is to piece together just how interests, institutions, politics and popular opinion interact to explain the varied policy choices of European governments in regard to irregular migrants.

Read the full publication ‘Irregular migrants in Europe : how institutions shape the interests and preferences of policy actors’ by Clare Fox-Ruhs

PRIME is an Horizon EU-funded project that analyses the conditions and politics of irregular migrants in Europe.