Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Управление миграционными процессами в трудовой сфере. Учебно-методическое пособие
.pdf
- 121
-
liberal attitudes toward the arrival of immigrants vote for left-wing parties,
to a lesser extent for centre ones and to only a very small degree for rightwing ones: in Germany, 80 percent of those who vote for the Green party, 77
percent of those who vote for the SPD, 71 percent of those who vote for
Linkspartei, 60 percent of those voting for CDU/CSU and only 12 percent of
those voting for the right-wing Republican Party have liberal attitudes. In
France the equivalent proportions are 80 percent of those voting for the
LCR, 73 percent of those voting for the Communist Party, 66 percent of
those voting for the Socialist Party, 60 percent of those voting UDF and only
40 percent of those voting for the right-wing Front National. In the UK they
are 75 percent of those who vote for the Green Party, 50 percent of those
who vote for the Labour Party, 53 percent of those who vote for the Liberal
Democrat Party and 40 percent of those who vote for the Conservative Party.
In Spain they are 70 percent of those who vote for the United Left, 55
percent of those who vote for the PSOE and 30 percent of those who vote for
the PP, among others.
Nonetheless, it is important to point out that a significant proportion of
members also vote for right-wing parties and this group’s attitudes towards
immigration are equally influenced by conservative or even far-right parties
(this observation endorses the findings of Erel, 2007: 362). Consequently, it
should not come as a surprise that the attitude of the majority of trade union
members is hostile and restrictive with regard to immigration (53.6 percent,
Table 1).
On the whole, the bivariate analysis suggests that trade union members
seem to share an ideology of social justice, based on the idea that
immigrants’ access to social rights should be tied to whether or not they
work and pay the relevant taxes. Thus, rights are linked to duties in a brand
of justice-based morality that is deeply rooted in the different traditions of
trade union culture. A similar phenomenon is observed among respondents
who say that immigrants should only be entitled to social rights after they
have lived in the country for one year. In contrast, people with a restrictive
attitude to immigration are more likely to think that immigrants should only
be entitled to social rights once they have acquired citizenship of their host
country. A small minority of respondents who hold far-right views and vote
for far-right parties state that immigrants should never be entitled to social
rights or social services.
The second most important variable for predicting attitudes in the
regression analysis is the state’s role in reducing social inequalities. People
- 122
-
who think that it is not the role of the state to reduce social inequalities are
less likely to hold restrictive attitudes towards immigration and are thus
more liberal than people who do think that the state should reduce
inequalities. Attention should also be drawn to the differences observed in
the responses of people with left-wing and right-wing political views to the
question of whether the state should reduce social inequalities. Trade union
members who consider themselves to be left-wing are more supportive of the
policy of redistribution of wealth by the state than left-wing respondents who
are not trade union members. Conversely, as might be expected, people who
consider themselves to be right-wing are less supportive of the idea that the
state should reduce inequalities.
National attitudes to state redistribution of wealth vary from one
country to another. In countries with the highest levels of social inequality
(according to the Gini coefficient), such as Greece, Portugal, Lithuania,
Romania, Poland and Spain, trade union members think that the state should
reduce social inequalities, a finding that correlates (R square 0,422) well
with the fact that these are also the countries where more people want a
restrictive immigration policy. In other words, the competition for welfare
resources is particularly fierce in these countries. At the same time, however,
trade union membership and action have a more political value in the
southern European countries, a phenomenon that is linked to a communist
and socialist class discourse. As shown in Pitti’s (2005) study of the French
situation, this has a certain degree of influence on the trade unions’ inclusive
policy towards immigrants. A further influence is the trade unions’ goal of
preventing the parallel economy that makes it difficult to regulate working
conditions (Marino and Roosblad, 2008; Miguélez and Recio, 2008). On the
other hand, despite the fact that there are also high social inequalities in the
UK, fewer people there support redistribution of wealth by the state. This
can be put down to the UK’s traditionally liberal and individualistic culture.
Third, trade union members who fall somewhere between the two
extremes when asked whether or not they think that welfare benefits
contribute to greater equity hold more liberal attitudes towards immigration
than the benchmark group of people who believe that welfare benefits do
contribute to equity. Once again, the underlying factor here is competition
between the local population and immigrants. People who think that welfare
benefits contribute to greater equity are probably more hostile towards
immigrants because they see them as competitors.
- 123
-
Trade union members and non-members
text,
institutional framework and
Welfare state (other EU countries,
Nordic model (Sweden, Norway,
Continental model (Germany,
As shown in model 4 of the table below differences between trade
union members and nonmembers are slight as far as immigration is
concerned. Nevertheless, four differences between the two groups can be
identified based on the size of the regression coefficients. First, nonmembers whose political views fall in the centre of the political spectrum are
more likely to have restrictive attitudes towards immigration than trade
union members with similar ideological views. Similarly, non-members who
consider themselves to be right-wing are more likely to have restrictive
attitudes than right-wing trade union members. Notwithstanding the above,
the ideological differences between trade union members and non-members
are not as great as might be expected. Second, trade union members who
think that the state should not reduce social inequalities have more liberal
attitudes than non-members who share the same opinion on this issue. Third,
as far as the variable relating to welfare benefits and equity is concerned,
non-members whose opinion falls somewhere between the two extremes are
somewhat more liberal on the issue of immigration than trade union
members. The final difference is also the most significant: a greater
proportion of nonmembers believe that social services are a burden on the
economy and the same non-members have more restrictive attitudes towards
immigration.
Table 3
Dependent variable: liberal or restrictive attitudes towards
immigrants from poor countries outside Europe
Independent variables: con
country effect
Trade union members
B S.E. Exp.(B)
reference)
Denmark, Finland)
Netherlands, Belgium, France)
Liberal model (UK) .217 .179 1.242
.882*** .157 2.416
.026 .182 1.026
- 124
-
Independent variables: con
text,
institutional framework and
gal,
Nordic model (Sweden, Norway,
Percentage of wages covered by
Trade union members
B S.E. Exp.(B)
country effect
Mediterranean model (Spain, Portu
1.105*** .172 3.018
Greece)
Welfare state (other EU countries)
.882*** .157 2.416
Denmark, Finland)
Immigration rate - 092*** .022 .912
Unemployment rate .052** .021 1.054
GDP PPS .007** .002 1.007
Welfare spending .014 .01 1 1.015
Poverty risk .003 .009 1.003
GINI inequality index .036*** .010 1.037
052*** .005 1.053
unemployment benefit
Constant -6.238*** .781 .002
N 22314
Pseudo R square .066
-2LL 16805
Note: Binomial logistic regression: 0 = liberal; 1 = restrictive.
*pq=.050: **<pq=.010; ***<pq=00l
Influence of institutional framework and context
Table 3 analyses the composite effect combining contextual,
institutional and country effect variables and grouping countries by welfare
model. However, as Saxton and Benson (2003) found in another study, these
variables actually have very little effect. The coefficient of determination
does little to explain variations in trade union members’ attitudes. The
variables that go furthest towards explaining why people may have
restrictive attitudes towards immigration are as follows.
First, in the group of contextual variables, the immigration rate is the
variable that has the greatest influence on liberal attitudes, which are found
in countries with low immigration rates. Nonetheless, its usefulness as a
predictor of attitudes remains low. The other variable that may help to
explain hostile and restrictive attitudes is the unemployment rate. The
bivariate analysis is useful insofar as it enables us to observe the correlations
between employment rate and attitudes. The correlation between the two
- 125
-
variables shows us the spread of attitudes across different countries (R
square 0,244). Countries with high unemployment, such as Lithuania,
Portugal, Greece and Spain, also have more restrictive attitudes towards
immigration.
Secondly, among the institutional variables, the percentage of people’s
previous wages covered by unemployment benefit has some influence on
whether or not they have restrictive attitudes, although once again this is
only true to a limited degree. The other two factors that may have an
influence are the Gini inequality coefficient and the extent to which people
are at risk of poverty. However, these variables too are of limited use as
predictors of attitudes.
The country effect can be studied by grouping countries together by
welfare model. The Mediterranean model countries have the most hostile
and restrictive attitudes towards immigration compared with the benchmark
category of other EU countries. Indeed, people in the Mediterranean
countries are three times as likely to have restrictive attitudes towards
immigration. This may be attributable to a combination of high
unemployment, high numbers of immigrants, pronounced social inequalities,
high risk of poverty and the fact that immigration is a recent phenomenon
that has occurred on a large scale. Finally, the Scandinavian countries are
also more than twice as likely to have restrictive attitudes towards
immigrants from poor countries outside Europe. As far as the other countries
are concerned, the coefficients are of limited significance.
Discussion and conclusions
In keeping with the intentions set out in the introduction, this article
has attempted to address three questions and hypotheses. Our conclusions
are as follows: The first question is what are the differences in the attitudes
of trade union members and nonmembers with regard to immigration? While
differences certainly do exist, they are not as great as we had initially
expected. Trade union members have slightly more liberal attitudes than
nonmembers. Despite this, trade union members’ attitudes towards
immigration remain predominantly restrictive and hostile.
Ideological and political variables have a greater influence on the
differences between the two groups than economic variables. Trade union
members tend to be somewhat more left-wing and are likelier to support the
principle of solidarity than non-members who tend to have more right-wing
views. Nevertheless, the fact that a majority of people in both groups have
- 126
-
restrictive attitudes is cause for concern for unions and probably points to a
disconnect between rank-andfile trade union members’ attitudes towards
immigration on the one hand and the more supportive attitudes of trade
union officials and leaders on the other.
The second question is how are attitudes affected by socio-economic
variables? The uncertainty caused by the economic crisis is reflected in a
slight increase in the number of people who said they had income difficulties
in 2009 compared to 2004, especially the unemployed. Influences of
economic variables are very important, but somewhat weaker than we
imagined in our original hypothesis because the ideological variables leftright have an important influence. Trade union members with a comfortable
income have more liberal attitudes. Meanwhile, members who have income
difficulties have more hostile and restrictive attitudes towards immigration,
as do trade union members who are currently unemployed. While the
variables relating to competition for financial and welfare resources do go
some way towards explaining why people have restrictive attitudes, they are
not the only factor that has an influence. Our findings suggest that the
influence of ideological and political variables on attitudes should also be
taken into account, something that has already been suggested by a small
number of other studies (Saxton and Benton, 2003; Citrin et al., 2005).
The third question is how do different institutional frameworks and
contexts affect trade union members’ attitudes? The contextual and
institutional variables have less influence than expected. Nevertheless, there
are some contextual variables such as the immigration and unemployment
rates that do go some way towards explaining people’s attitudes. A high
immigration rate in a context of pronounced social inequalities does
exacerbate hostile attitudes towards immigration. When these variables are
present together, they result in an increase in hostile and restrictive attitudes
among both trade union members and non-members. The ability of
institutional variables to tackle social inequalities is not perceived in the
same way by all trade union members. This is because immigrants tend to be
employed in certain labour market segments, causing the competition effect
to be confined to certain sectors and employment niches – competition for
resources is not something that is widely perceived to be an issue right
across the board. Moreover, the beneficiaries of welfare policy comprise
very specific socially invisible groups such as the unemployed, people over
the age of 45, women, school failures, etc. Consequently, it can be said that
- 127
-
institutional variables do not have a significant effect on attitudes towards
immigration.
In summary, the variables and categories that have the greatest
influence on the development of hostile and restrictive attitudes are, in order
of importance, working in the construction industry, being educated only to
secondary level, being over 54 years of age, having been recently
unemployed, having a temporary employment contract and being employed
without a contract. On the other hand, the variables and categories that
appear to influence the development of liberal attitudes are having centre-left
political views, having a comfortable income and being retired.
The one key learning is that the variables relating to political and
ideological views and educational level are better predictors of attitudes than
was surmised in our initial hypothesis. This is an important finding for
campaigns against racism and xenophobia and promoting social inclusion.
This leads us to make the following recommendations: an enhanced role for
collective bargaining in fostering equal treatment and non discrimination; the
participation, at level of responsibility, of immigrant workers in trade union
activities, without these being exclusively limited to matters of immigration;
greater involvement of trade unions in integration programmes, and
awarenessraising and training.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Guglielmo Meardi (Warwick University) and
Axel Vandenberg (McGill University) for their comments on this article.
Funding
This article was supported by the Gusto Project [SHH-CT, 2009225301] of the Seventh Framework Programme of the EU.
References
Ambrosini M (2008) Irregular immigration: economic convenience and
other factors. Transfer 14(4): 557–572.
Balch A (2010) Economic Migration and the Politics of Hospitality in
Spain. Ideas and Policy Change. Politics and Policy 38(5): 1037–1064.
Bertone S and Griffin G (1992) Immigrant workers and Trade Unions.
Victoria: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Cachón L and Vallés MS (2003) Trade unionism and immigration:
reinterpreting old and new dilemmas. Transfer 9(3): 469–482.
- 128
-
Cards D, Dustmann C and Prestonn I (2005) Understanding attitudes to
immigration: The migration and minority module of the first European
Social Survey. Discussion Paper Series, CDP No. 03/05. London: CReAM
(Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration).
Castles S and Kosack G (1973) Immigrant Workers and Class Structure
in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cea MA (2009) La compleja detección del racismo y la xenophobia a
través de encuesta. Un paso adelante en su medición. Reis: Revista Española
de Investigaciones Sociológicas 125: 13–45.
Ceobanu AM and Escandell X (2010) Comparative Analyses of Public
Attitudes Towards Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey
Data: A Review of Theories and Research. Annual Review of Sociology 36:
309–328.
Citrin J, Green DP, Muste C and Wong C (2005) Public Opinion
Towards Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivation. The
Journal of Politics 59(3): 858–881.
Crouch C (2010) Beyond the flexibility/security trade-off: reconciling
confident consumers with insecure workers. University of Warwick.
Available at: www.gusto-project.eu.
Dølvik J and Waddington J (2002) Private sector services: challenges
to European trade unions. Transfer 8(3): 356–376.
Erel U (2007) Racism and anti-racism in Europe: a critical analysis of
concepts and frameworks. Transfer 13(3): 359–374.
European Commission (2007) Towards a Common Immigration
Policy. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, COM(2007) 780 final, 5 December 2007,
Brussels.
Gonza´lez C (2008) Los sindicatos ante la inmigración. Madrid:
Observatorio Permanente de la Inmigración.
Habermas J (2000) La constelación postnacional. Barcelona: Paidós.
Hainmueller J and Hiscox MJ (2007) Educated Preferences: Explaining
Attitudes Towards Immigration in Europe. International Organisations
61(2): 399–442.
Jefferys S (2007) Why do unions find fighting workplace racism
difficult? Transfer 13(3): 377–395.
- 129
-
Marino S and Roosblad J (2008) Migration and trade unions. A
comparison between Dutch and Italian trade union actions and strategies.
Transfer 14(4): 625–638.
Martens A and Pulignano V (2008) Immigration and trade unions in
Belgium: historical trends and new challenges. Transfer 14(4): 665–676.
Mau S and Burkhardt C (2009) Migration and welfare state solidarity
in Western Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 19(3): 213–229.
McKay S and Wright T (2008) Tightening immigration policies and
labour market impacts. Transfer 14(4): 653–664.
Megale A (2010) Crisi e immigrazione. In: Carchedi F, Carrera F and
Mottura G Immigrazione e sindacato. Roma: Ediese, 15–20.
Miguélez F and Recio A (2008) Spain: large-scale regularisation and
its impacts on labour market and social policy. Transfer 14(4): 589–606.
O’Rourke KH and Sinnott R (2006) The determinants of individual
attitude towards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy 22(4):
838–861.
Pajares M (2008) Foreign workers and trade unions: the challenges
posed. Transfer 14(4): 607–624.
Penninx R and Roosblad J (2000) Trade unions, immigration and
immigrants in Europe 1960–1993. A comparative study of the actions of
trade unions in seven West European countries. Amsterdam: Bergham
Books.
Pitti L (2005) Categorisation ethniques au travail. Histoire & Mesure
XX(3–4): 1–24.
Reyneri E and Fullin G (2008) New immigration and labour markets in
western Europe: a trade-off between unemployment and job quality?
Transfer 14(4): 573–588.
Saxton GD and Benson MA (2003) The Origins of Socially and
Politically Hostile Attitudes towards Immigrants and Outgroups: Economics,
Ideology or National Context? The Journal of Political Science 31: 101–137.
Schmidt V (2006) Temporary migrant workers: organizing and
protection. strategies by trade unions. In: Kuptsch C (ed.) Merchants of
Labour. Geneva: International Organisation of Labour, 191–206.
Solé C, Parella S, Alarcón A and Gibert F (2000) El impacto de la
inmigración en la sociedad receptora. Revista Espan˜ola de Investigaciones
Sociológicas 90: 131–157.
- 130
-
Varela A (2008) Migrant struggles for the right to have rights: three
examples of social movements powered by immigrants in New York, Paris
and Barcelona. Transfer 14(4): 677–694.
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]